ETHIOPIA ROAD AUTHORITY
DESIGN AND BUILD OF MODJO-HAWASSA HIGHWAY
PROJECT, PHASE I, MODJO-ZIWAY, LOT 2 MEKI-ZIWAY
NEED ASSESSMENT AND LIVELIHOOD RESTORATION PLAN
FINAL DRAFT REPORT
DECEMBER 2022
Addis Ababa
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Contents
ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................................ vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. i
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ............................................................................ 1
1.1 Background .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Description of the project ............................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Rationale for Need Assessment and Preparation of the LRP ......................................................... 3
1.4 Objective of the LRP ...................................................................................................................... 5
1.5 Scope of the assessment ............................................................................................................... 6
1.6 Methodology and Approach ........................................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER TWO: DOCUMENT REVIEW................................................................................................. 11
2.1 Review of Relevant Policy, Legislation/Regulation and Guide Line........................................... 11
2.1.1 The constitution of the FDRE ...................................................................................................... 11
2.1.2 National Social Protection Policy ................................................................................................ 12
2.1.3 Expropriation of Land holdings (FDRE PROCLAMATION NO.1161/2019) ............................ 13
2.1.4 FDRE, Regulation number 472/2020 ........................................................................................... 14
2.1.5 World Bank Involuntary Resettlement, 2004 ............................................................................... 14
2.1.6 International Financial Corporation (IFC) ................................................................................... 17
2.1.7 ERA Resettlement/Rehabilitation Policy Framework.................................................................. 18
2.1.8 Regional Governments ................................................................................................................. 19
2.1.9 Resettlement Action Plan (RAP).................................................................................................. 21
CHAPTER THREE: ELIGIBILITY AND INCLUSION CRITERIA ......................................................... 21
CHAPTER FOUR: CONSULTATION ....................................................................................................... 22
4.1 Consultation with PAPs ............................................................................................................... 22
4.2 Consultation with stakeholders .................................................................................................... 26
4.3 Summary of Consultation results ................................................................................................. 29
CHAPTER FIVE: FINDINGS OF THE NEED ASSESSMENT STUDY AND SURVEY RESULT .................................. 33
5.1 Survey framework ............................................................................................................................. 33
5.1.1 Demographic Characteristics (Number of households, Family size and PAPs Population) ..... 33
5.1.2 Religion, Marital Status and Family size................................................................................... 35
5.1.3 Education ................................................................................................................................... 35
5.1.4 Occupation and Economic activities ......................................................................................... 36
5.1.5 Livelihood and Income sources ................................................................................................ 37
i
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
5.2 Road Project Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 39
5.2.1 Land based Economic affected .................................................................................................. 39
5.2.2 Land holding size, Land affected and Degree of impacts ......................................................... 41
5.2.3 Non Land Impact/Road link Impacts......................................................................................... 41
5.2.4 Compensation and Utilization ................................................................................................... 42
5.2.5 Livelihood work place and mode of engagement (Individually or in Group basis ) ................ 43
CHAPTER SIX: ELIGIBILITY AND LIVELIHOODS RESTORATION PLAN...................................... 44
6.1 ELIGIBILITY AND NEED ASSESSMENT SURVEY OF PAPS .................................................. 44
6.2 Livelihood Restoration Plan Formulation ......................................................................................... 45
6.3 Criteria and consideration for livelihood package and Budget allocation ......................................... 46
CHAPTER SEVEN; LIVELIHOOD RESTORATION PLAN AND INVESTMENT COST .................... 50
7.1 Land based Livelihood Restoration Preference needs ....................................................................... 50
7.2 Women and livelihood activities ....................................................................................................... 51
7.3 Land based Livelihood Restoration Plan ........................................................................................... 52
7.3.1 Agriculture Based Livelihood Enterprises ............................................................................... 52
7.3.1.1 Support for Agricultural Inputs .................................................................................................... 52
7.3.1.2 Support for Irrigation ................................................................................................................... 54
7.3.1.3 Support for Animal Fattening ...................................................................................................... 57
7.3.1.4 Support for Poultry....................................................................................................................... 58
7.3.1.5 Support for Dairy Farm Inputs ..................................................................................................... 60
7.3.2 Non agriculture based livelihood activities ................................................................................ 61
7.3.2.1 Support for Cattle/livestock Market and Trade Business ............................................................ 61
7.3.2.2 Support for Grain trade livelihoods scheme ................................................................................. 63
7.3.2.3 Local Transport ............................................................................................................................ 64
7.4 Non Land Livelihood Affected (Meki and Ziway Link Road) .............................................. 65
7.5 Organizing PAPs in group and cooperatives ............................................................................... 68
7.6 LRP FOR VULNERABLE GROUPS .................................................................................................. 68
7.7 TRAINING AND CAPACITY BUILDING .......................................................................................... 71
7.8 SUMMARY OF LIVELIHOOD RESTORATION ACTIVITIES AND BUDGET ................... 77
7.9 SOURCE OF FINANCE.............................................................................................................. 80
CHAPTER EIGHT; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT ............................................................... 82
8.1 IMPLEMENATION AND MANAGEMENT .................................................................................. 82
8.1.1 Ethiopian Road Authority.............................................................................................................. 82
8.1.2 Independent LRP Implementation consultant ............................................................................... 83
ii
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
8.1.3 World Bank and other donor institutions....................................................................................... 83
8.1.4 Woreda LRP coordination & Implementation main committee .................................................... 83
8.1.5 Woreda LRP Implementation Technical team .............................................................................. 84
8.1.6 Community Organization and management experts .................................................................. 84
8.1.7 Fund Transfer and Management .................................................................................................... 85
8.1.8 Woreda grievance committee ........................................................................................................ 87
8.1.9 Kebele level sub committee ........................................................................................................... 87
8.1.10 Grievance Redresses Mechanism and Procedure .......................................................................... 88
8.1.11 External Independent audit ............................................................................................................ 89
8.2 Roles and Responsibility matrix ........................................................................................................ 89
CHAPTER NINE; LRP IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE ..................................................................... 91
9.1 GENERAL ................................................................................................................................... 91
9.2 Implementation Schedule ............................................................................................................. 91
CHAPTER 10; MONITORING AND EVALUATION................................................................................ 95
10.1 General .............................................................................................................................................. 95
10.2 Purpose of Monitoring ....................................................................................................................... 95
10.3 Monitoring Plan ................................................................................................................................. 95
10.4 Types and stages of Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 95
10.4.1 Internal Monitoring and Evaluation .............................................................................................. 96
10.4.2 Mid term evaluation....................................................................................................................... 98
10.4.3 External Independent Audit ........................................................................................................... 99
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 100
ANNEX 1: CONSULTATION .................................................................................................................. 101
Annex 1.1 Consultation With PAPs ............................................................................................................ 101
ANNEX 1. 2: Consultation with woreda and town administration office ................................................... 114
Annex 1.3: Consultation with sector office ................................................................................................ 114
Annex 1.3: Consultation with kebele .......................................................................................................... 116
Annex 1.4 Consultation on cross cutting issues .......................................................................................... 117
ANNEX 2: MINUTE OF MEETING ........................................................................................................ 119
ANNEX; LIST OF PAPs AND BUDGET SHARE ................................................................................... 128
Annex 2: 10: Vulnerable groups and budget share.................................................................................... 130
Annex 2.13: PAPs and Budget share........................................................................................................... 131
iii
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
TABLE 1: SEVERITY OF IMPACTS AND LIVELIHOOD RESTORATION OPTIONS ......................................................................... 16
TABLE 2: ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA .......................................................................................................................................... 22
TABLE 3; CONSULTATION AND NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS BY KEBELE AND SEX................................................................ 23
TABLE 4: SUMMERY OF SURVEY ( PAHS) BY WOREDA/KEBELE AND SEX COMPOSITION ..................................................... 34
TABLE 5: PAHHS BY LEVEL OF EDUCATION ....................................................................................................................... 36
TABLE 6: LIVESTOCK POPULATION WHITEN THE PROJECT WOREDA ..................................................................................... 37
TABLE 7: LAND BASED IMPACTS LAND LOSS GREATER THAN 20% ..................................................................................... 39
TABLE 8: LAND HOLDING AND LAND LOSS DUE TO PROJECT (IN HECTARES) ........................................................................ 41
TABLE 9: TOTAL COMPENSATION PAID ................................................................................................................................ 42
TABLE 10: PURPOSE AND USE OF COMPENSATION FUND ...................................................................................................... 42
TABLE 11: PAPS AND LRP ELIGIBILITY .............................................................................................................................. 45
TABLE 12: LAND BASED PAPS AND THEIR PREFERENCE NEED (OPTION II) ......................................................................... 51
TABLE 13: SMALL SCALE IRRIGATION LIVELIHOOD PACKAGE ............................................................................................. 56
TABLE 14: ANIMAL FATTENING LIVELIHOOD SCHEME (SUMMARY OF COST AND BUDGET PLAN) ........................................ 58
TABLE 15: POULTRY FARM BUDGET .................................................................................................................................... 60
TABLE 16: SUPPORT FOR LIVESTOCK (DAIRY FARMING) PACKAGE FOR PAP'S .................................................................... 61
TABLE 17: CATTLE MARKETING AND BUDGET ..................................................................................................................... 63
TABLE 18: GRAIN TRADE BUSINESS AND PROPOSED BUDGET............................................................................................... 64
TABLE 19: MEKI AND ZIWAY TOWN LINK ROAD PAPS PREFERENCE NEED ......................................................................... 67
TABLE 20: GRAIN TRADE ENTERPRISES ............................................................................................................................... 67
TABLE 21: VULNERABLE GROUPS AND BUDGET ALLOCATION ............................................................................................ 70
TABLE 22: SUMMARY OF TRAINING COST ............................................................................................................................ 76
TABLE 23B: SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT (OPTION II) .......................................................................................................... 79
TABLE 24: STAKEHOLDER AND RESPONSIBILITY SHARE ...................................................................................................... 89
iv
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
FIGURE 1: MOJO-HAWASSA HIGH WAY PROJECT PHASE 1 MEKI-ZEWAY LOT2 PROJECT LOCATION MAP .......................... 2
FIGURE 2: PARTIAL VIEWS OF CONSUALTION WITH PAPS GROUP ......................................................................................... 8
FIGURE 3: PUBLIC CONSULTATION (ELKA CHELLAMO AND WARJA WOSHUGULA KEBELE .................................................... 8
FIGURE 4: PARTIAL VIEWS OF FGD WITH WOMEN GROUP IN DIFFERENT KEBELES ................................................................ 9
FIGURE 5: PARTIAL VIEWS OF ENUMERATOR TRAINING SESSION ......................................................................................... 10
FIGURE 6 CATEGORIES OF LIVELIHOOD RESTORATION ....................................................................................................... 50
FIGURE 7: LRP IMPLEMENTATION ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES .................................................................................... 86
FIGURE 8: TIME SCHEDULE AND ACTIVITIES TO IMPLEMENT LRP ....................................................................................... 93
FIGURE 9 FGD TAKING PLACE AT JAWE BOFFO KEBELE, DUGDA ..................................................................................... 107
FIGURE 10: CONSULTATION AND NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS BY KEBELE AND SEX .......................................................... 112
FIGURE 11: PARTIAL VIEW OF CONSULTATION IN OTHER KEBELES .................................................................................... 113
v
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
ACRONYMS
A/Negale Arsi Negale
ATJK Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha
COMESA Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa
DPs Displaced peoples
ERA Ethiopian Road Authority
IFC International Finance Corporation
ESSMD Environment, Safeguard and Social Management Directorate
FDRE Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
FGD Focus Group Discussion
GRC Grievance Redress Committee
GRM Grievance Redress Mechanism
HHs House Holds
IAIA International Association for Impact assessment
IFC International Financial Corporation
KII Key Informant Interview
LRP Livelihood Restoration Plan
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
NALRP Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan
NGO Non-Government Organization
OCSA Oromia Credit and Saving Associations
ONRS Oromia National Regional States
OP Operational Policy
PAHs/PAHHs Project Affected Households
PAPs Project Affected Peoples
RAP Resettlement Action Plan
ROWs Right of ways
RPF Resettlement Policy framework
SNNPRS. South Nation and Nationality Peoples Regional State
SPSS Statistical Package for social science
TOR Terms of Reference
TVET Technical and Vocational Education Training
VG Vulnerable Groups
vi
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Description of the Project
Development projects often generate important positive economic and social impacts for the national
and whole society and cause costs (environmental or social) to the community at the grass root levels
where they are implemented. One of the devastating effects is displacement and livelihood loss due to
development induced projects. The Ethiopian government, World Bank and other development
policies adopted safeguard policy and direction that dictates project affected people suffering losses
caused by the project should be minimized, compensated, and assisted in improving or at least restoring
their standards of living after the project impact.
The Modjo Hawassa express road project is one of such development projects with accrue benefit in
facilitation of transport, marketing and other and cost in displacement and economic livelihood loss to
the project affected peoples. The Modjo-Hawassa covers total 202.47 km and construction underway
divided in four road section. The LOT2 road section (Meki-Zeway) covers a total length of 37.1 km.
The LRP field study conducted from Nov 28/ 2020- December 26/2020. During the survey period,
compensation payment completed in all kebeles and the road construction on completion stage and
need assessment survey covered all the project kebele affected and paid compensation.
Project Impacts
It travers two woredas and 15 rural kebeles, Ademi Tullu Jido Kombolcha (5kebeles) and Dugda
Woreda (10 kebeles) and road link with two town (Meki and Ziway). Thus, project-affected people
have urban and rural socioeconomic characteristics.
Rural kebele: The road project largely impacted rural kebeles that affected farming and grazing lands
at large and caused livelihood losses due to the road project land expropriation along the main
alignment as well as borrow pits and other working places. The livelihood target is PAPs affected
economic and livelihood sources and excluding other non-economic property like graveyard and the
total land based affected are 1532 PAHHs in rural kebeles and the remaining 111PAPs affected are
non-land based along the road link.
Road link towns (Meki & Ziway): In both towns, the road alignment passed through the existing
roadway and minimized livelihood loss in town areas of the link road. Majority of property affected
are non-economic asset mainly parts of land, house and fences for which compensation and
replacement cost paid and displacement was not reported in both road link town. In general, the
economic livelihood source affected is less likely in the two link road towns. According to the town
i
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
administration, the road alignment was along the already existing roadway and effected their
compensation payment and town administration not considered any as livelihood affected in both
towns. However, during consultation with PAPs, majority of them indicated house and business area
affected which their house used for multipurpose (Resident and Business). According to the PAPs,
some of the property and livelihood affected are grain mills & stores, shops and coffee and tea houses.
Based on the consultation and survey result, out of the total 111 PAHs their house or livelihood affected
in the two towns (Meki & Ziway), a total 18 PAHs are identified as economic livelihoods affected.
Objectives
The general objective of the assignment was to undertake need assessment and Livelihood restoration
plan. Some of the specific objectives of the need assessment and LRP include a) Provide a thorough
understanding of the socio-economic impact of the project and profiles of project affected households; b)
Determine eligibility criteria, inclusion/targeting criteria and screen the PAPs to be targeted and eligible
for the LRP ; c) Identifying project impacts, land loss and impact of land-taken or the percentage of land
affected d) Identify the types of livelihood and related activities preferred needs of the PAHs; e) Prepare
a detailed implementation plan with estimated costs and budget schedule.
Methodology
Both quantitative and qualitative data analysis approach was used in preparation of the need assessment
and livelihood restoration plan (LRP). Documents review and secondary sources collected and used to
complement the primary data. As entry point eligibility criteria was developed and agreed at inception
stage for identifying PAPs and accordingly the data collection tools, checklist and questionnaires was
prepared and used as data collection tool in the survey process.
Documents review: In Ethiopia, livelihood restoration is a recent approach and less documents available
for review. However, effort was made, and available national and international documents were searched
and reviewed rigorously. The reviewed documents listed in reference at the end of this report and some
of the relevant documents reviewed mainly include national and regional legal and regulatory frameworks
and policies including Land Expropriation Laws in Ethiopia and World Bank related to land acquisition
and resettlement (, World Bank OP 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement) relevant reports like ERA guideline
and other documents including RAP and RAP implementation reports were reviewed. The reviewed
documents helped to identify types of livelihoods impacted, the impacts of land acquisition on their
livelihoods; eligibility criteria and manners to restore back the livelihoods of the PAHs. One the
challenges in LOT2 road project is that data on list of PAPS was not provided by ERA and the
consultant made effort and organized from available compensation data sources.
ii
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
For the qualitative data collection, based on checklist questionnaires public consultations, Focus
Group Discussions (FGDs) and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) and consulted with PAPs, woreda and
kebele office.
For the primary data, quantitative (census survey) was conducted to gather quantitative data regarding
demographic and socio-economic characteristics of PAHs. The census survey was conducted as whole
along the main road alignment as well as borrows pits and working sites affected and those registered
and paid compensation for their property lost and/or other economic livelihood loss.
Eligibility criteria: The LRP requires scarce capital resource and high cost to cover all PAPs and not
all project affected people are eligible for LRP. The basic eligibility criteria used was based on the
World Bank involuntary resettlement (Land loss greater than 20%). Other criteria like family size and
number of dependent/dependency ratio, income loss and vulnerability were used as supplementary
criteria for budget allocation based on level of impact.
Major Findings
Socioeconomic: The Meki –Ziway road section travers 6 and 9 kebele of ATJK) and Dugda Woredas
of Oromia Region and two road link town (Meki and Ziway). Thus, project affected people have urban
and rural socioeconomic characteristics. In the project corridor economic activities and income source
mainly from crop and vegetable production and livestock production used as supplementary food and
income sources. The two project woredas endowed with potential water sources for irrigation from ground,
small streams, and lakes (Meki and Ziway) also contributes irrigation and fishery farm.
Survey framework: The LRP focuses mainly economic and physical livelihood affected and the
census survey identified a total 1641 PAHs economic livelihood and physically affected. These
includes rural land based (1530PAHs); non-land affected total 111PAHs at the two-road link town,
Meki town (73PAHs) and Ziway town (38PAHs).
Demographic and Household characteristics: Based on the survey a total 1641 project affected
households was covered which comprises 1185 male and 432 women that women accounts about
26.3% of the PAHHs.
The PAPs age distributions indicate 6.3% are below 30 years and 157 PAPs are above 70 years. The
majority (27%) are in the range of 40-50 age groups. Most of the survey PAHHs indicates married
iii
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
(82.9%); unmarried/single (1.4%); Divorce (1.7%) and Widows (14.1%). The religion composition of
the road project corridor is almost equal proportion of Christian and Muslim. The marriage structure
practice polygamy in which one male coupled more than one wife, although at decreasing trend as
confirmed though qualitative discussion.
Population: Based on the survey result, the average family size is 7.5 and the PAPs and total
population including family members is 12,454 comprising 6245 males (50.1%) and female 6209
(49.9%).
Project Impacts
The socio-economic survey indicated the livelihood impact of the road project as reflected and expressed
by PAPs and survey result, in terms of loss in farmland, grazing land, perennial trees, livestock and other
assets. According to the survey and interviews, loss of these assets caused gradual decline of crop
production and livestock hold size which led decline in household income. The road project also caused
indirect impact in diverting accumulated and high flood and large farmland remained out of use in some of
the kebeles like Elka Chelamo and other kebeles. As reflected by some PAPs, the road benefit is largely
for the national, regional, and country at large and contributes local development in improved transport and
marketing. However, the negative outweighing the benefit as reflected by some PAPs groups. It caused
people displacement and livelihood loss. Crop production and livelihood activities greatly reduced due to
expropriation of farmland and grazing lands. Compared to the previous, indicated their production reduced
by 50% and more and significantly affected their income level. Although, compensation paid, majority of
them showed dissatisfaction and inadequate to compensate land which is their long life for generation.
Those people displaced have not been given replacement land or other support assistant and indicated their
living and livelihood at risk of survival. The project affected also complain government bureaucracy and
urged at least implementation of the LRP.
CONSULTATION
Consultation was conducted with target PAPs group and stakeholders. The consultation made with
different groups and discussed mainly on their views, concerns and recommendations of PAPs and
stakeholders.
The consultation with target PAPs held in each project kebeles and discussed various issues related
to project impacts, livelihood restoration activity package, LRP and others. According to consultation
with PAPs group, the road project resulted both benefit and negative impacts. The PAPs complaint
low compensation payment that unable to cover replacement cost and expressed need for their
livelihood restoration of households affected by the road project. The PAHs expressed that from their
experience from compensation fund received, money disbursement alone is not the end by itself unless
iv
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
supported activity-based livelihood scheme and training capacity building for their livelihood to be in
place. In this regard, unlike the free ride disbursement of compensation fund and appreciated the
livelihood restoration attached activity based. They are committed to mobilize their resources, labor,
and skills to realize the objective of LRP. The PAPs also reflected their fear that likely government to
realize the LRP due to long process and bureaucratic system. To combat the challenge, threat and fear
raised by PAPs group, suggested integrations, commitment, and coordination with PAPs group,
implementing agents and other stakeholders and woreda sector office through participatory
approaches. The livelihood replacement strategy is to contributes poverty reduction, there should be
accountability and commitment at all level to implement and realize for the success of the project
objectives.
Consultation with stakeholders: The consultations and discussions held with concerned stakeholders
at woreda and kebele and realized their commitments and determination at all level to fully support
the actual implementation of the LRP. The consultation was made with all concerned including woreda
administration, town administrations and concerned stakeholders of respective woredas (Agriculture
and Natural Resource, Livestock & Fishery, TVET, Labor and Social Affair, micro enterprise
development). According to the respective woreda administration the issues of livelihood restoration
for the road project affected is pressing and demand driven needs and concern of issues and much
cooperative in coordinating woreda sector office and political decision and commitment for
implementation. They are determined for LRP implementation stakeholders have opinion as it deserves
political and technical commitment at all.
Consultation with woreda sector office was also very positive and all are willing and expressed their
commitment to provide support and mobilize experts for trainings, facilitating the proposed
agricultural and non-agricultural business activities, and provision of important inputs. The kebele
structures also consulted on the same and sought similar response.
Identified livelihood activities and Criteria Used for Budget Allocation for PAHs
The LRP primarily targeted project affected peoples or project affected households (PAPs/PAHHs).
In addition, youths and family members expected to benefit from training and capacity building. The
PAHs expressed their preferred livelihood activities for their livelihood restoration with alternative
options. The preferred livelihood needs also analyzed in terms of viability and capacity of
implementation and management. The LOT2 project impact traverse rural kebeles and road link in two
town area and hence the project impact land based and non-land impact. The livelihood intervention
also rural land-based livelihood and urban non land livelihoods. Accordingly, the livelihood package
v
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
proposed for rural land-based PAPs identified 8-livelihood package (agriculture input, irrigation,
fattening, poultry, dairy, cattle trade and marketing, transport, and grain trade). For the town road link
area non land livelihood impacted PAPs five livelihood schemes identified to build on their previous
livelihood work experience that includes 1) grain trade, 2) local food/tea/coffee houses, 3) Wood and
Metal works, 4) shops and 5) Hotel and Restaurant. The detail number of PAPs and livelihood activities
discussed under chapter seven of this report.
Training and capacity building
In general, training and capacity is proposed for PAHHs and their youths. Awareness on financial
concept and essence of livelihood restoration and financial management is a pre-condition before fund
disbursement. The LRP implementation involves different stakeholders, and training capacity building
required at two major level, 1) Woreda and kebele implementing sectors and 2) PAHHs and youths.
To ensure quality and the training should be in order of sequence, separate training session for
implementing body and PAPs. First, train the implementing sector/stakeholders as trainers of trainer
to cascade down to the PAHHs. The two-training session, 1) stakeholders and 2) PAHs and youth
groups can attend in one training session. The key areas of training Awareness creation mainly on
essence of livelihood restoration and other topics of issues in the line with their livelihood activity
package and includes:
Awareness creation on essence of livelihood restoration and strategies
Agricultural input and extension services for increased production and productivity
Livestock management training (for both dairy production and animal fattening),
Financial literacy and money management training for efficient financial use and management
(practice credit & saving strategy and financial planning at the household level).
Livelihood business skill and develop alternative/supplementary income generating activities.
The training cost includes budget for trainers and training participants and accordingly included in the
training and capacity building budget and the birr 1,962,000
Target beneficiaries
The project traverse 15 rural kebeles and two-town road link and the project impact will be land and
non-land-based impacts. The land-based criteria are land loss greater than 20% and economic
livelihood loss is the major criteria for eligibility for the LRP. Thus, in terms of rural land-based
impacts criteria of land greater than 20%, a total of 571 PAPs identified and these includes vulnerable.
The vulnerable are supposed direct social support and excluding VGs (111), total 460PAPs that needs
to develop livelihood activity package. In terms of non-land economic livelihood loss, identified
18PAPs in two road link town. Thus, summery of target beneficiaries includes Rural kebeles land
based eligible for livelihood (460PAPs); Meki and Ziway town link road/ Non land based(18PAPs)
vi
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
and vulnerable (111PAPs) and total target LRP beneficiaries 589 PAPs. Training and awareness
raining will be given for PAPs who undertake livelihood activities and training and awareness for total
478PAPs excluding vulnerable.
Summary of PAPs
Type of PAPs #PAP Remark
s
1 Total PAPs (Land loss>20%) 571
2 Vulnerable 111 Unable to work, provide social support and
exclude from livelihood activity plan
3 Pap's Exclude VGs (land based 460 Land based impacted PAPs eligible for LRP
impacted) Eligible for activities.
livelihood schemes
4 Non land economic livelihood 18 Non land economic livelihood affected PAPs
impacted PAPs (Meki & Ziway eligible for livelihood activities.
road link
Sub Total PAPs for LRP 478 Total Land and Non land affected in need of
livelihood activity plan
5 Vulnerable 111 Unable to work, provide social support and
exclude from livelihood activity plan
Total target PAPs for LRP 589 This includes rural land based and town road
beneficiaries link areas and vulnerable
Training & Awareness on LRP 478 Training is for LRP eligible PAPs excluding
(Number of PAPs) VGs.
LRP and Number of PAPs
A total of 478 PAPs identified for LRP including 460 rural kebeles and 18 along the two-town road link.
The LRP proposed for different livelihood support activities in main categories of agriculture, non-
agriculture, and urban based livelihood activities. The agriculture livelihood schemes are for 357 PAPs and
their preferred livelihood includes farm input support, irrigation, fattening, poultry, and dairy. The non-
agriculture livelihood support is for 103 PAPs and their preferred livelihood needs that include cattle trade,
grain trade and local transport service. In addition, urban based non-farm (off farm) LRP for 18 PAPs along
Meki and Ziway town road in shops, hotels, and marketing, etc. Training and capacity building will be
provided for all 478 PAPs identified for LRP. The summary of livelihood schemes and number of Pap's
indicated in table below.
Summary of Livelihood schemes and numbers of PAPs
No Economic Sector/Livelihood activity # PAPs
1 Agriculture Related Activities
Farm inputs support 174
Irrigation farm 70
Fattening 66
Poultry farm inputs 38
Dairy 9
Sub total 357
2 Non-Agriculture Related Activities
vii
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Cattle trading 60
Grain trade market 37
Local transport service 6
sub-Total 103
Total (Land based affected for Rural kebele)
3 LRP for PAPs along Meki and Ziway town road link
Grain trade/mill house 5
Local food/beverage, coffee/tea 4
Wood/Metal work 1
Shops 6
Hotel & Restaurants 2
Subtotal (Non land affected (Meki & Ziway town link road) 18
Total (LRP activities) 478
4 Training and capacity building (478APs) 478
Budget allocation
Livelihood restoration and improvement is capacity improvement plan that involve budget and
technical assistance as may be required. The budget allocation for the respective PAHs considered the
scope of land loss and income loss as major criteria. Other criteria like family size and number of
dependent, and vulnerability status are used for proportionate weighted impact and budget allocation based
on their weighted averages.
The survey captured PAPs first and second livelihood needs as alternative options for their livelihood
alternatives. Based on PAPs first choice (Option I), the total LRP cost for LOT2 of Meki –Ziway road
section estimated to birr 56,845,966. This includes budget for land based and non-land based affected
PAPs as well as independent consultant cost, training capacity building, cost; internal monitoring cost;
midterm evaluation and post implementation audit cost and all other cost. The budget summery is
given in the following table and detail in Annex 2 (Excel Sheet 2.12)
viii
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Summary of LRP budget
No Economic Sector/Livelihood activity (Option 1) (Option 2) Responsible body
PAPs Family Budget PAPs Family Budget
members members
1 Agriculture Related Activities
Farm (Agriculture inputs) for PAPs 174 676 16,881,800 102 393 9,896,227.59 woreda agriculture
Irrigation farm 70 252 6,581,250 61 218 5,735,089.29 woreda agriculture
Fattening 66 254 6,426,750 126 482 12,269,250.00 woreda agriculture
Poultry farm inputs 38 127 3,895,800 55 183 5,638,657.89 woreda agriculture
Dairy 9 24 959,725 12 31 1,279,633.33 woreda agriculture
Sub total 357 1309 34,745,325 356 1307 34,818,858
2 Non-Agriculture Related Activities
Cattle trading 60 210 3,351,600 56 194 3,128,160.00 woreda trade office
Grain trade market 37 137 2,405,000 35 128 2,275,000.00 woreda trade office
Local transport service 6 25 309,100 13 52 669,716.67 woreda transport
sub-Total 103 372 6,065,700 104 374 6,072,877
Total (Land based affected for Rural 40,811,025
kebele)
3 LRP for Non land Livelihood affected
(Meki Ziway road link)
Grain trade/mill house 5 22 340,000 2 9 136,000.00 woreda trade office
Local food/beverage, coffee/tea 4 18 273,000 2 9 136,500.00 woreda trade office
Wood/Metal work 1 4 60,000 2 8 120,000.00 TVET
Shops 6 26 360,000 8 35 480,000.00 woreda trade office
Hotel & Restaurants 2 9 240,500 4 18 481,000.00 woreda trade office
Subtotal for Meki & Ziway town link road) 18 79 1,273,500.00 18 79 1,353,500
Total (LRP activities) 478 1760 42,084,525 478 1760 42,245,235
4 Vulnerable groups 111 339 4,311,200 339 4,311,200
5 Training and capacity building (478APs) 478 474 1,962,000 1,962,000
6 Incentive assistance cost for 191 1,912,000 191 1,912,000
group/cooperative
7 Independent consultant cost (5%) 2,513,486 2,521,521.76
i
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
8 Community and Organizational expert 527,832.12 529,519.57
(1%)
9 Woreda implementation committee and 533,110.44 534,814.76
GRM (1%)
10 Internal Monitoring and Evaluation cost 799,666 802,222
(1.5%)
11 Midterm evaluation (1%) 546,438 548,185.13
12 Post implementation Audit (3%) 1,655,708 1,661,000.96
Total 56,845,966 57,027,699
ii
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
In allocating the budget major issues of concern are PAPs high demand for budget allocation and on
the other hand scarce capital resources to allocate the budget. As much as possible effort was made to
reconcile and allocated the optimum budget. Livelihood restoration effort is recent development
approach in Ethiopia and Ethiopian government has not issued proclamation and regulation on
eligibility, unit rate and amount and level of livelihood restoration. The land loss or estimated value of
livelihood affected based on income loss estimate by PAPs and cross checked with estimated market
value of the livelihood asset.
Mode of Organization (Individual/Group): The mode of engagement (Group or individual) owned
livelihood is one of the concerns regarding implementation and realizing the identified LRP package. The
majority of the PAHs preferred to work on individual basis instead of group and other arrangements like
cooperatives. On the other hand, groups based is preferred for budget allocation, better monitor and
management and sustainability. In order to compromise the two (individual or group), it depends on the
nature of the LRP package. Accordingly, some of the activities like irrigation and grain market are proposed
to be organized in group based on their interest and proximity kebeles. However, the budget proposed for
individual basis and open for individual or group arrangements by merging their allocated budget.
Organization and management for Implementation: The effective and successful implementation
of the LRP ultimately depends upon institutional and organizational arrangements made for its
implementation. The LRP implementation should be ease for management and fast decision making.
It is supposed ERA has long year experience in road and right off ways issues. The major implementing
organ and implementation mechanism is preferably through ERA project structure. Thus, ERA and
woreda structure and different committees are the major implementing organs with roles and
responsibilities. However, the LOT 2 road Project is almost completed, and needs to organize woreda
level project management and grievance redress committees who assist the LRP implementation.
Fund Transfer: The LRP fund should reach the PAPs as per the plan proposal and the fund transfer
and financial management should not be complicated but should closely monitored to reduce
embezzlement. The budget transfer will be through the existing mechanism with some precondition to
meet the LRP objectives. The budget will be allocated and disbursed directly for PAPs through ERA
with precondition on use and application of the livelihood fund. The preconditions identified for PAPs
to access livelihood restoration fund includes 1) Participation in training; 2) signed commitment for
use and application of the intended livelihood budget; 3) To sign commitment and ensure allocation
of the budget for the intended uses, 4) PAPs signed commitment, group collateral signed between
i
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
PAPs who know each other. Each individual PAPs takes responsibility in procurement of livelihood
input and implementation of his/her livelihood schemes that expected to reduce complain and
grievance that may arise in procurement process and 4) Approval of the livelihood by woreda technical
team and 5) Opening joint bank account of husband and wife as may be required.
Grievance Redress: The LOT 2 road project already completed, and the previous grievance redress
committee are not in place and needs to establish new GRM and establish new Grievance Redress
Committee (GRC). The new grievance redress committee (GRC) should be in place to respond to
RLP related grievances in an efficient and effective manner. The GRC committee comprises six
members to be drawn from concerned sectors including implementing stakeholders and PAPs
representatives. Women also to be represented in the committee to reflect women interest and the
composition of the GRC preferably at least two women and four males in the GRC. Grievance redress
committee (GRC) is responsible for any matters that arise in the courses of LRP implementation, and
amicably resolve any compliant and help.
Implementation plan and schedule: The project affected people (PAPs), woreda administration and
stakeholders’ sector office appreciate the effort being undergoing for livelihood restoration plan. The
project affected peoples raises their livelihood restoration in place as outstanding issues and urged fast
implementation of the LRP. Accordingly, planning schedule to be attainable and achievable, and the
LRP documents completed and approved by January 2022 and if budget secured in 2-3 months (April
2022), then actual implementation will start by April 2022 and expected to complete by April 2023.
Monitoring and Evaluation
Monitoring and evaluation are the key components in the courses of the LRP implementation for a
dual or multiple purpose: (a) ensure and optimize implementation of the proposed LRP and livelihood
in place. (b) to document major result indicator and success to meet intended objectives. c) Draw
learning lesson to scale up the best practices for other projects. Monitoring and evaluation activities
should continue during implementation and after implementation of the LRP with the objective to
ensure effective implementation and achieve its intended objectives.
The type of evaluation depends on the type and nature of the project, which commonly includes
Internal, Interim and External evaluation. For this Project, Interim evaluation may be required
although, short period that implementation of LRP to complete in one year. Midterm evaluation is not
ii
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
mandatory and optional and conducted as may be required. Thus, monitoring and evaluation of the
LRP will be conducted in two or three stages. Thus, two monitoring and evaluation expected:
a) Internal and Monitoring evaluation to be carried by implementing body (ERA and sector office)
b) Midterm evaluation (as may be required)
c) Post audit External evaluation/post implementation and completion audit to be undertaken by an
independent body
The Internal M & E is to measure progress of the LRP and can be undertaken by ERA and staffs drawn
from implementing partners. The major indicators and how progresses are to be measured indicated in
the report. The Midterm evaluation to be conducted by six months after starting the LRP
implementation with aims to measure on going implementation status and inform decision-making
amendment to achieve the intended goals. The midterm evaluation will be conducted by team of exert
from stakeholders. The post audit or external evaluation is to be undertaken by an independent external
body. The budget to be covered and allocated from government through ERA and World Bank will
provide technical support. The LRP implementation and monitoring; midterm evaluation and post
evaluation audit involve cost as indirect and overhead cost. With this understanding, the budget
required for LRP independent consultant/implementation, monitoring cost and LRP post audit cost are
separately included in the proposed LRP budget.
iii
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1 Background
It is believed that improved road network play equally important role as blood transport system for life
living and in same way effective road network and transport ensure sustainable living and sustainable
economic growth. With this view in mind, the government of Ethiopia and development financers has
placed increased emphasis on the improvement of the quality and extent of road infrastructure in the
country.
Toward this end, Ethiopian Road Authority (ERA) has been vested for managing, maintenance and
development of the national road network across the country.
One of these projects being undergoing is the Modjo-Hawaasa highway road project being
implemented by government of Ethiopia and in partner with development financers. The Modjo-
Hawassa 202.47 km road project is part of the trans –African Highway connect many African countries
and the longest amongst the trans African highways covering more than 10,000km and linking Addis
Ababa with Kenya and the ports of Mombasa and other African countries.
The Modjo-Hawassa highway road project is continuation of government effort to improve the
standards of Trans-East African highways as a member of the common market for eastern and southern
Africa (COMESA) countries and facilitates its import-export corridors to minimize the cost of its
transit traffic.
The Modjo-Hawasa road highway is financed by four external financers, the African Development
Bank, China Exim Bank, Korea Exim Bank, and the World Bank each supporting discrete section of
the road. The Meki-Ziway road section is financed by Korean Exim Bank.
This draft report is for the detail need assessment and livelihood restoration plan and prepared for
LOT2 (Meki-Ziway). It presents project background, scope of task, document review and detail
methodology/work approach, work plan and strategies for the need assessment and the livelihood
restoration plan with lists of itinerary activities and the time schedule to complete the overall task
assignment.
1.2 Description of the project
The LOT2 Meki-Zeway road section covers a total length of 37.1 km. It is entirely located in the
Oromia Regional State in the south-central part of the country. The right of ways covers 90-meter
width, 4 lane dual carriageway highway with area separated median 9.0-meter width (sweal ditch) and
1
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
will have controlled access with grade-separated intersections to establish link with the existing roads.
The upgrading of the link roads is part of the project to facilitate easy flow of traffic and enhance the
connection with the major urban centers. The road corridor traverses two Woredas (Dugda Bora and
Adami-Tullu Jido Kombolcha) and road link with two towns (Meki and (Batu/Ziway). Based on the
RAP documents, the LOT2 (Meki-Ziway) road section traverse a total 18 kebeles, Ademi Tullu (6)
and Dugda (12) kebeles. The location of the Project Road Corridor as taken from the previous RAP
documents is shown in Map/Figure that follows.
Figure 1: Mojo-Hawassa Highway Project Phase 1 Meki-Zeway LOT2 Project Location Map
Source: Updated ESIA report, EthioInfra, 2016
The road project is expected to contribute long way economic contribution at continental level, the
immediate benefit of the Modjo-Hawassa road project is enhancing efficient and safety in
transportation of goods and people along the Modjo-Hawasssa development corridor. It is also
anticipated to contribute accelerated development not only for the country (Ethiopia), but also expected
to facilitate trade and economic development amongst other African countries in many aspects.
a) Facilitate trade between Ethiopia and Kenya as well as other southern African countries
b) Establish an efficient intercity corridor between Addis Ababa, the economic capital of African
countries
c) Facilitate the export of agriculture and non-agriculture product and helps to strengthen the import –
expert and market linkages with other African countries
2
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
d) Facilitate the tourism industry along the Modjo-Hawassa corridor, the national parks in south and
create economic opportunities in providing employment to the local people
e) In general, the highway project believed to both direct and indirect benefit in facilitating economic,
social, and cultural connection.
Likewise, the project appraisal and ESIA documents and RAP reports indicated adverse impacts of
the project. According to the terms of reference (TOR), the cumulative impact of the whole Modjo-
Hawasa highway road project found in the four-section expected to affect 3,574 households (HH) with
a total of 24,030 project affected persons (PAPs).
With regards to the LOT2 of Meki-Ziway road section, the terms of reference have not mentioned data
on project affected people (PAP) and or project affected household (PAHHS). Based on the
proclamation ERA paid compensation and as parts of additional support and safeguards requirement,
ERA is committed to extend its effort to help affected people’s thorough livelihood restoration
measures and vulnerable groups supported based on their vulnerability context, needs and interests by
sorting out based some eligibility criteria and principles. With this view in mind, ERA has developed
terms of reference (TOR) to guide for conducting the detail need assessment and livelihood restoration
plan and contracted the individual consultant to conduct need assessment and LRP to at least maintain
the affected households’ livelihoods to the pre-project level or better improved living standards.
1.3 Rationale for Need Assessment and Preparation of the LRP
Need Assessments is crucial important element in development LRP for sharing information and
response options. The need assessment survey captures information on project area economic activities
and PAPs socioeconomic profiles, demography, skills, knowledge and experiences and the knowledge
collected led to the adoption of the LRP. A needs assessment is a systematic process for determining
and addressing needs, or "gaps" between current conditions and desired conditions or "wants". The
first step for LRP is conducting needs assessment. The steps in conducting need assessment includes
"Gap" Analysis; Identify Priorities and Importance; Identify Causes of Performance Problems and/or
Opportunities; identify Possible Solutions and Growth Opportunities. The rationale and result from the
need assessment includes, but not limited to:
i. Collect data on current socioeconomic condition of the PAPs and needs to establish a basis for the
design of the eligibility for livelihood restoration assistance.
ii. Assess relevant information on characteristics of PAPs, including a description of household
occupation as livelihood systems and baseline information on livelihoods and income form economic
activities) and including health and physical and disability status
3
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
iii. Inform the magnitude of land or other livelihood economic loss (Total or partial) and determine the
extent of displacement, physical or economic.
iv. Collect data on type and number of vulnerable groups or persons as provided for in OP 4.12, para. 8,
for whom special provisions may have to be made; and
v. Gather information on the full resource base and other socioeconomic indicators of the affected
population, including income derived from the informal sector and from common property.
vi. Determining perceptions of, and preferences for, potential livelihood options.
vii. Information for design of feasible livelihood restoration program and entitlements
viii. Identifying local organizations and social institutions capable of helping to design and implement
LRP provisions.
ix. Provisions to update information on the PAPs livelihood restoration needs or preference.
Livelihood Restoration: The FDRE enacted national social protection policy, November 2014. The
policy focus to protect citizens from exclusion, ensure their rights and needs by reducing the
vulnerability to risk that emanate from economic and social structural imbalances. It also identified
target groups to be given due emphasis in the policy (children, women, old aged and disabilities…etc.).
The world Bank Operational safeguard policies and International Finance Corporation (IFC)
Performance Standards also specify the safeguards requirements to be observed when project-induced
displacement and resettlement occurs. The World Banks and research finding demonstrate that
development project disregarded and implemented without appropriate resettlement safeguards are
less likely succeeded. The displacement and processes of resettlement often leads PAPs to less land
and reduced livelihood sources due to many factors.
Low compensation paid below replacement cost
Delay in compensation process leading to devaluation
Replacement property price escalation
Lack of replacement land with equal potential
Price escalation and increasing living cost
PAPs deprived economic opportunities after the cut of date and opportunity loss compared to the
unaffected neighbor counterpart.
The document review in International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA, 2016), shows that
involuntary resettlement under development induced projects, if unmitigated, often gives rise to severe
economic, social, and environmental risks: production systems are dismantled; people face
impoverishment when their productive assets or income sources are lost; people are relocated to
environments where their productive skills may be less applicable and the competition for resources
greater; community institutions and social networks are weakened; kin groups are dispersed; and
cultural identity, traditional authority, and the potential for mutual help are diminished or lost.” Which
4
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
all leads to economic and social crises and may sometimes cause political issues rising to peace
instability. Therefore, project induced relocation requires consultation with PAPs and should be guided
by certain safeguard policies and principles. These principles include:
Do not harm to the livelihoods and property of local householders, and preferably improve their well-
being.
Avoid disruption and damage to villages, homes, and other structures.
Do not increase social and economic disadvantage and inequality.
Protect affected peoples’ livelihoods where possible and maintain access to livelihoods assets.
Protect essential infrastructure such as water supplies, village access points, schools’ churches, and
meeting places.
If assets are taken and restoration is required, it should focus on existing sustainable livelihoods
strategies and assets.
Improve the situation of women and other vulnerable persons.
Avoid substituting real livelihoods with cash compensation pay-outs.
Where cash compensation is provided, make sure female members receive a fair share, and the money
is not wasted and create sustainable livelihood options.
The World Bank involuntary resettlement book states, Cash Compensation may not ensure Asset
Replacement and specifies that the payment of cash compensation doesn’t bring sustainable livelihood
of the PAPs by itself whereas development assistance in addition to compensation measures should be
introduced. It argues that in theory, cash compensation valued at replacement cost allows to restore
incomes and living standards whereas in practice several obstacles have impeded conversion of cash
into replacement assets (or alternative income-restoration measures). The livelihood restoration with
improved livelihood and income is necessary condition for resettled and PAPs to recoup losses and
opportunity cost and to catch up with their previous living standards and more. The Ethiopian
government social protection, the ERA guideline and World Bank and all other project financers
support social protection and safeguard standards across the whole road corridor. This LRP needs
assessment and the LRP preparation will be conducted and prepared based on the principles outlined
above.
1.4 Objective of the LRP
The general objective of the need assessment and Livelihood restoration plan preparation is to
identify project impacts and project affected peoples (PAPs), identify their livelihood restoration
needs, and develop livelihood restoration plan for Meki-Ziway section of the Modjo-Hawassa
Expressway Road Development Project. The specific objectives include, but not limited to,
Identify project impacts and project affected peoples (PAPs)
Set inclusion/targeting criteria, identify, and screen the PAPs to be targeted in the LRP
5
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Identify livelihood needs of PAPs and identify types/option of livelihood activities that the project
affected households will engage as option for their livelihood restoration.
Identify the scope of impact of land-take or the percentage of land the PAPs lost (distinguish between
PAPs losing more and less than 20% of their landholdings and whether remaining parcels meet the
minimum viable parcel size for farming or continue their livelihood).
Assess the different option for livelihood restoration including land for land compensation based on
their need assessment.
Identify livelihood restoration activities and plan the process by which the PAPs will be able to restore
their livelihoods.
Identify stakeholders that can have a role and participate in planning and implementation of the LRP.
Conduct survey on PAPs and design Income restoration plan with reference to the occupational profile
of PAPs and
Ensure participatory development planning for robust implementation of LRP to ensure that PAPs are
better off.
Develop capacity building training, facilitation of linkages, providing information and advice to enable
PAPs restores their livelihoods.
Develop LRP implementation cost, budgeting, and financing arrangement.
Set appropriate LRP implementation, monitoring, and evaluation framework.
1.5 Scope of the assessment
The scope of task includes need assessment and preparation of Livelihood Restoration Plan (LRP)
generally includes, but not limited to,
Assess land acquisition process and Impacts of the land acquisition on the livelihood of PAPs,
Collect and analyze baseline demographic profiles and socioeconomic information
Determine eligibility criteria and identifying/ screening eligible PAPs for LRP
identify the scope of impact of land-loss in percentage of land loss for each PAPs and identify losing
more and less than 20% of their landholdings
Identification of vulnerable groups who needs special attention and considerations
Develop LRP based on the need assessment, previous livelihood base and skills and other factors.
1.6 Methodology and Approach
1.6.1 General
Both quantitative survey and qualitative data analysis approach were used in preparation and livelihood
restoration plan study. The survey census on target population those projects impacted peoples, paid
compensation for screening eligible for livelihood restoration plan. It included all the PAPs affected
by the road project. i.e., along the main roadway, access roads; camp sites, dump places, query and
working sites and other components would be included in the LRP. As general approach, the need
6
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
assessment and livelihood restoration planning followed participatory approach where PAPs
participated in consultation sessions and forwarded their opinion in relation to the project impacts, land
acquisition, compensation, and livelihood restoration issues…etc.
1.6.2 Data collection Methods
As general methodology and study approach collected Primary and secondary data was conducted on
number of PAPs and related socioeconomic baseline information. The study used of the needs
assessment and livelihood restoration plan used flexible and multidimensional study approach that
includes documents review; Key informant interview (KII); Focus group discussion (FGD); Public
consultation and census survey.
Document Review (updated RAPs documents, legislation, and policy framework)
Key informant interview was held with project social and environmental management team as well as
woreda, kebele and local stakeholders.
Consultation with PAPs groups to explore their needs and define their desired livelihood
Focus group discussion with Women and vulnerable groups
Conducted census survey on the need assessment by using structured questionnaires to identify
demographic characteristics and needs and available livelihood options
1.6.2.1 Key Informant Interviews
The Modjo-Hawassa road project traverse long ways (37.1km) and substantial influences and involves
wide ranges of groups and stakeholders including the PAPs, woreda and kebele administration and the
road project management, social and environment safeguard staffs of the road project were contacted
as stakeholders. Hence interviews and discussions were conducted with the PAPs, woreda
administration; town administration; woreda sector office and the road project contractor and
consultant, social and environment safeguard staffs of the road project as well as kebele level structures
were contacted and discussed on the project impacts and suggested input for the way forward for
implementation of the LRP. The woreda sector office like Micro and Small-Scale Enterprise (MSE);
Agriculture, livestock, and fishery development office; woreda industry and trade, woreda vocational
training centers; concerned rural and urban land administration and other associations and private
operators were contacted and discussed as key informant interview on their views on the road project
impacts and suggestion for the LRP.
1.6.2.2 Focus Group Discussion (FGD)
The need assessment and LRP study was made in participatory discussions with key stakeholders,
especially with the main target groups of the PAPs. Therefore, PAPs, whose livelihoods were adversely
affected by the road section of Meki-Ziway were consulted and their views were considered in
7
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
planning the LRP. Accordingly, at least one FGD was organized and conducted in each kebele and
collected PAPs views and suggestion for the LRP. The FGD participants include household (HH)
members, i.e., men, women, youth, and members of vulnerable groups.
1.6.2.3 CONSULTATION
i. Consultation with PAPs
In the process of need assessment and livelihood restoration plan, conducted consultations with PAPs
group and the planning of LRP was made in participatory approach in which one or two public
consultation conducted in each kebeles. The participants were PAPs who have lost their livelihood and
income sources within the road corridor, borrow pits, query sites, camp, and other working sites. The
point of discussions focused on the road project impacts, compensation and their livelihood restoration
planning. strategies very participatory.
Figure 2: Partial views of consolation with PAPs group
Partial view of Consultation at Warja Woshugula Partial view of consultation, Elka Chellamo Keble
kebele
Figure 3: Public consultation (Elka Chellamo and warja Woshugula kebele
ii. Discussion with Women and Vulnerable Group
As part of the need assessment survey and livelihood restoration, gender specific need was assessed
and identified. The analysis tried to come up with gender-based interventions that focused women
specific preference needs. Women headed and women landowners participated and expressed on
project impacts and their interest in relation to their future livelihood needs. There was total 90 women
participants and the sex composition in each kebele is indicated in table 2. The following figure/photo
shows partial view of women participation in key informant interview, focus group discussion and
consultation at different level.
8
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Figure 4: Partial views of FGD with women group in different kebeles
Women on the road corridor involve marketing and cart transport at large as income generating
activities. The donkey pulled cart transport contribute human and freight transport service from rural
to urban where both male and female operate the transportation service and earn supplementary cash
income to their livelihood. Some of them used the compensation fund for purchase of donkey with cart
as their livelihood strategy. In addition, gender related constraint was also assessed and identified on
socially defined roles, relationships and responsibilities of both women and men within the social and
economic context of the project area. The experience shows that women are most responsible in saving
than male where women shared in the previous time compensation paid to their male husband which
latter changed and wife and husband open common bank account and equal decision making in place.
Consulted women suggested same to continue in the livelihood restoration. The rural women highly
engaged in vegetable production and marketing and other petty trade business along the road corridor.
iii. Stakeholders’ consultation
Preparation of the livelihood restoration plan also involved close consultation of local level institutions
and sector offices were contacted at woreda and kebele. The woreda consultation started first by
contacting woreda administration and then followed by woredas sector office. After woreda level
consultation assisted kebele level consultation and reached to the grass root Project affected
households and PAPs groups.
Covid 19 Protocols
On the way of the consultation, PAPs were given awareness raising on covid 19 and for majority of
PAPs in rural shortage masks and less knowledge in wearing mask and as much as possible social
distance and advised to cover their mouth by available sheet cloths of their own.
1.6.2.4 Census survey
One of the major tasks is to identify eligible PAPs for the LRP, land loss greater than 20% as yardstick
criteria and other supplementary index like number of family members/dependency, disability, and
vulnerabilities, etc. Such variables and other socioeconomic indicators collected through structured
9
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
questionnaires prepared for the survey. The land loss greater than 20% arrived by land loss divide by
total holding size of each PAPs. The target for the survey were PAPs who received compensation and
the land size affected was taken from recorded data sources of compensation payment data sources.
The total land holding size of the PAPs arrived through survey and cross checked with woreda average
land holding estimate and, in most case, PAPs are truly in telling the data. The survey questionnaires
also collected including whether the remaining land is economically use full or full loss. The
enumerators were selected from the two project woredas and provided training for two day including
practical exercises on the content and approach of the survey. The enumerators were selected by
woreda labour and social affairs and training venue was used at woreda office. To ensure quality of
data collection, enumerators were recruited based on their education and experience and tested by
interview and practical exercise. Accordingly, in each woreda 12 and for the tow woreda, and a total
22 enumerators recruited through woreda office from which total 14 enumerators (7 in each woreda)
were screened and selected through interview and their practical exercise performance during the
training.
Figure 5: Partial views of enumerator training session
A structured questionnaire was prepared and conducted survey mainly on eligibility criteria to help in
identifying eligible PAPs and socioeconomic indicators. The data analysis used SPSS computer
software data analysis. The survey covered total 1641 PAPs that includes rural land based (1530PAPs)
and non-land based (111PAPs) in Meki and Ziway Town link road. The detail by woreda, kebele and
sex composition is indicated under chapter four (table 2)
1.6.2.5 Observation and Identification of project impacts
Visit to the road project area was made as complementary method where discussion was held with
road project contractor and consultant, environment and social safeguard team and conducted field
visits to some places of the road project. This field observation provided the opportunity to familiarize
with the road project impacts and interacted with PAPs to gain insights and learn more about the
10
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
project impacts and their livelihoods concerns. The visit enabled to gain insights about the impact of
road project and livelihood situations. The major expected project impacts were discussed with PAPs
groups and used as input in identifying the different types of the project level of impacts, livelihood
needs and for the preparation of the LRP.
CHAPTER TWO: DOCUMENT REVIEW
2.1 Review of Relevant Policy, Legislation/Regulation and Guideline
Relevant national and regional policy documents and the World Bank safeguard operational policy
and the documents on involuntary resettlement source book reviewed. The review also included
national and regional strategy documents, as well as mandates of institutions found to be relevant to
the preparation and implementation of the livelihood restoration plan. The constitution of the FDRE
and relevant safeguard operational policy and other international safeguard standard will be considered
and reviewed in preparation of the LRP documents. The key aspects of the World Bank Policy on
Involuntary Resettlement and guidelines applied for the formulation of income restoration which
critically reviewed and continued to review in subsequent preparation of the LRP report. The details
are as discussed below:
2.1.1 The constitution of the FDRE
The Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia was issued in August 1995. Apart
from being the supreme law of the country, it provides the fundamental basis for enactment of all
Federal and Regional legislative instruments governing the natural resources use & development.
The constitution further states that, all international agreements ratified by Ethiopia are an integral
part of the safeguard policy including the law of the land. The provisions contained in the
Constitution which are relevant to the current livelihood restoration plan task assignment includes,
but not limited to.
Article 40, (2) stated that, right to own private property, “Private property”, for the purpose of this
Article, shall mean any tangible or intangible product which has value and is produced by the
labour, creativity, enterprise or capital of an individual citizen, associations which enjoy juridical
personality under the law, or in appropriate circumstances, by communities specifically
empowered by law to own property in common.
40 (3) acknowledges the right to ownership of rural and urban land as well as all-natural resources is vested
in the states and the people of Ethiopia; land is common property of the people and cannot be sold or
purchased.
11
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Articles 40 (4) gives the Ethiopian farmers to obtain land without payment and guarantee protection against
eviction from their processions.
Article 40 (7) states that, every Ethiopian shall have the full right to the immovable property he builds and
to the permanent improvements he brings about on the land by his labour or capital. This right shall include
the right to alienate, to bequeath, and where the right to use expires to remove his property, transfer his title,
or claim compensation for it.
Article 40 (7) empowers the Government to expropriate private property for public purposes subject to
payment in advance of compensation commensurate to the value of the property.
Article 40, (8) Government expropriation, without prejudice to the right to private property, the
government may expropriate private property for public purposes subject to payment in advance
of compensation commensurate to the value of the property
Article 43 (1) gives broad right to the peoples of Ethiopia to improved living standards and to sustainable
development.
Article 43 (2) acknowledges the rights of the people to be consulted with respect to policies and projects
affecting their community.
Article 44, (2), Rights due to physical displacement or livelihood impacts: All persons who have been
displaced or whose livelihoods have been adversely affected because of State programmes have the right to
commensurate monetary or alternative means of compensation, including relocation with adequate State
assistance.
2.1.2 National Social Protection Policy
The FDRE enacted national social protection policy, November 2014. The policy focuses on increasing
access to social services and providing alternative care and support services for members of the society
affected by economic shocks, natural and manmade calamities and those who require special support.
The policy focuses on taking measures of enhancing knowledge, skill, and employment opportunities
of citizens to increase their incomes and asset building capabilities. Protect citizens from exclusion,
ensure their rights and needs by reducing the vulnerability to risk that emanate from economic and
social structural imbalances. As stated in the social protection policy of the country, the following
target groups given due emphasis in the policy:
Children under difficult circumstances,
Vulnerable pregnant and lactating women,
Vulnerable people with disabilities and people with mental health problems,
Elderly who has no care and support,
Labor constrained citizens unable to get basic social and economic services,
Victims of social problems such as beggars, commercial sex workers,
Citizens affected by HIV and AIDS and other chronic diseases that constrain their ability to work,
12
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Segments of the society vulnerable to violence and abuse,
Segments of the society vulnerable to natural and manmade risks,
Unemployed citizens,
Citizens engaged in the informal sector and who have not social insurance coverage,
Victims of human trafficking and repatriated emigrants and others.
One of the social policy focus area is promotion of employment opportunities and improve livelihood
through different strategies that identified to include.
Introduce and expand off-farm income generating activities,
Provide agricultural inputs to strengthen the economic capacity of rural and urban population,
Promote public works programs, income generating and other employment generation schemes,
Establish labour market information system and take labour market corrective measures,
Promote micro and small enterprise schemes to create employment opportunities for the poor and
unemployed to enable them employed and enhance their livelihoods,
Provide skills upgrading training and micro-finance credit service for the poor and vulnerable to
create market linkages.
2.1.3 Expropriation of Land holdings (FDRE PROCLAMATION NO.1161/2019)
According to the proclamation 1161/2019, where land is expropriated for public purpose compensation
for the property and displacement shall be paid to the landholders. Under the article (4) sub article (1)
and (2) states that expropriation of land for public purposes shall be made only based on approved land
use plan; urban structural plan; or development master plan. 2/Compensation and resettlement
Assistance Compensation for the expropriated land shall sustainably restore and improve the
livelihood of displaced peoples. The proclamation provides has provided different types of
compensation that stated as follows.
Property Compensation: The landholder whose land is expropriated shall be paid compensation for
the property on the land and the permanent improvement made on the land
Displacement Compensation and Land Substitution: As stated in the new proclamation (1161/2019), a
landholder who is to be displaced permanently shall be substitute for a reasonable proportion of the land taken
from the area, shall be given a substitute land if it is available
Displacement Compensation for Communal Landholding: The proclamation also has privileges for
communal land holding. The Valuation of displacement compensation for communal landholding shall be based
on the use of the communal land, or the lost benefits and livelihood of the displaced People.
Displacement compensation and substitute land for Urban Landholders Permanently Displaced, where
urban landholders are permanently displaced because of land expropriation, the valuation of the displacement
compensation and substitute land given
13
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Displacement Assistance to Temporarily Displaced Urban Landholders: Urban or peri-urban land holders
temporarily displaced shall be provided with substitute housing or compensation to lease a house equivalent to
the current rental market of the expropriated house for the period till they displaced. Urban land holders shall
be paid compensation for the economic loss they suffer due to temporary displacement.
Compensation paid for Economic Loss of Income
According to the Proclamation (1161), person who lost economic benefit either permanently or
temporarily without being displaced because of land expropriation shall be paid compensation; the
person entitled for the compensation, type and amount of compensation shall be determined by the
Directives issued by a Regional States. Incomes generated from employment, rentals, business, and
the like net annual income except that of the income generated from agriculture may be considered for
determination of the type and amount of compensation as per sub article 1 of the Article.
2.1.4 FDRE, Regulation number 472/2020
Following the proclamation 1161/2020, the FDRE enacted/endorsed regulation number 472/2020 for
expropriation of land for public purpose and valuation, compensation, and resettlement. According to
this regulation compensation for rural land holder changed from the previous 10 years to 15 years. It
states that rural land holder who does not receive farmland replacement will be paid compensation
=annual income X 15 years. Some of the important article of statement mentioned in the regulation
dictates.
woreda and urban administration shall create enabling environment to make PAPs participate in the
execution of the resettlement package and shall provide support to enable them sustained income.
Find ways and possible means for the beneficiaries to have as many opportunities as possible.
Woreda and or city/town administration must implement a rehabilitation package for members of family
who are 18 years and above or older living with their parents.
Woreda/districts or city administration shall create employment opportunities in accordance with the
nature of the project and facilitate adequate training.
The resettlement and income restoration should be prioritized for women, disabled, orphaned and the
elderly and old aged people.
Regional states and city administration shall entertain a kind of public-private –partnership or
shareholders’ investment with the landowners.
2.1.5 World Bank Involuntary Resettlement, 2004
The policy objective states that to the extent possible; projects shouldn’t displace people unless
alternative feasible options are not available. When displacement is however found essential, the policy
demands for proper planning and implementation of resettlement and livelihood restoration plan by
consultation and participation of the project affected people. Road and highway projects either build
14
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
new roads or improve existing ones. This distinction is relevant in terms of land acquisition. Opening
a corridor for a new road requires substantially more land acquisition, and the negative impacts are
usually more severe, than in road rehabilitation or upgrading. In development Projects Whatever must
be removed or demolished, whether permanently or temporarily, is inside a corridor of impact, and
people suffering losses caused by the project should be assisted in improving or at least restoring their
standards of living after resettlement.
Eligibility Criteria and Entitlement
According to the Bank (OP.4.12), the process of identifying eligible persons for obtaining assistance
are also advised to avoid the inclusion of people who are not part of the project affected persons and
to avoid the exclusion of project affected persons. Taking the policy into consideration, the need
assessment and livelihood restoration plan should avoid the two extreme cases by devising different
screening mechanisms for the identification of real PAPs. Operational Policy (OP) 4.12 uses land
ownership and severity of impact as guides to determine eligibility for land-based livelihood.
Severity of Impact
Resettlement entitlements are generally commensurate with the severity of impact.
The effect on economic viability determines severity of impact.
Severity of impact on landholdings varies with the extent of the DPs’ holdings. But landholdings vary
by size, use, and productive capacity, so viability determines severity of actual impact. But no
proportional formula can be relied on to consistently meet the compensation and rehabilitation
requirements of OP 4.12. As a rule, if a project-affected family loses less than 10 percent of a
holding, the impact is minor, because the remaining area is likely to remain economically viable.
This rule might not hold if the holdings are very small, in which case even a minor acquisition might
render the entire plot unviable. Similarly, as a rule, if a project-affected family loses less than 20
percent of its productive assets and the remainder is economically viable, the family may receive cash
compensation. Again, if the holding is small and the remaining area is not economically viable, the
family is compensated both for the lost asset and for the remaining unproductive asset. Generally, DPs
losing access to less than 20 percent of their landholding can be paid cash compensation at replacement
cost for the portion of land lost to them.
Displaced peoples (DPs) losing more than 20 percent of their total agricultural land are entitled to a
land-replacement and other economic entitlement/rehabilitation option. Displaced peoples (DPs)
losing more than 20 percent of their total agricultural land are generally considered severely affected.
Those whose livelihoods are land-based and who are losing more than 20 percent of their total
productive agricultural land are to be given an option allowing them to acquire comparable
15
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
replacement land or they may at their option, choose cash compensation and economic rehabilitation,
instead of land replacement. Those whose income is not land-based, and their income sources and
livelihood severely affected like full demolition of workplace may receive cash compensation and/or
rehabilitation assistance to allow them to restore or improve their incomes.
Table 1: Severity of impacts and livelihood restoration options
Amount of land Proposed option for compensation/replacement/Restoration
acquired Land for prorated cash Rehabilitation Plus,
land Or compensation package option
to sell
residual
land
Residual Less than 20% - √ - -
holding
economically More than 20% √ √ √ -
viable
More than 80% √ √ √ √
Residual For small and √ √ √ √
holding no remaining land
longer Percentage
economically irrelevant and
viable not
economically
viable
Source: world Bank, Involuntary resettlement, 2004
Vulnerable Groups
The OP 4.12 of World Bank policy seeks to ensure that resettlement improves the lives of the poor and
does not reduce more people to poverty. This goal is achieved by requiring compensation at
replacement cost and by providing measures for income restoration and improvement for the
vulnerable and people with special needs. Vulnerable people defined as people who by virtue of
gender, ethnicity, age, physical or mental disability, economic disadvantage, or social status may be
less able to participate fully in the planning process, and/or more adversely affected by land acquisition
and the resulting direct and indirect impacts. The distinction is made between pre-existing
16
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
vulnerability, and Project induced vulnerability. It is the responsibility of the projects to completely
avoid or eliminate any instances of Project induced vulnerability. With respect to pre-existing
vulnerability, the project goal is to at least have no negative impact on the vulnerable persons, which
can best be done by demonstrating a positive impact. The proposed road project specific vulnerable
persons assistance program will be defined as part of this LRP, in consultation with those affected.
This process will confirm community concepts of vulnerability, identify vulnerable and potentially
vulnerable due to the road project. It is to be noted that not all people affected are considered
vulnerable. The eligible vulnerable groups (VG) primarily should be project affected and have no care
and support include disability groups; women headed households; old aged/elderly persons whose age
70 or over and persons with HIV/AIDS or chronic ill health
2.1.6 International Financial Corporation (IFC)
According to IFC definition the term, Livelihood refers to the full ranges of means that individual, families and
communities utilize to make a living such wage-based income, agriculture, fishing, foraging and other natural
resources-based livelihood, petty trade, marketing, and bartering. The aim of the LRP is to ensure that the
livelihoods of people affected by the land acquisition of the road projects are maintained at the same level, and
preferably, improved–both in terms of sustainability and standard. The aim is also to ensure that the standard of
living is improved for the poor and vulnerable. The consideration of livelihoods restoration measures and
entitlements principles are outlined below that includes.
Do not harm to the livelihoods and property of local householders, preferably improve their well-being.
Avoid disruption and damage to villages, homes, and other structures.
Do not increase social and economic disadvantage and inequality.
Protect affected peoples’ livelihoods where possible and maintain access to livelihoods assets.
Protect essential infrastructure such as water supplies, village access points, schools, churches, and
meeting places.
If assets are taken and restoration is required, it should focus on existing sustainable livelihoods strategies
and assets.
Improve the situation of women and other vulnerable persons.
Avoid substituting real livelihoods with cash compensation pay-outs.
Where cash compensation is provided, make sure female members receive a fair share, and the money is
not wasted and create sustainable livelihood options.
The World Bank involuntary resettlement book states, cash compensation may not ensure Asset
Replacement and specifies that the payment of cash compensation doesn’t bring sustainable
livelihood of the PAPs by itself whereas development assistance in addition to compensation
measures should be introduced. It argues that in theory, cash compensation valued at replacement
17
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
cost allows to restore incomes and living standards whereas in practice several obstacles have
impeded conversion of cash into replacement assets (or alternative income-restoration measures).
Few of the obstacles are mentioned as insufficient amount of compensation, too early or delayed
compensation payment, limitation of market opportunities and skill and unproductive use of
compensation money. Therefore, project induced relocation requires consultation with PAPs and
should be guided by certain principles/strategies and desired objective to catch up with their previous
living standards and more.
2.1.7 ERA Resettlement/Rehabilitation Policy Framework
Ethiopian Road Authority (ERA) is vested technical and operational management of the main
highway roads in the country. As per the mandates and responsibility vested, ERA’s has guiding
principles and operational framework for efficient technical road feasibility, road safety construction
and operation. Road development that entails the relocation of more than 200 individuals or about
40 households is expected to draw up a detailed resettlement action plan. Those road projects that
would displace less than 200 individuals are not expected to come up with a detailed/full scale RAP
and instead appropriate compensation measures for lost assets, arrangements for logistical support
and a relocation grant must be determined.
The Resettlement/Rehabilitation Policy Framework clarifies the principles of social impact
mitigation in the process of addressing social impacts induced by project operations. It provides
guidelines to stakeholders participating in the rehabilitation/resettlement operations to ensure that
project affected persons (PAPs) will not be impoverished by the adverse social impacts. The basic
principles imply that PAPs should be compensated for loss of assets at replacement costs; be given
opportunities to share project benefits and be assisted in case of relocation or resettlement. Focus is
on restoring the income earning capacity of the affected persons by improving or at least sustaining
the living conditions prior to project operations or to resettlement.
The policy framework sufficiently places emphasis both on the compensation issues and the process
required for the implementation of resettlement/ displacement. According to this policy framework
a resettlement action plan (RAP) needs to be prepared only if the project affects more than 200
persons.
The ERA/RPF Policy Framework is in line with the eligibility criteria contained in OP 4.12 of the
World Bank’s operational manual on involuntary resettlement applied in determining eligible
persons for compensation. Accordingly, compensation for lost assets and replacement costs is made
for both titled and untitled land holders and property owners. In this project the absence of formal
18
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
titles will not be a barrier to resettlement assistance and rehabilitation. All PAP losing farmland,
buildings/houses, businesses, or sources of income will be compensated or rehabilitated according
to the types and amount of their losses (permanent or temporary) at replacement cost. The ERA/RPF
Policy Framework is in line with the eligibility criteria contained in OP 4.12 of the World Bank’s
operational manual on involuntary resettlement applied in determining eligible persons for
compensation. Accordingly, compensation for lost assets and replacement costs is made for both
titled and untitled land holders and property owners. In this project the absence of formal titles will
not be a barrier to resettlement assistance and rehabilitation.
2.1.8 Regional Governments
The relative roles of government at the different levels (Federal, Regional and Local) in terms of power
and duties, including fiscal matters, have been defined by the Constitution, Proclamations Nos. 33 of
1992, 41 of 1993, and 4 of 1995. Under these proclamations, duties and responsibilities of Regional
States include planning, directing, and developing social and economic programs, as well as the
administration, development, and protection of natural resources of respective regions. Most of the
road section which start from Modjo town to Tikur Wuha River fall in 5 Woredas of Oromia Regional
National states and Meki-Ziway road section traverse two woredas (Adami Tulu Gido Kombolcha and
Dugda). The Oromia region covers the larger parts of the country where large investment undertaken,
and land related consequence is becoming an outstanding economic, social, and political issues
demanded policy attention of the regional government. The regional state guided by the Federal
constitutions and proclamations (1161/2019). These proclamation (1161/2019) states, if the land
expropriation for public purpose is for investment, the people who are displaced may own shares from
the investment. According to the recent Oromia regional government policy direction, any investment
project should not dislocate people and if it happens, it should involve with inclusion and benefit
sharing to the PAPs and livelihood restoration has been the concern and given policy attention of the
region.
Oromia Regional State Revised Constitution (2001)
As per the Revised Constitution of the Oromia Regional State Article 40, the right to property is as
follows:
Every resident of the region has the right to own private property. This right shall include the right
to acquire, use and dispose of such property by means of sale to the limitations prescribed by law
in the public interest and in a manner compatible with the right of other persons.
Private property per Article 40, means any tangible or intangible product produced by the labor or
creativity or capital of an individual resident or association which enjoys juridical personality under
19
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
the law or in appropriate circumstances by communities especially employed by the law to own
property in common.
The right to ownership of rural and urban lands as well as all-natural resources is exclusively vested
in the state and the people of the Region. Land belongs to the people of the region and shall not be
subjected to sale or any other mode of transfer of ownership.
Any farmer of the region shall have the right to obtain without payment, the use of land and shall
not be dispossessed thereof; the details shall be specified by law.
Pastoralists of the region have the right to free land for grazing and cultivation as well as the right
is not evicted from the lands they traditionally hold; the details shall be specified by law.
Without prejudice to the public ownership of land, the government of the region may grant use of
land to investors based on payments to be fixed by the law.
Any person shall have the full right to the immovable property he builds and to the improvements
he makes on the land by labor or capital. This right shall include the right to alienate, bequeath and
where right of use expires, to remove his property or claim compensation for it.
The government of the region shall have the power to expropriate, in the public interest, private
property. In all such cases, it shall pay compensation in advance commensurate to the expropriate
property. In this case, the Woreda administration will be responsible for compensation in line with the
Regional and Federal policies and laws.
Oromia Rural Land Use and Administration Proclamation No. 130/2007
The Oromia Agricultural Rural and Development Bureau is responsible for the execution of this
Proclamation. According to the Proclamation, in the Oromia Regional State, men and women resident
of the region, whose livelihoods depend on agriculture, or who desire to live on agriculture, have the
right to rural land free of charge. Government and non-governmental organizations, private investors,
and social organizations have the right to obtain rural land as well. The rural community has the right
to access rural land for grazing, religious or spiritual places, water points and other social services.
Any peasant, pastoralist, semi pastoralist having the right to use rural land may get such land from
family by donation, inheritance, or from the government. User rights to rural land can only be
terminated if that land is required for “more important public uses”, according to Article 6, No. 10 if
land is taken for public use, the individual or organ who holds right to that land is entitled to
compensation for property and benefits lost. According to Article 6 No. 11, as far as possible, the
compensation should take the form of equivalent land.
The Oromia Agricultural Rural and Development Bureau has the responsibility for maintaining all data
regarding rural lands (size, use, fertility status, etc.), as well as surveying and preparing geo referenced
boundaries and maps. Holders of rural land are to be given a certificate of their landholding by the
20
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
same entity; these certificates can be issued in the name of both spouses in the case of joint holdings.
In the case of conflict or disputes related to land, such is to be submitted in the form of an application
to the Kebele Administration. The parties then choose two elders each for arbitration. The Kebele
Administration will require the selected elders to produce an arbitration result within 15 days. The
Woreda Court can hear a complaint related to such result if either party is unsatisfied. Appeals on the
decision of the Woreda Court can be sought in a higher court; the same can be appealed in the Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court’s is the final decision.
2.1.9 Resettlement Action Plan (RAP)
The first initial RAP document was prepared in 2015 and the update documents revised in 2019 and
the main report provided by ERA, social management team. The records contain different data and
information that can serve as a major source for identifying project impacts and compensation,
eligibility for the livelihood identification. The up dated RAP 2019 was reviewed from available
documents provided by ERA (Environment and social management team) and same report provided
at project sites. As to the information provided by the project sites, the RAP document was prepared
by section and a total of Seven RAP prepared. The RAP document for the main road line was prepared
in four section and other three RAP for Auxiliaries (query and borrow sites and Working sites). The
RAP update documents prepared identified 1070 Project affected households (PAHs). In addition, the
RAP addendum prepared indicated additional 778 PAPs and the total 1848 project affected peoples.
CHAPTER THREE: ELIGIBILITY AND INCLUSION CRITERIA
Determining eligibility criteria and identification of project affected households or a person is the first
and most important steps for livelihood need assessment and subsequent livelihood restoration
planning. The decision and planning at this stage determine the overall work process. In principle,
resettlement Action plan and livelihood restoration planning (RLP) are interrelated activities. The RAP
is the base for the need assessment and planning for the livelihood restoration. The RAP should have
been used on total land owned and land lost and identify PAPs who lost greater than 20% of their
farmland. However, due to the nature of the road project, alignment may change, and PAPs may
change. Hence, list of PAPs compensation paid will be used to get actual PAPs with corresponding
land lost. Therefore, based on successive discussion, consensus reached to use compensation payment
data sources rather than resettlement action plan (RAP) documents. The list of people collected
compensation with corresponding actual land lost and amount of compensation paid each PAPs
expected to be provided by ERA right of ways. The consultant will make possible effort and analyze
the data and conduct census survey to identify eligible PAPs. After determining basis of data sources,
the next action will be to set eligibility criteria. At the initial stage of this inception report, it needs to
21
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
establish and agree on criteria that help to identify eligible PAPs to be covered by the livelihood
restoration plan. It is required to set different eligibility criteria depending on the source livelihood
system like those living on farmland and lost larger portion (greater than 20%) of their farmland; those
living on non-farm/off farm activities and lost their living sources like shopping, hotel/restaurants in
near urban areas and the vulnerable groups like disabled, old aged etc. It therefore requires setting clear
criteria in identifying eligible PAPs for the LRP. Accordingly, the following eligible criteria are
established in identifying the PAPs categorized under three groups.
Table 2: Eligibility criteria
(PAPs) Criteria Means of verification
Land based PAPs who >20% of their farmland lost and/or grazing land loss PAPs and those paid
lost greater compensation payment with
than 20% of corresponding actual land lost size
their
farmland and Interview the person for total land
or grazing parcel within the road corridor
land as
livelihood
Woreda Land data base and land
sources book/land certificate on total land
holding size and land parcel
affected
Non land PAPs who lost Loss of livelihood sources like shops, market shades, Restaurants, Interview with PAPs and key
based other Non-land Hotels and other non-land livelihood and economic asset as income
informant interview and witness
Livelihood sources
loss from neighbor groups; Project
Right of ways staffs at field office;
Kebele and committee approval
Vulnerable Vulnerable Consider disproportion impact due to age, sex, disability, etc. Interview and observation
groups and people women and women‐headed households who lost their livelihood Kebele assistance
with special or income sources.
needs
Elderly aged 70 years or over who have no care and support and
lost their land or other livelihood sources,
Persons with disabilities and/or ill health, people affected by
HIV/ AIDS and other chronic diseases that constrain their ability
to work, and lost their land/economic property or are negatively
impacted by the project
CHAPTER FOUR: CONSULTATION
4.1 Consultation with PAPs
The planning of livelihood restoration interventions requires direct consultation with the PAPs where
the affected people fully informed and closely consulted on the level of the project impacts, assesses
on their livelihood needs and livelihood restoration options. Consultation and participation of PAPs
in livelihood enables the opportunity to identify their needs and available options for their livelihood
restoration. The consultation was conducted by holding public meetings in each kebeles. Project
affected peoples (PAPs) are thoroughly consulted on the impact of the road project and on the way
forward for their livelihood restoration plan based on their preference needs. The consultation enabled
22
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
PAPs to share information on the project impacts, their livelihood schemes and proposed LRP. The
PAPs are informed about the LRP and openly discussed on their livelihood needs and LRP to improve
their livelihoods restoration. The public consultations are conducted in each kebele and at different
dates and places and at least one consultation conducted in each kebele. The consultation was made
on major points of issues related to LRP for participation in their need assessment and workable LRP
preparation. The consultation conducted in each kebele (15) and two link road towns. The total
number of participants in each kebele varies from 11-25 and total of 246 project affected people (PAPs)
were participated in all the kebeles.
Table 3; Consultation and Number of participants by kebele and sex
No Date Number of
Total
participants
Kebele
Mal Femal
Total
e e
I Ademi Tullu Jiddo
Kombolcha
(ATJK) Woreda
1 Warja Woshugula 8/12/2020 10 6 16
2 Wolin Bulaa 13/12/2020 7 5 12
3 Naggaling 21/12/2020 9 3 12
4 Elka Chelamo 31/11/2020 12 6 18
5 Abine Germama 10/12/2020 8 5 13
II Dugda woreda
6 Tepho Choroke 28-12-2020 9 5 14
7 Dodota Dembel 22-12-2020 9 4 13
8 Wayyo Gabriiel 26/12/2020 12 7 19
9 Jawe Boffo 27/12/2020 8 5 13
10 Abono Gabriel 12/12/2020 10 6 16
11 Edo Gojola 15/12/2020 11 5 16
12 Giraba Korke Adii 17/12/2020 11 6 17
13 Haxe Leman 20/12/2020 9 6 15
14 Oda Bokota 23/12/2020 7 6 13
15 Tuchi Dambal 19/12/2020 8 6 14
Ziway link road 27/12/2020 9 6 14
Meki link road 25/12/2020 8 3 11
Total 157 90 246
Source: Census survey, November, 2020
The consultations with PAPs groups aims to discuss and share knowledge on several issues related the
road project social impacts and benefits payment of compensation for affected properties and other
related rehabilitation measures. as well as the views and opinions of the PAPs towards the effort for
need assessment and LRP. The consultation was held in presence of kebele leaders and each individual
open to give their ideas, suggestions, Questions, and fear on the implementation of the road project.
The consultation conducted in parallel session of the household survey, and at least one or more
23
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
consultation session conducted in each of the project affected kebeles. The detail summery of the
consultation result is discussed in the last end of this report. The consultation main points summarized
here under that follows.
Road project impacts as reflected by PAPs
As pointed by PAPs, construction of Lot-II (Meki-Zeway) road and Modjo-Hawassa express road in
general contributed for the country at large and there could be high potential for growth and
development for their local areas in trade and businesses activities, and improved linkages between
urban and rural areas. Nevertheless, the PAPs also reflected the negative aspects and expressed several
issues and complaint.
According to some PAPs, the road project resulted high flooding as example Elka Chelamo kebele and
large parts of their land remained out of use and remained economic not useful and wasted for which even
compensation was not paid to them.
As to the other PAPs groups, complaints that, the borrow pits and working sites supposed to restore in
four years period but excavated 3-6 meter and remained abandoned without restore their land.
During the consultation PAPs’ mainly raises low and inadequate compensation and deterioration of their
livelihoods.
Financial compensation alone not helped them due to escalating price and inadequate compensation fund
for replacement and suggested activity-based livelihood instead of cash disbursement.
Inadequate compensation that not commensurate their economic loss.
Some of PAPs pointed fully lost their land and other mentioned as their remaining land economically not
useful and no effort yet for land replacement or others livelihood restoration schemes.
Construction of the road divided their farmland and required additional time and cost to manage at
different parcel land or remain uncultivated and not economically useful for them.
Working sites including borrow pits were supposed to be used for four years and then after to be restored
to the previous agriculture farm. However, in some area deep cut at the borrow pits, remained open and
not used for farming and may not easily recover to produce economic crops that contributed additional
economic loss.
Farming is major occupation and majority needs land-based restoration (land replacement or additional
livelihood sources) that compensate their economic loss. However, land is not available in their kebele or
other neighbor kebele and suggested other non-livelihood schemes.
Farmland reduced and their income reduced greatly by more than 50% and needs support for improved
farm practice that can sufficiently increase productivity.
Some PAPs suggested business opportunities which are deemed to be feasible both in their project area
that includes agriculture input (improved seed and farming practices; Livestock farming; dairy farm,
fattening and poultry production. Under the non-land-based interventions, they suggested to be involved
24
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
in urban based economic activities, like cattle and shoats marketing, transport services, retail market and
shops, etc.
Some of them purchased land in urban by compensation received and found inadequate for
constructing house on it.
Some of them constructed house in rural and other bought transport service like Bajaj and have resource
to contribute for the LRP
On the other hand, others also expressed their impoverishment after the road expropriated their land and
coping though daily labour called “Journoata” and no asset to contribute, high risk for their survival and
waiting for the government support and urged implementation of the LRP,
Further indicated their fear and doubt on the LRP to be realized and less likely implemented due to the
bureaucratic structures and bottle neck at all level.
Views of PAPs about the LRP
During the consultation, it was noted from different perspective that awareness of PAPs about LRP is
very low. Most of the PAPs raises inadequate compensation and all their discussion gear toward the
past inadequate compensation issues even if checklist question raised to discuss on their future
livelihood restoration plan. In one way or the other compensation and LRP is complementary like
extension of the other for wellbeing improvement in different approach. Thus, based on the
consultation, views of PAPs regarding compensation and LRP pinpointed in summary as that follows.
During the consultation PAPs’ mainly raises low and inadequate compensation and deterioration of their
livelihoods. One of the causes for low compensation was due to change in proclamation. The Oromia
Regional State Revised Constitution revised land exportation and proclamation on compensation in year
2000/01. The new proclamation resulted change in the number of years for compensation from 10 to 15
years. The LOT2 road project compensation payment effected in previous proclamation and
compensation computed for 10 years income instead of the current proclamation that consider
compensation and income estimate for 15 years that resulted low compensation estimate.
Inadequate compensation that not commensurate their economic loss and expect the LRP to contribute
their livelihood restoration in place
They inadequate awareness and knowledge in compensation money management and unwise use of
compensation fund utilization and of course some also used wisely like purchase and construction of
houses in nearby towns areas. Some of them purchased land in urban by compensation received, but
unable construct house on it due to inadequate compensation
Financial compensation alone not helped them due to escalating price and inadequate compensation fund
for replacement and suggested activity-based livelihood instead of cash disbursement.
The PAPs suggested business opportunities which are deemed to be feasible in their area that includes
agriculture input (improved seed and farming practices; Livestock farming; dairy farm, fattening and
25
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
poultry production. Under the non-land-based interventions, they suggested to be involved in urban based
activities, like cattle and shoats marketing, transport services, retail market and shops, etc.
During the consultation PAPs further indicated their fear and doubt that, the LRP less likely to be realized
and implemented due to the bureaucratic structures and bottle neck.
The PAPs well appreciate the idea and the way forward in LRP, and despites all the challenges and
constraints, and eager to see the LRP realized and urged for implementation of the LRP.
4.2 Consultation with stakeholders
In addition to the public consultation, consultation and key informant interview have been held with
woreda, kebele structures and other institutions that includes woreda Administration officials, woreda
sector offices and kebele level structures and other institutions. The detail stakeholders’ interview
result proved in the annex part. This section highlights major consultation results that mainly pinpoints
on the views, concerns, and outcomes of the stakeholders consultations.
Ademi Tullu Jiddo Kombolcha and Dugda Woreda Administration: consultation was made with the
two Woreda administration. The two Woredas key informants interview expressed the road project caused
farmland and graze land loss and economic impacts on the lives of project affected people. The issues of
inadequate compensation and reduced livelihood raised on various meeting occasion. As to the views of
the woreda administration, compensation like direct cash disbursement has not helped and will not help
and activity-based livelihood support is the preferred approach to ensure sustainable livelihood schemes.
As to the woreda administration the LRP is well appreciated, but late for study and implementation to
realize. During the need assessment, the two woreda administration highly cooperative and expressed
their commitment to mobilize the sector offices and the Kebele administration in the concrete
implementation of the LRP.
Meki & Ziway town administration: According to the town administration, the link road project to their
town aligned along the existing road and less likely impact on economic livelihood of their towns. Meki
town administration provided land in town area for about 48 PAPs affected their farmland. They indicate
compensation already paid and ready to cooperate for livelihood implementation in providing marketplace
if budget for market shed construction is readily provided.
Agricultural and Rural Land Administration: The road project traverses many rural kebeles and
majority of proposed LRP are agriculture related and hence agriculture and rural land administration is one
of the important and major stakeholders in many aspects. Thus, an interview was held with the two woreda
agriculture and land administration office that discussed on various issues of land expropriation process;
land holding size and proposed agriculture related LRP. The woreda rural administration office is one
involved land measurement and land expropriation committee and one to be most relevant sector office
26
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
because the business enterprises preferred by the PAHs demand agriculture-based activities and requires
the technical and other support from this sector. Moreover, proposed livelihood restoration still needs land
in rural or nearby towns as may be required and the rural land administration provide joint decision on
piece of land from existing open space areas and has showed willingness to cooperate as far as the resources
available in their hand.
Oromia Saving and Credit Association (OCSA); Rural financial providers is one of the most important
in business operation. Although, the proposed LRP has earmarked budget allocation, additional budget
may be required by PAPs to for business expansion and ensure sustainable financial sources. The Oromia
Saving and Credit Association (OCSA) operate in both woredas that provides services such as loans, skill
trainings for business development and management. The association also works with other sector offices
to recover target groups from natural or other shocks due to due to development-induced displacement or
other factors. However, during the field study the operational status and coverage of the credit service was
at low level due to shortage of budget for funding the needy farmers financial credit requirements.
The OCSA in partner with woreda micro enterprise development will provided skill trainings, business
development plans associated with credit services could be provided for PAPs to re-establish their
livelihood.
Kebele Administration: Both FGD and KII conducted in each kebele as lower stakeholders in terms
government structure. The kebele cabinet and management team including Kebele Development office and
development agents are the lower-level stakeholders to implement the proposed action plans. During the
need assessment kebele administration very well cooperatives in identifying Pas groups, arranging meeting
and similarly willing to involve/assist in coordination and mobilization of the affected people for their
livelihood development activities. The Kebele administrations and development agents are willing and
committed to cooperate with Woreda sector offices and other institutions.
Project Affected Households (PAHs): Both FGD and KII also conducted with PAPs groups in each
kebele. The majority have similar reflection, that dissatisfactions and complaints due to inadequate
compensation, high escalating living cost and deteriorating of their livelihood situation. The consultation
conducted with implementing stakeholders and PAPs groups. The issues discussed with PAPs mainly
pointed on the process of land acquisition, level/extent of project impacts and views on LRP and others.
Process of land acquisition: The detail process of land acquisition is not part of this assignment.
However, it is important to indicate basic information in the process as it helps to understand the cause
of the project impact and whether mitigation and learning lesson from the implementation process.
27
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Majority of the land acquisition and compensation paid in previous proclamation that determines
compensation at low unit rate computed for ten years. The compensation amount varies due to change of
previous proclamation by new proclamation (1161/2020) and regulation (472/2020) effective 27 July
2020.
Regarding land acquisition and process, the project right of ways (ROWs) pointed the process of land
acquisition pass through long process of land measurement on each parcel land in the presence of
established committee and the landowners.
Compensation was paid to project affected people and the good experience is that husband and wife open
joint Bank account. However, adequate training was not given on awareness of compensation fund
management and some expended on nonproductive uses and impoverished their economic livelihoods
system. It is also noted there are also other PAPs group used for economic recovery and some of them
invested in replacement of their houses and others purchased transport service (cart, Bajaj) and farm
inputs.
As to some PAPs viewpoint, the process of land acquisition in land measurement has not considered remained
land that damaged and remained non-economic and wasted due to the project. On the other hand, the right of
ways (ROWs) section of the road project indicates land is appropriately measured and working areas delineated
within the demarcated boundary. However, do not concern for the remain land parcel whether economically
useful or not. Thus, from the consultation, after expropriation of the required land and paid compensation for
the same land size, the remaining land is not paid compensation and not considered whether economically useful
to the land holders.
28
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
4.3 Summary of Consultation results
Based on the consultations made with different groups major points on the views, concerns and
recommendations of stakeholders pinpointed as and summarized below:
Views on the concept and essence of LRP:
In general, as reflected by the majority PAPs groups, the concept of LRP to improve their livelihood and
activity-based budget allocation instead of cash disburse is well appreciated and accepted by the PAPs
groups
Discussion was held in each kebele on potential economic livelihood options in each kebeles and
identified existing economic resources including land/agriculture based and the non-land economic
activities. The primary occupation for majority of the Pap's is land and agriculture based and large parts
of livelihood agriculture and livestock related activities (agriculture input support; small scale irrigation;
livestock fattening, and the non-land-based livelihood identified includes like grain trade marketing and
transport service.
Concern/issues and opinion of PAPs and stakeholders for the way forward
Flooding and indirect impacts of the projects: As pointed by some PAPs like in Elka Chelamo kebele
and others, the construction of road project has caused high flooding and damaged large land area of the
other community groups and reduced production of PAPs and the other neighbor communities. As
revealed during discussion, although repeated effort and reported the problem to the woreda and project
contractor indicated as their voice was not heard. During the study period the road project was about on
completion stage and PAPs suggested the contractor to correct the problem before handing over the road
project.
Inadequate compensation and deteriorating livelihoods: As pointed in the preceding
section/paragraph, PAPs repeatedly raise low and inadequate compensation and deterioration of their
livelihoods. One of the causes for low compensation was due to change in proclamation. The Oromia
Regional State Revised Constitution revised land exportation and proclamation on compensation in year
2000/01. The new proclamation resulted change in the number of years for compensation from 10 to 15
years. The LOT2 road project compensation payment effected in previous proclamation and
compensation computed for 10 years income instead of the current proclamation that consider
compensation and income estimate for 15 years that resulted low compensation estimate.
Inadequate compensation that not commensurate their economic loss and expect the LRP to contribute
their livelihood restoration in place
High budget expectation and Unmet promises: The PAPs budget expectation for compensation and
livelihood is very high and complaint. As reflected by PAPs complaint as their voice was not heard
and what promised is not practically provided like water and social service and their farmland was
taken with many premises, but less the premises likely implemented as promised.
29
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Fear and doubt on LRP implementation: From their earlier experiences fear and concern and doubt
that the LRP may not be fully implemented due to bureaucratic structures at various levels. In this
regard, the consensus was that LRP will be implemented with the full support and commitment of
sectors and offices. In this regard, concerned partners take a spearheading role in the implementation
of the action plan while sector offices at Woreda level oversee the daily progresses of the action plan.
Low and Inadequate budget for the LRP: As reflected by the PAPs the concept of LRP to improve
their livelihood and activity-based budget allocation instead of cash disburse is well appreciated and
accepted by the PAPs groups. However, their concerns were about the amount of budget to be
allocated and assets to be mobilized for restoring their livelihoods. Most of PAHs raises low
compensation and the proposed LRP budget for livelihood restoration may not offset their respective
livelihood economic losses. In this regard, explained that the preparation of the livelihood restoration
actions will largely consider the scope of impacts mainly size of land loss and income loss, number
of dependents, loss of income, degree of vulnerabilities and their proposed livelihoods and the LRP
budget proposal has taken into consideration. Detailed considerations of such factors could help to
proportionate the impacts on each of the PAHs and improve their livelihood. Overall, the
implementation of these agreed points would help to for proportionate budget share allocation among
PAPs.
Meki & Ziway Road link: Meeting was held with PAPs along the Meki & Ziway road link. As
explained by the PAPS it was initially gravel road with 30-meter width. The road link expanded along
the previous roadway to 90m width and relatively not caused full displacement of people and partly
affected our economic livelihoods and other property. Regarding the benefit it is good that asphalt
construction contributes our area development in many aspects, business will grow, value of houses
increases and contributes improved living environment and development. The PAPs indicate as their
economic livelihood affected by the road projects like grain store/grain mills and shops affected and
complaint inadequate compensation.
According to the tow town administration view, the road is already existing and only little expansion
about 10 meter that affected front parts of their house. The houses affected are partial and less likely
full demolition. As to the town administration viewpoint, the area is given for residential and not business
area not provided replacement land or working areas or market sheds.
PAPs were asked regarding their occupation and need for their livelihood restoration, and some of them
have big farm in rural and also grain trade in town and their occupation mix of both land and non-land
based business (Farming mainly grain and vegetables production) ; grain mills and grain trade, small
shops, hotel/ restaurants and small tea and coffee houses.
Mode of organization (Individual and group): one of the concern for livelihood restoration There
are advantages and disadvantages in (group or individual) modes of organization and one of the
30
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
concern for livelihood restoration. The proposed LRP budget worked for each individual and open
for individual or group depending on their interest by merging their allocated budget to avoid conflict
to the maximum possible. Most of the PAHs preferred to work on individual basis instead of group
and other arrangements. On the other hand, the interviews held with the sector offices suggest group
work and willingness to facilitate those who would prefer to work in groups. The group based
approach is important for resource sharing, monitoring and evaluation of implementation and
outcomes. Finally, the budget allocated for each PAPs to be manageable for both individual and
group arrangements which will be decided on their interest in the courses of implementation of the
livelihood activities. The concerns and problem expected in group conflict should be treated and
solved amicably through grievance redress committee (GRM).
Labour and resource contribution: It was realized that development project and road project in
particular requires high capital cost. However, capital is limited and budget for LRP and
implementation of the LRP requires mobilization of resources mainly land, labor and finance. Among
others, agreement was reach with the PAHs where they will commence their business activities on
their landholdings or land rent share cropping and the non-land may access plot of land in nearby
towns and group resource share. The implementation of the business will be managed by the labor
contributions of the PAHs themselves through the creation of skill trainings from the sector offices.
Social infrastructures: The PAHs also questioned the basic social services provisions promised to
be delivered by the road project. These includes the employment opportunities to be created by the
road project mainly for the Youths of PAHs and their household members. Majority of PAPs
complaints that the road project job creation was not as expected and less likely for people who
have lost their land due to the road project. The sector offices had expressed the presence of similar
concerns, and as much as possible local people and youths of PAHs should be given job opportunities
in their capacities and even assist them in build capacity like training in driving license and employed
as drivers in the project.
According to stakeholders suggestion and view point, Modjo Hawassa express road way
Management expect to establish after completion of the road, and some amount of revenue from the
road income to be used for local social service development like water supply, and employment
opportunity to the people affected by the road project. The interviews made with the road project
contractor observed effort and commitments to provide water supply in some kebeles which is
expected to scale up such p [practice in the future road project management. As observed during
road construction, created job employment for local people, although limited in number of
employment. The express road management expected to promised to create employment
opportunities for local. The express road management should provide support for woreda and kebele
31
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
from the revenue income form the express road exert efforts to work on the expansions of
infrastructures water, schools and other social service improvement as suggested by the PAHs.
Awareness creation strategies: As the discussions held with the sector offices and PAPs groups
demonstrated the in previous compensation awareness creation was not adequate in addressing
displacement process, compensation and its benefits, as well as how to use compensation money for
productive investments. Learning from this, PAPs suggested there is a need to plan adequate and
practical training session and conduct thorough discussion with PAHS, their members and relevant
sector offices on the essence and objectives of the LRP so that it ensure sustainable livelihood for
their future.
Coordination of PAPS groups: In some kebeles PAPs are organized by kebele and appealing their
grievance to the woreda Grievance committee and ERA social management staffs. In order to
enhance their partnership, PAPs are in the process to establish subcommittee in each kebele and main
committee drawn from all the kebeles affected along the ways.
PAPs and Youths above 18 years: Although, the main target of LRP are the PAPs, they are much
concerned about their unemployed youths who directly or indirectly affected due to parents land loss.
The PAPs suggested employment for their youths in the project and also to participate and benefit
under the training and livelihood schemes. Accordingly, unemployed youths who are above 18 still
living with PAHs are proposed to be given training with PAHs and engage on the same livelihood
activity identified by the PAHs and gradually through mentor to initiate and develop their own
livelihood
Training and Capacity building; As raised by PAPs group fund disbursement alone may not help
and pointed training and awareness capacity before starting the implementation of the LRP. The
trainings focus should be awareness creation on the essence and aims of LRP, saving and financial
management and sustainable self-help livelihood development. The sector offices also realized the
importance of these trainings and willing to provide training capacity building in their capacity for
the PAHs. The trainings will be for PAHs, grievance redress committee and representatives of
relevant sector offices.
In general, the consultation result revealed both positive and negative impacts of the road project. The
public and stakeholders consultation participants indicates the affected the economic livelihood of the
project affected peoples and compensation paid was inadequate and deteriorated the livelihood
sources. To this end, PAPs groups and stakeholders expect that implementation of the LRP is highly
important in improving their livelihood restoration. The PAPs and other stakeholders have the
opinion that implementation of the LRP will contributes improved livelihood for the PAPs and urged
implementation of the proposed action plan.
32
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
CHAPTER FIVE: FINDINGS OF THE NEED ASSESSMENT STUDY AND SURVEY RESULT
5.1 Survey framework
The Meki –Ziway road project covers 37.1km distance and the road projects traverse 15 rural kebeles
and road link to two towns (Meki and Ziway). Identifying the scope of impacts in land loss, income
loss is one of the scope task and this to be identified through census survey and other complementary
methods. The census survey also required to understand PAHs’ socio economic and demographic
characteristics, income, livelihoods sources, livelihood needs for their livelihood restoration and the
results of the survey also used as an input for the LRP.
5.1.1 Demographic Characteristics (Number of households, Family size and PAPs Population)
Number of Households: The livelihood restoration focuses to economic livelihood affected and
excluding graveyard and other non-economic affected, and a total 1641PAHs physically and economic
affected due to the Lot2 road section. The road project traverse rural and town road link and impact
rural land based impacted and non-land impacted at the two road links towns (Meki & Ziway) who
were physically and economically affected due to the construction of the road project. Accordingly,
the survey identified and covered a total 1641 PAHs that includes rural land based (1530PAHs); non-
land affected total 111PAHs at the two road link town. The non-land impacted a total 111PAPs and
these includes Meki town (73PAHs) and Ziway town (38PAHs). Based on the survey detail profile of
each PAHs are indicated in separate annex in excel sheet. (Annex 1)
Family size and population: The religion composition of the road project corridor largely Muslim
and observed polygamy marriage structure where one male coupled with more than one wives/spouse.
In community were one male coupled two or more wife it is expected high family size. Based on the
survey, the PAPs and total population including family members is 12,454 comprising 6245 males
(50.1%) and at total of 6209 female family members that accounts is (49.9%). The average family
size indicate 7.5 and family size distribution pattern depicted in the report. .
Sex Composition: Understanding sex composition and in terms of male and women headed
households is important in determining livelihood adopted for male and female-headed households.
The survey focus was economic and physical impacts of the project, accordingly identified, and
covered 1641 households from which 1185 male and 432 women that women accounts about 26.3%
of the PAHHs. The sex composition of PAHHs by kebele indicated in the following table.
33
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Table 4: Summery of survey ( PAHs) by woreda/kebele and sex composition
No Woreda/Kebele Male Female Total
I Ademi Tullu Jido Kombolcha
(ATJK) woreda
1 Abine Germama 125 42 167
2 Warja Woshugula 83 32 115
3 Wolin Bulaa 46 22 68
4 Naggaling 36 3 39
5 Elka Callamo 100 51 151
II Dugda woreda
6 Abono Gabriel 25 8 34
7 Dodota Dambal 56 22 78
8 Edo Gojola 49 13 62
9 Giraba Korke Adii 186 67 256
10 Haxe Leman 27 5 32
11 Jawe Bofo 37 20 57
12 Oda Bokota 78 31 110
13 Tepo Choroke 100 37 140
14 Tuchi Dambal 90 26 118
15 wayo Gabriel 75 26 102
Ziway/Batu town link road 18 8 38
Meki town link road 54 19 73
Total 1185 432 1641
Age Composition: The age composition is also important in determining vulnerability status, which is
one of the supplementary criteria for budget allocation. Understanding the age is also important
demographic variable in terms of livelihood restoration needs and planning the LRP activities. The
livelihood preference needs and implementation of the livelihood business depend on the ages of PAHs.
Based on the survey result, the PAPs age distributions indicate 6.3% are below 30 years and 157 PAPs are
above 70 years. The majority (27%) are in the range of 40-50 age group.
PAHs Age distribution
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Below 30 years 104 6.3 6.3 6.3
30-40 418 25.5 25.5 31.8
40-50 449 27.4 27.4 59.2
50-60 294 17.9 17.9 77.1
60-70 219 13.3 13.3 90.4
Above 70 Years 157 9.6 9.6 100.0
Total 1641 100.0 100.0
34
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
PAPs whose age categories were above 70 years old aged unable to work and instead of livelihood
activity social support for their livelihoods as they could not be able to engage in productive activities.
Those PAPs whose ages were in the productive age range, but unable to work due to chronic health ,
disabilities and other vulnerabilities needs to provide special support. The age distribution of PAPs
and family members indicates 41.4% below 18 years and age above 70 years accounts 3.5% of the
total population.
PAPs population age distribution
Age group Male Female Total %
Below 18 years 2462 2694 5156 41.4
18-30 1972 2100 4072 32.7
30-70 1436 1359 2795 22.4
70 and above 375 56 431 3.5
12454 100
Dependency Ratio: The number of dependent age below 18 years and age above 70 years added
together and the total dependent 5587 whereas the working age 18-70 years total 6867. The
dependency ratio computed number of dependent divides by working age and thus dependency ratio
will be 81.4%, which implies dependent population.
5.1.2 Religion, Marital Status and Family size
The majority of the survey PAHHs indicates married (82.9%); unmarried/single (1.4%); Divorce
(1.7%) and Widows (14.0%) and relatively high number of widows. The religion composition of the
road project corridor largely Muslim and observed polygamy marriage structure where one male
coupled with more than one wives/spouse.
MARITAL STATUS
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Married 1197 82.9 82.9
Unmarried/Single 20 1.4 84.3
Divorce 24 1.7 85.9
Widows 203 14.1 100.0
Total 1444 100.0
Missing System 197
Total 1641
5.1.3 Education
The level of education and educational profiles of PAHs in most case contributes skill and knowledge
to adopt the proposed livelihood scheme and business plan. It also helps engagements in training and
capacity building programs. Those PAHs and their members with relatively higher educational profiles
35
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
are to be identified for detail skilled, knowledge based trainings, and for those who have no education
or low education level practical based trainings is more important. Thus, the level of education, skills
and experience of PAHHs is important planning the livelihood option of the people. With regards to
the LOT2 rod projects, the survey covered rural and town area road link. The survey covered rural
(1532PAHs) and Town area link road (111PAHs) and majority (46.4%) of the PAHHs are illiterate;
Read/write (23.6%); Primary (22.6%); Secondary (5.6%); and 29 households (1.8%) attended grade
10 and above.
Table 5: PAHHs by Level of Education
Education level Frequency Percent
Illiterate 762 46.4
Read/Write 387 23.6
Primary (1-4) 371 22.6
Secondary (9-10) 92 5.6
Preparatory grade 10+ , TVET and colleges 29 1.8
Total 1641 100
5.1.4 Occupation and Economic activities
The road project traverse 15 rural kebele and two towns road link (Meki & Ziway). The rural kebeles
economic activities and occupation is primarily agriculture (crop production and livestock) as their
major livelihood sources.
Crop production
Agriculture related an activity (crop production and livestock) is the long life experience and livelihood
sources for majority of the people along the road corridor. Farmland is economic livelihood sources
for the rural kebeles. The major farm products are primarily vegetables (onion, tomatoes) and cereals
(wheat, teff, and barley), pulses (haricot bean) and others. Whereas projects affected in town along the
town road link have farm land in rural and also business in town and practice both farm and off farm
economic activities like grain marketing and other trade activities. In general, the occupation and
livelihood sources for majority (88%) is farm based crop production; livestock (7%) and other trade
and off farm activities (5%)
Agriculture related activities (crop production and livestock) is the long life experience and livelihood
sources not only rural kebeles, but also PAPs along the two town link roads have farm land in rural
and also engaged in non-land livelihood business in town. Agriculture production and productivity is
low due to various constraints mainly shortage and increasing cost of farm inputs; variability of
rainfall, decreased farm and grazing land and other factors. The crop production initially subsistence
and coupled with land loss and other factors deteriorating production, income and livelihoods sources.
36
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Livestock
Livestock rearing is secondary economic activity, which not only supplies farm power for crop farming
but also contributes cash and supplementary food sources. In addition to crop production, farmers rear
domestic animals like cattle, sheep, goats, poultry and equines. The livestock contribute major
livelihood for (7%) of the households. In general, livestock is an integral part of the farming system
in the project area and are economically complementary to crop production. Based on the available
Woreda data sources, the total livestock population in the two woredas provided in table that follows.
Table 6: Livestock population whiten the project woreda
Number of livestock by woreda
Type livestock
ATJK Dugda Total
Cattle 216,145 196,376 412,521
Goat 118,225 102,095 220,320
Sheep 37,550 53,288 90,838
Mule 2,880 2,090 4,970
Donkey 35,120 36,408 71,528
Horse 2,100 1,528 3,628
Poultry 115,230 85,136 200,366
Beehives 11,250 12,596 23,846
Total 538,500 489,517 1,028,017
Source; Woreda agriculture and Livestock development office of respective woredas.
Non-farm/off farm activities
The project corridor is accessible to nearby towns and strong rural-urban linkage in marketing, women
engage local cart transport and marketing of farm products. Some of the PAHs mainly in two of the
town road link engaged in business activities like grain trade and mill house, shops, hotel, coffee and
teahouses and others. The Projects affected peoples in town road link have also farmland in rural and
business in town and practice both farm and off farm economic activities and 5% of the Households
engaged mixed economic activities as farmer traders and other off farm/nonfarm activities.
5.1.5 Livelihood and Income sources
As indicated in preceding section, the road travers and working sites and the major project impact was
rural kebele where the road traverse and working sites areas. In the rural agriculture (crop production
and livestock) is the major occupation and livelihood and income source of the people. The major cash
income derived from Pulse crops mainly hair coat bean and Soya bean; vegetables (onion, tomatoes)
and other crops like (Wheat, Maize, and others).
37
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
The major cash income derived from crops mainly teff, Wheat and vegetables (onion, tomatoes) and
pulse crops. Agriculture production and productivity is low due to various constraints lack of farm
inputs and their farmland loss due to the road project and initially subsistence agriculture and coupled
with land loss and other factors deteriorating production, income and livelihoods sources. Thus, based
on the survey result, the annual income for 27% of the PAHHs is below birr 20,000 and the average
birr 18,167 before the project. The income after the project was also covered in the survey and
expected annual income after the project analyzed from the PAPs viewpoint. The average annual
income before and after the project for the lower income group decline from birr 18,167 to 14,607 and
also decline for the other income groups.
Annual income before and after the project (Birr/PAPs)
Annual Income #PAHHs % Annual total Averag Annual total Average
ranges (Birr/PAHHS) income before e income after annual
annual the project income after
income the project
before
the
project
Below 20000 413 27 7,504,688.56 18,167 6,034,219.70 14,607
20000-50000 490 32 22,514,065.67 45,985 18,102,659.10 36,974
50000-80000 398 26 19,178,648.53 48,212 15,420,783.68 38,765
80000-120000 153 10 13,341,668.54 87,200 10,727,501.69 70,114
120000-300000 46 3 10,840,105.69 236,168 8,716,095.12 189,893
>300000 31 2 10,006,251.41 327,002 8,045,626.27 262,929
Total 1530 100 83,385,428 67,046,886
Source: PAPs, Survey result, November/ December, 2020
Based on the survey data above, the total income before the project is birr 83,385,428 and the total
income after the project comes 67,046,886 and the mean average annual income before and after the
project decline from 54,500.00 to birr 43,821.5 and decline by about 20% that resulted significant
income/livelihood decline after the project.
Based on the discussion and PAPs survey result, the food security situation also decline after the
project. The discussion food security status of the community in the project affected woredas shows
that the food security status of the PAPs and their HHs members is impacted by the implementation of
38
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
the project, both in terms of feeding frequency and food diet. As to the reflection from the PAPs,
before the project food situation was better for majority of the PAPs, and 64% had three meals per day
throughout all seasons of the year and the remaining 34 % reduced their meals to two or less per day
after the road project. This indicates a significant decrease in number of meals per day and worsened
food security after the project. As coping strategy and mechanism, some works as labour works and
nearby town market activities.
5.2 Road Project Impacts
The Modjo-Hawassa covers total 202.47 km road project and the LOT2 of Meki Ziway road section
has a total length of 37.1 km. The road project extends 90m meter width along the main road
alignment. It has also other different components and structures that require land for the borrow pit
site, quarry site, camp sites, access road, dump sites and project affected peoples are impacted or
likely to be impacted by any combination of these different components along the right of ways
(ROWs) and working sites.
5.2.1 Land based Economic affected
The road project directly and indirectly affects 15 rural kebeles whose livelihood depends on subsistence
agriculture (crop and livestock) as major sources of living and also two road link towns whose livelihood
also both rural farm and urban small business enterprises. The road projects caused land loss due to the
expropriation of farmland and grazing land. From the total land based affected 1530PAPs, a total of
571PAHs affected land loss greater than 20%. As a result, farmland size and graze land reduced and
resulted reduced crop production and declined livestock and impacted loss of economic livelihood and
income loss. The crop production initially subsistence and coupled with land loss and other factors
deteriorating production, income and livelihoods sources. Based on the survey production and income
reduced by 50% due to the road project land expropriation. The survey identified the degree of impact
based on the land size expropriated and total land-holding size of each PAHHs. Accordingly, 959 PAHs
(62.7%) affected land loss below of 20%; whereas 571 PAHHs (37.3%) affected land loss greater than
20% and these are eligible for livelihood restoration plan.
Table 7: Land based impacts Land Loss greater than 20%
Number of PAHs Percent
Number of PAHs Land loss below 20% 959 62.7
Number of PAHs Land loss Greater than 20% 571 37.3
Total 1530 100.0
Land loss by level of Impacts
39
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
The survey identified the degree of impact based on the land size expropriated and total land-holding
size of each PAHHs. From the total land based impacted 1530 PAHs, 959 PAHs(62.7%) affected land
loss below 20%: 311PAHs (20.3%) affected land loss (20-40%); 158PAHs(10.3%); 63PAHs(4.1%);
39PAHs(2.5%) affected (80-100%)
Land
Land Valid Cumulative loss
loss Land loss (%) No of PAPs Percent Percent Percent >20%
Valid Land loss<20% 959 62.7 62.7 62.7 -
20-40% 311 20.3 20.3 83.0 311
40-60% 158 10.3 10.3 93.3 158
60-80% 63 4.1 4.1 97.5 63
80-100% 39 2.5 2.5 100.0 39
Total 1530 100.0 100.0 571
From the total 571 PAHs registered land loss greater than 20%, 311 PAHHs ( 54.5%) affected land
loss ( 20-40%); 158 PAPs (27.3%) affected land loss (40-60%); 63 PAHs (11%) affected land loss
(60-80%) and 39 PAHs (6.8%) affected land loss (80-100%).
Number of PAHs Percent
20-40% 311 54.5
40-60% 158 27.7
60-80% 63 11.0
80-100% 39 6.8
Total 571 100.0
The road project working areas and main road alignment divided their farm land which many of the
PAHHs considered their land wasted for which compensation was not paid. The PAPs were asked
whether remaining land is economically useful or not and based the survey result and about 16.7%
(95PAPs) replied as the remaining land is not economically useful and majority expressed full loss of
their farm or grazing land. Crop production and livelihood activities greatly reduced due to expropriation
of farm land and grazing lands. Compared to the previous, indicated their production reduced by 50% and
more and significantly affected their income level. Although, compensation paid, majority of them showed
dissatisfaction and inadequate to compensate land which is their long life for generation. Those people
displaced have not been given replacement land or other support assistant and indicated their living and
livelihood at risk of survival. The project affected also complain government bureaucracy and urged at
least implementation of the LRP.
40
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
5.2.2 Land holding size, Land affected and Degree of impacts
The survey covered PAPs land information explicitly (number of land parcels; total holding size, land
size within the road corridor and land affected). Effort was made to collect total number of land plot;
total land holding size, land size within the road corridor and land affected by the road. The minimum
and maximum land plot for household is one and maximum 6 land plots. The minimum and maximum
land holding size is 0.25-25 ha and the average land holding size 2.1 ha. The minimum and maximum
average land in the road corridor is 0.18-6ha and average 1.08ha. The minimum and maximum land
expropriated due to the road project range 0.006-3.05ha and average affected land is 0.35 ha.
Table 8: Land holding and land loss due to project (in hectares)
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Number of land plot 1524 1 6 2.93183 1.641032
Total land hold size (ha) 1520 .0250 25.0000 2.186057 1.6875877
Total Land size within the Road 1530 .18000 6.00000 1.0853883 .68262880
boundary
land area taken by the road 1530 .000600000 3.056000000 .35103793929 .35336
5.2.3 Non Land Impact/Road link Impacts
The LOT2 road section projects traverse 15 rural kebeles and has road link with two towns (Meki and
Ziway). Meki road link: The Meki Link road alignment is along the previous existing gravel road
way constructed (1997) that connect Meki with Mechara/Guraghe zone of SNNPRS. The existing
road had 30 meter width and the expressway road project made expansion on the existing 30 meter
width and house located along the road way partially affected and minimized full dislocation of people.
Based on the list of compensation payment data sources, 73 PAPs identified and paid compensation
along the Meki link road. According to the PAPs, the purpose and uses of the house affected largely
residential and some of the house affected used for multipurpose including residential and business
(mill houses, warehouses, shops). According to the town administration, the area along the road link
is given for residential and replied as it was not for business area. Whereas some of the PAPs indicate
use the house for millhouse and grain storage and have trade license for their business. According to
the town administration, only two houses that used to practice business and considered for land
replacement.
The Ziway link road was also constructed along the previous existing gravel road link along the way
to Ziway prison station. During the survey, the road link construction was underway and based on the
list of compensation payment data sources, a total of 38 PAPs identified who were paid or to be paid
compensation along the Ziway link road. According to the town administration, the purpose and uses
41
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
of the house affected largely residential whereas according to PAPs some of the house affected used
for multipurpose including residential and business (mill houses, warehouses, shops). According to
the town administration only two or three houses used to practice business identified and considered
as economic business identified for land replacement. However, the land replacement was not yet
completed. According to the town administration, the land use plan of the road project corridor area
affected was given for residential and property affected are not eligible to consider as economic
business enterprises.
5.2.4 Compensation and Utilization
Ethiopian Expropriation of Landholdings for Public Purpose and Payment Compensation
Proclamation No. 455/2005 declared that a person who lost a landholding because of an expropriation
is entitled to displacement compensation (monetary compensation) for his/her loss. This is in addition
to the compensation provided for the property previously situated on the land and the improvement
s/he brought about on the land. Accordingly, the total compensation paid indicates birr
560,992,074.3010 as per the available data sources as to the date of the survey period
(November/December 2020). The majority (90%) replied as compensation payment was not adequate
to replace their affected livelihood and property.
Table 9: Total compensation paid
Main alignment 193,557,581.7870
Access road 69,766,324.5629
Borrow pit 92,238,351.8511
Camp 3,389,927.6400
Sand & GP 5,972,836.4300
LINK Road 196,067,052.0300
Total 560,992,074.3010
Source:
The survey further asked saving amount from compensation or other owned financial amount at hand
to contribute for their livelihood. In this regard, concluded that some of PAPs mismanaged their
compensation for personal transitional consumption with less replacement of their property affected
and others have made some effort and owned some asset (house, Bajaj, motor bicycle, and vehicle,
etc.). The target beneficiaries were asked on the use and application of compensation fund as well as
saving, asset creation as a base for livelihood restoration effort. Based on the survey data, 19% of the
HHs used for transition consummation (food and other consumables) and others have used for land
rental and or purchase of other livelihood assent and the survey result indicated in table below.
Table 10: Purpose and use of compensation fund
42
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Purpose and Use of compensation fund
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Transition consumption 311 19.0 22.2 22.2
Rural land rent 200 12.2 14.3 36.5
Urban House construction 296 18.0 21.2 57.7
agriculture 308 18.8 22.0 79.7
Livestock 16 1.0 1.1 80.8
Motor bicycle 96 5.9 6.9 87.7
Cart 49 3.0 3.5 91.2
Baja/Vehicle 91 5.5 6.5 97.7
Petty trade 32 2.0 2.3 100.0
Total 1399 85.3 100.0
Non Response/Missing 242 14.7
Total 1641 100.0
Source: Survey result
5.2.5 Livelihood work place and mode of engagement (Individually or in Group basis )
The business organization modes of preferred management are either individual or groups. The
majority (90%) of the PAHHs prefers to undertake their livelihood activity individually and 10 %
preferred group work. Therefore, this LRP is prepared taking into account the preference of the PAPs
and the budget allocated for each Pap's that open for individual and grouping by merging their
allocated budget amount. The respondent was asked their preferred working place for undertaking
their livelihood restoration business activities. The project corridor has strong urban rural linkage and
those fully impacted and lost their farm preferred to settle their livelihood in urban within the
immediate nearest towns of Meki, Batu/Ziway, Bulbula, Arsi Negele. The experience and livelihood
basis for majority of PAPs used to depend on agriculture, which is land/farm, based long life livelihood
sources. Hence majority of PAPs preferred to engage in agriculture. To this end, PAPs preferred land
for land replacement, if possibly arranged. However, as discussed and confirmed by woreda and
kebele administration, excess land is not available to provide and suggested to enhance their livelihood
on the remaining land and other means like land rent and share cropping.
43
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
CHAPTER SIX: ELIGIBILITY AND LIVELIHOODS RESTORATION PLAN
6.1 ELIGIBILITY AND NEED ASSESSMENT SURVEY OF PAPS
For land-based impacts, land loss greater than 20% is the basic criteria for eligibility. The level of
land loss greater than 20% varies between PAPs. Hence the size of land loss, vulnerability (old
aged, disability and family size and number of dependent are used as proxy indicator for budget
allocation/destruction for each PAPs depending on the vulnerability context. The issues of
vulnerable people are given special consideration by the World Bank under its operational (Op 4.12)
as well as Ethiopian Social Protection Policy. In this document, the same national Policy has been
referred in identifying the vulnerable groups who need additional support due to dispossession of
their properties associated with the on-going road development activities. Vulnerability as one
eligibility criteria and people with one or more of the criteria indicated in preceding section are
considered as vulnerable groups identified who needs special support. Based on Ethiopia social
vulnerability indicators; ERA/RPF and the World Bank operational policy the criteria used in
identifying vulnerability includes;
Vulnerable PAPs with disabilities and physical unable to work
Elderly PAPs who have no care and support,
Women headed PAPs who have no care and support
PAPs in Sever illness due to HIV/AIDS and other chronic
As pointed in preceding section, the LOT2 road project impacts have both land and non-land
economic livelihood impacts, total 1641PAHs. Land loss greater than 20% is used as major criteria
in determining eligibility. Based on the land criteria of land loss greater than 20%, from the total
1530, a total of 571 PAPs have lost greater than 20% of their land holding size. And are found
eligible. These include 111 PAPs vulnerable groups and thus excluding vulnerable (111) from the
total 571 and a total 460 PAPs are eligible for land based impacted PAPs livelihood restoration
activity. Non-land impacted PAPs (Meki & Ziway road link) area a total of 18 PAPs identified
activity based package for their livelihood restoration. The total land based and non-land based
impacted PAPs for activity based livelihood restoration package will be 478 PAPs (460+18). The
detail number of PAPs and vulnerable groups are provided separately (Annex 2.10 and 2.13). The
summary on numbers of vulnerable groups and eligible PAPs for livelihood restoration is
presented in table below.
44
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Table 11: PAPs and LRP Eligibility
Description Number of PAPs
1 Land based impacts
Land based impact 1530
Non land based impacts 111
Total PAPs 1641
2 Land based impact
Land based impacts Eligible PAPs (Land loss <20%) including 959
vulnerable
Land based impacts Eligible PAPs (Land loss >20%) including 571
vulnerable
Total 1530
3 Land based Eligible PAPs (Land loss >20%) including 571
vulnerable
Less Vulnerable groups 111
PAPs (land based impacted) Eligible for LRP schemes 460
4 Non land impacted PAPs (Meki & Ziway road link 18
Number of Vulnerability type
Type of Vulnerability # VGs %
Old aged (above 70) 12 11
Widows/Female Headed Households 5 5
Physical disability 38 34
Chronic illness 56 50
Total 111 100
Summary
No Description Number of PAPs
PAPs (land based impacted) Eligible for livelihood schemes 460
Non land impacted PAPs (Meki & Ziway road link 18
Subtotal (Pap's for LRP activities) 478
Vulnerable (VGs) 111
Total PAPs to be addressed including (VGs) 589
Training and capacity building on LRP activities 478
Source: Census survey, November/December 2020
NB: The remain vulnerable groups (111PAPs) presumed unable to work and will be provided social
support
6.2 Livelihood Restoration Plan Formulation
The main basis for formulation of the income restoration plan is to enable PAPs to restore their
income or improve their standard of living through a set of integrated strategies and assistance for
sustainable livelihood schemes. Whereas, the vulnerable groups are those unable to work and in
45
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
addition to budget allocation for income loss, it is required to provide direct social and economic
support through existing social institutions. Initial training and support for unemployed youth of
PAPs are also considered in the plan. The plan has three major components:
I. The income restoration and improvement component for affected PAPs
II. Livelihood Restoration support for vulnerable PAPs groups
III. Training and capacity build for unemployed youths of PAPs
6.3 Criteria and consideration for livelihood package and Budget allocation
In planning the livelihood business, other selection criteria also considered including PAPs
preference need, skills and capacity, gender and equity; Vulnerable and support; availability of
budget and finance have been taken into consideration. The LRP fund expected to be financed from
government or other means, in whatever the case limited capital resource and on the other hand high
expectation from the PAPs side. The budget allocation tried to adjust and proposed fair, affordable and
to ensure livelihood restoration based on available resource and knowledge capacity building. The
survey indicated that the degree and level land loss/income loss impacts on PAHs due to the road project
varies depending on land size affected and type of the land use (farm/Grazing land). The road project
traverse rural kebeles and PAHs generating their livelihoods basically from farm land or grazing land
and assets developed on it. Therefore, the budget allocations of the restoration plan for each of PAHs
have considered some of the following criteria:
Amount of land taken: The amount of land lost varies from one household to another. The type
economic livelihoods affected are farm and grass/grazing land.
The PAPs profile in terms of age, education and skill, interest and objective conditions of
different categories of PAPs in terms of physical fitness and previous experience
Number of PAHs household members/dependents: PAHs with larger family sizes often face greater
degrees of shocks in trying to restore their livelihood activities and proportionate budget share
allocated
Proportionate income loss: Based on the woreda information and compensation data sources,
production/yield 40 quintal/ha and 15 years and the sales price (1500/Qt), the average annual per
hectare income loss is Birr 60,000 /ha whereas based on woreda information the annual income loss
for one hectare grass land estimated to birr 40,000.
Weighted average: For the purposes of analysis, the report considered the weighted mean of the
above three factors (land loss, Income loss and dependency) for each of the PAHs and the computed
an average for the three factors in allocating their budget share. This is just to indicate earmarked
46
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
possible budget closer budget estimate for that PAHs and the actual budget to be allocated based on
the cost of identified livelihood schemes.
Preferred livelihood needs/activities: In addition to the above factors, their LRP budget proposals
also considered the livelihood needs and cost that operate to restore their livelihood and their
members. The project traverse 16 rural kebeles and most PAHs had preferred agricultural activities
that justify agriculture their lifelong experiences and their skill and knowledge base most farmers
preferable needs in agricultural activities. Agriculture transformation though Vocational capacity
building including training, could transform affected person’s earlier experiences into more useful
productivities.
Labour and Local resource contribution: The LRP budget prepared based on detail cost items to
cover the livelihood activities. The presumption taken that labour and other resource contribution
encourage ownership and sustainable livelihood development. i.e., if one invests and contribute
labour and other resource from own source, it creates sense of ownership and reduce the budget
outlay which otherwise used for the project investment.
Analysis and availability of available economic resource potential mainly land and others
economic livelihood of the respective woredas and kebeles economic, financial, socio-cultural
viability income generating schemes as well as providing different options and choices;
Budget: Road project construction by itself is capital intensive. Capital/budget is scarce and
limited to finance such expensive development project and on the other hand high expectation of
PAPs to restore their economic livelihood loss. The views and concerns from both side taken into
consideration and proposed optimal budget that ensure sustainable livelihood sources for loss of
their economic livelihood sources and also anticipated to be affordable to finance by the
government treasure.
The budget and Costs for LRP include purchase of alternative income-generating assets, measures
for training, agricultural extension services, trade or commercial business, identification of
employment opportunities, and start-up capitalization for microenterprises. Income improvement
support is provided for a reasonable transition period, allowing restoration of income streams;
optimized funding is provided for material and start-up capitalization for microenterprises and also
plan contingency funds for primary choice for income restoration efforts.
Analysis of available economic activities and opportunities
There seems misunderstand by the PAPs and even some other expert that livelihood restoration as
if just disbursement of fund. However, cash disbursement itself may not ensure livelihood
restoration. Livelihood restoration is more about identification of land and non-land restoration
47
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
approach and capacity development based local resources, skills and knowledge of the PAPs. To
this end, awareness creation was made at woreda and kebele in the process of undertaking the need
assessment survey. As input for planning the LRP, analysis of local specific economic activities
and opportunities were identified. Available livelihood restoration option were identified and
proposed for the livelihood restoration of the PAPs. The livelihood restoration includes
multifaceted intervention options that includes;
i. Land based
ii. Non land based
iii. Project based Employment and
The feasible and workable options were suggested based on local specific context, target PAPs
needs/preference, skills and others including, but not limited to;
Availability of resource potentials especially land as well as existing and forthcoming economic,
employment and market opportunities in the project affected areas,
Assess local economic activities and preference option of PAPs (Farming, Trading, Livestock and
additional Livelihood Activities and Income sources
Analysis of economic and financial profitability, marketing, socio-cultural viability in proposing
strategies and income generating schemes as well as providing different options and choices;
Provide implementation framework and institutional arrangement with relevant implementing
stakeholders
The livelihood restoration plan was aligned with existing resources, knowledge, skills and
household experiences as well as local specific context business enterprises model based on
preference need of the target PAPs.
Livelihood restoration cost and budgeting
The “Income restoration and improvement costs” refers to the costs of ensuring opportunities for
PAPs to restore or improve their incomes, as well as the costs of providing temporary or permanent
income improvement support. Costs may include purchase of alternative income-generating assets,
measures for training, agricultural extension services, trade or commercial business, identification
of employment opportunities, and start-up capitalization for microenterprises. Income improvement
support is provided for a reasonable transition period, allowing restoration of income streams;
optimized funding is provided for material and start-up capitalization for microenterprises and plan
contingency funds for primary choice for income restoration efforts. Except for compensation,
Ethiopian government has not issued proclamation and regulation on livelihood restoration,
eligibility, unit rate and amount of the livelihood restoration. Hence, livelihood restoration cost/
48
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
budget planning is one of the difficult tasks. The unit rate for compensation amount determination
basically used the land loss or estimated income loss and proclamation that guide budget allocation;
whereas livelihood restoration budget determination was not provided in the proclamation in
determining the budget and the criteria is not yet developed in proclamation. The World Bank
livelihood restoration guide and criteria was used and adopted accordingly. The World Bank
involuntary resettlement has provision on certain guideline and principles in screening eligible
target groups for the livelihood restoration. The first step was identifying economic livelihood
affected and then estimated income loss and plan for livelihood restoration plan with activities (farm
and non-farm) based on their preference needs. Categorize list of activities and their cost and budget
allocated based on the unit cost for each activities. Accordingly, the cost of LRP and implementation
comprehensively identified, estimated, and fully internalized within the LRP budget.
49
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
CHAPTER SEVEN; LIVELIHOOD RESTORATION PLAN AND INVESTMENT COST
7.1 Land based Livelihood Restoration Preference needs
First livelihood need (Option I)
Identifying first and second livelihood needs is important as it gives options and one of the required
variables included in the survey and asked the PAPs in the survey. For the LOT2 road project major
project impacts area was rural and town road like area. The livelihood needs also diversified that
identified a total of about 10 livelihood enterprises including land based (support for agriculture
input, irrigation, livestock production, poultry, cattle/livestock trade, local consumables, and the
non-land (transport, Metal &wood works and grain trade). The majority of the PAPs occupation,
skills and practices is agriculture/farm based and (37.8%) of the PAPs prefer their livelihood
restoration in agriculture/farm based who have some remain parcel land and interest to maximize
on existing land, land rent or share cropping.
Land based PAPs and their preference need (Option I)
Type of
livelihood
activities Frequency Percent
Agriculture 174 37.8
Irrigation 70 15.2
Livestock Fattening 66 14.3
Poultry 38 8.3
Cattle trading 60 13.0
Dairy 9 2.0
Transport 6 1.3
Grain trade 37 8.0
460 100.0
Figure 6 Categories of Livelihood Restoration
Second Livelihood needs (Option II)
The survey also collected need assessment on the second possible livelihood activities preferred by
the PAHs. The majority (27.4%) of the PAPs selected preferred needs for livestock/ fattening as a
second livelihood alternative followed by agriculture (22.2%); irrigation (13.3%); Poultry (12.0);
livestock/cattle trading (12.2%); grain tirade (7.6%); Dairy (2.6%); Transport (2.8%). The survey
conducted across all including the vulnerable groups and mentioned/ indicate just their interest
during the survey. However, the vulnerable excluded in planning for LRP since provided direct cash
support as vulnerable groups. As second livelihood, need livestock is the most preferred preferences
50
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
needs for majority of the PAPs. The second or option II, livelihood based on the PAHs needs
preference indicated in table below.
Table 12: Land based PAPs and their preference need (Option II)
Type of livelihood activities Frequency Percent
Agriculture 102 22.2
Irrigation 61 13.3
Livestock/Fattening 126 27.4
Poultry 55 12.0
Animal production/trade/marketing 56 12.2
Dairy 12 2.6
Transport 13 2.8
Grain trade 35 7.6
Total 460 100.0
Source; survey, November/December 2020
7.2 Women and livelihood activities
Women in the road project corridor participate in all livelihood activities including in transport/
driving carts, agriculture and farm activities, poultry and livestock/animal production, trade
business and others. Based on the need assessment majority (40.9%) of women prefers agricultures
for livelihood restoration activities and this may be since agriculture is the livelihood base and long
years’ experience for their livelihood sources.
Women participation and preference needs for livelihood activities
Number of PAPs by Total %
Sex
women
LRP
Male Female
Livelihood activity package
129 45 174 40.9
Agriculture
56 14 70 12.7
Irrigation
48 18 66 16.4
Livestock/Fattening
30 8 38 7.3
Poultry
47 13 60 11.8
Animal/cattle production/ trade/marketing
6 3 9 2.7
Dairy
5 1 6 0.9
Transport
29 8 37 7.3
grain trade
350 110 460 100.0
Total
Women in the project corridor leads work over burden and limitation in economic livelihood
sources and needs to give special consideration to access and address women headed households.
Like any other rural area, male are major decision-making and women have to participate in
deciding the use and purpose of LRP budget in the household unit. Training and awareness has to
51
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
be given to open common account with husband and wife, not only for livelihood account, but also
used for their future account and financial management.
7.3 Land based Livelihood Restoration Plan
Based on the first livelihood needs of PAPs, the detail livelihood restoration plan was developed
that discussed by each livelihood package.
7.3.1 Agriculture Based Livelihood Enterprises
7.3.1.1 Support for Agricultural Inputs
Definition of Package: Providing required agricultural input and increase production and productivity
of existing agricultural activity or generate additional income or an alternative means of income. Land
is required for agriculture input package and PAPs with remaining land needs to participate and
otherwise land rent and share crop arrangement can be the option which is already being exercised in
the area.
Aim/Goals of the Package:
Agriculture mainly crop production is the main occupation of the people in the road corridor. During
the field study, project affected peoples indicated agriculture mainly crop production is their long life
occupation and majority of them preferred to engage farm based activities. These group of PAPs
indicated shortage of agriculture input due to increasing cost of farm input and have keen interest to
provide and support in agricultural input package that add increased production and productivity.
The preferable needs for these groups are farm input including farm power and other input and 174
PAPs identified to participate. This package is catered for those PAPs who have remaining farmland
and preferable needs for their livelihood restoration in farm based activities. This package is catered
towards primarily for PAPs who have some remained land. It aims to restore the livelihood of PAPs by
engaging in agriculture-based activities that contributes production and productivity by providing
agricultural inputs. In the road project corridor share cropping and land rental also possible to bring
resources together and produce in share cropping in which one provide land and the other provide ox
and other farm input and finally share the farm output. Once provided livelihood support each PAHHs
can produce on his remain land or other additional extra land through ox for land share cropping
depending on local arrangement. As agriculture farm input, ox provide the major farm power for
farming and shortage of farm power indicated as constraint. Thus, minimum one ox and maximum four
ox planned to be provided depending on the land loss impacts and proportionate budget allocation.
Hence, the agriculture input considered provision of ox and other farm input. The major parts of the
budget allocation and livelihood restoration cost are developed based on current market, land loss
impacts and others. Each activity package and detail is provided in Annex 2.1 in separate excel sheet.
Package Activities:
PAPs that have lost some of their land due to the land acquisition of the road project, and PAPs who
have physical ability to carry out their agricultural activities expresses their needs and identified 174
PAPs for participation in this package. The agricultural inputs package is based on identified needs and
the inputs to be purchased will be within the limits of the Package budget for agriculture input obtained
through land-based impacts for this package. Those PAPs who have remaining some parcel land are in
need of agriculture farm power (ox or tractor) and inputs to maximize their production on small plot of
land. Based on experts knowledge tractor operation and management may not feasible in group and
52
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
instead changed to oxen provision with additional agriculture input for each PAPs. Required agricultural
inputs package includes farm power (Ox), improved seeds, fertilizer and other operational cost.
The number of ox planned based on the level of impacts.
The number of PAPs who need to restore their livelihood restoration plan by participating on the
farming on their remaining land as identified on their preference.
❖ Total number PAPs need farm (Agriculture inputs)-------174PAPs
❖ Beneficiaries 174PAPs and 676 dependent family members
Number of PAPs and dependent: The detail list and budget allocation for each PAPs and dependent
worked in separate excel sheet and total of 174 PAPs and 676 dependent family, members under this
package.
Resources Required/Assumption
❖ Land assumed remaining land and also share cropping arrangement
❖ Ox power and other accessory farm input (seeds, fertilizer, etc.)
❖ Farm power (Ox) and Improved farm input provided within budget share limit
❖ The budget Support for 1 crop season and after which start self-finance from operation
❖ Provide in kind as start-up and avoid disbursing fund as seed money
❖ The nature of the package preferably individual bases for management, but those interested can
merge their allocated budget and to be organized in groups by woreda cooperatives and micro
enterprises.
❖ Compensation already paid for PAPs and expect to contributes labour and other resources in their
capacity as required.
❖ Woreda cooperative office and other sector office organize PAPs in to cooperative and linking
them with market and credit facilities for sustainable access to financial service
❖ PAPs expect to contribute resources in their capacity that also ensures sense of ownership to the
livelihood scheme for sustainable operation.
❖ PAPs expected to contribute labour and other inputs as may be required
❖ Provide awareness on the essence and objectives of LRP from the beginning, develop business skill
and financial management capacity building training for implementing partners and PAP s groups.
Responsible body
❖ ERA secure and allocate the budget and woreda sector office for implementation
❖ Independent LRP implementation unit to be contracted/assigned by ERA
❖ Woreda administration and sector office organize PAPs, establish grievance committee
❖ The independent body arrange training and provide start-up capital
❖ Administration and land administration provide management and technical support
❖ Woreda sector office organize PAPs in to cooperative and linking them with credit facilities and
markets)
❖ ERA provide budget and oversee and Monitor its implementation
Training and capacity building support will be provided primarily by woreda agriculture office, woreda
micro enterprises development and woreda cooperatives
Mode of organization: Individual based on level of impacts/ income loss and dependency ratio
The PAPs remain some parcel land are in need of agriculture farm power (ox or tractor) and inputs to
maximize their production on small plot of land. Based on experts knowledge tractor operation and
management may not feasible in group and preferred oxen and other farm input provision for each
PAPs. Those interested to work in group will be organized though Woreda cooperative office and
micro enterprise
Monitoring Indicators:
❖ Number of beneficiary PAPs
❖ Number of agricultural inputs provided
❖ Contribution of the provided inputs to the PAPs and their dependent
53
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
❖ Type and number of agricultural inputs need preference against actual performance
❖ Contribution of the packages for the improvement livelihood activities of the supported PAPs,
Budget allocation and activities; Those PAPs preferred agriculture farm input are mainly those who
have remain land and also may access for land rent or share cropping arrangement with others with
those who have excess land in neighborhood. The budget allocation determined based on the weighted
average of land expropriated, number of dependent and income loss (Annex 2). As agriculture input
Farm power (ox) is the major input and minimum one and maximum up to four ox is to be supported
depending on the weighted average of land loss, income loss, number of dependent. In this agriculture
input package farm input mainly farm power (Ox) and other agriculture input will be supported for a
total of 174 PAHs and 676 participate and benefit. In addition, minimum one youths of PAPs, total
expected to participate and benefit. The agriculture support provides total 302 farm power (ox) and
other farm input supported depending on the weighted average criteria (Land loss, income loss, number
of dependent…etc.). The total budget for this package amounts birr 16,881,800. Based on the weighted
land loss, income loss and dependent family members. The input package depend s on weighted average
criteria and 1 to 4 farm ox and a total 302 farm power ox and other agriculture input will be supported
for the identified needy PAPs group. The proposed budget is for the first six months of one crop season
after which to operate from revenue/income generated from the livelihood activities.
Although the budget allocation assumed for six moth cropping season, the allocated budget is to be
financed and disbursed to woreda implementing partners at one time for purchase of the proposed input
package. The budget application and use of fund should be closely monitored under the supervision of
ERA social and environment management directorate and woreda LRP coordination and PAPs elected
committee. The proposed budget is closely within the budget share and summery of budget under this
package presented in table below and for detail refer separate excel sheet Annex 2 (Sheet 2.1)
Table 1; Agriculture inputs and Budget
Unit
Agriculture input Unit Qty cost Total Remark
Farm power (Oxen) #Ox 302 30000 9,060,000
Shed #shed 302 1000 302,000 local shed
feed cost Kg 40770 15 6,115,500 (302 ox;
0 15kg/day/ox for
six month
(180days)
Vet (for 276 ox; 50 vet ox 1812 50 90600 (for 302 oxen; 50
birr/month/ox for 6 month month birr /month for 6
months
Improved seeds kg 15100 75 1,132,500 (302 ox and
50kg/ox)
Fertilizer kg 3020 60 181,200 (302 ox and
10kg/ox
Labor cost and other cost Family labour
Total 16,881,80
0
Source: Annex 2 (sheet 2.1)
7.3.1.2 Support for Irrigation
SUPPORT FOR IRRIGATION L FARM INPUTS
54
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Definition of Package: The project corridor supposed high water potential for irrigation mainly ground,
natural pond and wet land areas also Meki and Ziway lake are also water source for irrigation in the
project corridor. Despite the irrigation potential irrigation use is limited due to lack of knowledge and
capital to access water pumps and other constraints.
Aim/Goals of the Package:
Based on the survey and consultation with PAPs small scale irrigation practiced from natural pond and
available stream river and based on this practice support for irrigation package has been preference
needs of some PAPs group. This package is catered towards primarily for the PAPs who have irrigation
access or interested to produce in share cropping with other neighbor irrigated water access and land
owner. During the consultation, indicted that, if water pump and other irrigation farm input provided,
PAPs interested to carry out their irrigated agricultural activities on their remaining land and those who
have no land and water access also like to work through share cropping arrangement more efficiently
and expressed felt needs to maintain their livelihood more efficiently.
Package Activities:
The targets in this package are PAPs who have access to water and land, and preferred needs to work
irrigation on their own land and/or land rent or share cropping arrangement basis and selected for
participation in small scale irrigation package. Required irrigation farm inputs for the identified are
mainly water pump and farm input.
Number of PAPs and dependent: The detail list and budget allocation for each PAPs and dependent
worked in separate excel sheet and total of 70 PAPs and 252 dependents family, members under this
package.
Resources Required/Assumption
❖ Land assumed remaining land and also share cropping and or land rent arrangement through
negotiation after harvest
❖ Water pump and other accessory farm input (seeds, fertilizer, etc.)
❖ Provide in kind as start-up and avoid disbursing fund as seed money
❖ The nature of the package preferably one water pump for 5 PAPs, and those interested can
merge their allocated budget and to be organized in groups by woreda cooperatives and micro
enterprises.
❖ PAPs expect to contribute resources in their capacity that also ensures sense of ownership to
the livelihood scheme for sustainable operation.
❖ PAPs expected to contribute labour and other inputs as may be required
❖ Provide awareness on the essence and objectives of LRP from the beginning, develop business skill
and financial management capacity building training for implementing partners and PAP s groups.
Mode of organization:
The numbers of PAPs who need to restore their livelihood restoration plan by participating on the
irrigation farming on their remaining land are identified based on their preference.
❖ Total number PAPs need water pump and irrigation farm inputs will be for 70PAPs
❖ The preferred mode of engagement in group of 3 or 5 PAPs depending on the neighborhood
and proximity.
❖ The budget allocation provided for each PAPs and open to work individual or group by
merging their allocated budget.
❖ The woreda irrigation and agriculture office and LRP implementing unit assist in organizing
PAPs groups.
❖ Provide small pumps for individual and higher capacity pump for groups depending on the
level of impacts of each groups
❖ In addition to pumps provide other irrigation farm inputs
55
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Responsible body
❖ Independent LRP implementation unit to be contracted/assigned by ERA
❖ Woreda administration and woreda sector office involve for implementation
❖ Woreda administration and sector office mainly agriculture, cooperative and micro enterprise play
the major role in organizing PAPs in group and management of the same.
❖ The independent body arrange training and provide start-up capital
❖ Woreda Administration and land administration provide management and technical support
❖ Woreda cooperative office and other sector office organize PAPs in to cooperative and linking
them with market and credit facilities for sustainable access to financial service
❖ ERA secure and allocate the budget and ESMD directorate oversee and Monitor its implementation
through
❖ Training and capacity building support will be provided primarily by woreda irrigation and
agriculture development office, woreda micro enterprises development and woreda cooperatives
❖ Monitoring Indicators:
❖ Number of beneficiary PAPs
❖ Number of agricultural inputs provided
❖ Contribution of the provided inputs to the PAPs and their dependent
❖ Type and number of irrigation inputs need preference against actual performance
❖ Contribution of the packages for the improvement livelihood activities of the supported PAPs,
Budget allocation and activities;
The budget allocation made on individual basis and grouping can be organized on their interest and
consent at implementation stage. It is proposed to provide one Water pump for 3-5 PAPs depending on
neighborhood for management and six groups can be established based on their interest. This irrigation
package intended for 70 PAPs and 252 dependents and the budget required estimated birring 6,581,250.
The package cost and budget share indicated for each PAPs and those interested in group can form
groups by merging their allocated budget. The summery of proposed budget presented in the following
table and for detail refer to separate excel Annex 2 (excel sheet 2.2)
Table 13: Small scale irrigation livelihood package
Description Unit Qty Unit cost Total
Water Pump Number 42 95,000 3,990,000
Fuel Lt 75600 25 1,890,000
Improved seed Kg 3,500 50 175,000
Fertilizer Kg 1750 50 87,500
Other Lump sump 438,750
Total 6,581,250
Source: Annex 2 (sheet 2.1)
The proposed irrigation scheme is selected not only by those PAPs who have water and land access, but
also those who have no water and land have shown interest to produce in share cropping and land rent
arrangement from neighborhood households who have the irrigation water and land resources. In
existing practice, people from urban area and long distance in other kebele produce irrigation through
land rent and share cropping which is widely practiced in the area and if water pump provided PAPs
can go for it in the same way.
56
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Water pump and irrigation scheme development is preferred business to work in group. Grouping can
be made for purchase and use of the water pump and the one with higher budget will get higher access
for the water pump (increased number of days to use for watering his farm). If binding agreement and
mutual consent PAPs may not necessarily require equal budget allocation for group work. Since, the
budget allocation made on individual basis and grouping can be organized on their interest and consent
on proportionate budget and benefit share from the water pump. The group agreement and mutual
consent is the one that govern and minimize conflict that may arise.
7.3.1.3 Support for Animal Fattening
Definition of Package: In addition to crop production, animal and livestock contribute economic
livelihood and supplementary income sources. Animal Fattening is one of the livestock and animal
husbandry activities for market and preferred activities with increasing market demand of live animals
for sale. There difference between livestock fattening is the practice of animal husbandry for fattening
and sales whereas livestock marketing is the practice of buying and sales the livestock without
husbandry practice.
Aim/Goals of the Package:
This package aims to restore the livelihood of the PAPs by engaging in animal fattening activities in
income generation by providing improved bulls for fattening
Package Activities:
The activity primarily support in providing improved livestock and other required input for fattening
and sales to generate additional income that support PAPs livelihood restoration
Number of PAPs and dependent: The area has potential and suitable climate for animal husbandry 66
PAPs identified as they need assistance on fattening farm and additional youth and 254 dependent
family members expected to participate and benefit
Resources Required/Assumption
❖ Provide Improved bulls for fattening and other accessory fattening input (feed, vet, etc.)
❖ Provide in kind as start-up and avoid disbursing fund as seed money
❖ The nature of the package preferably in group or individual and those interested in group can
merge their allocated budget and to be organized in groups by woreda cooperatives and micro
enterprises. The budget allocation made for each individual to be flexible in group and individual
budget share.
❖ Provide awareness on the essence and objectives of LRP from the beginning, develop business
skill and financial management capacity building training for implementing partners and PAP s
groups.
Responsible body
❖ ERA secure and allocate the budget and woreda administration and woreda sector office and kebele
structures involve for implementation
❖ Independent LRP implementation unit to be contracted/assigned by ERA
❖ Woreda administration and sector office organize PAPs, establish grievance committee
❖ The independent body arrange training and provide start-up capital
❖ Administration and land administration provide management and technical support
❖ Woreda sector office organize PAPs in to cooperative and linking them with credit facilities and
markets)
❖ ERA provide budget and oversee and Monitor its implementation
Training and capacity building support will be provided primarily by woreda agriculture office, woreda
micro enterprises development and woreda cooperatives
57
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Mode of organization:
The numbers of PAPs who need to restore their livelihood restoration plan by participating on the
irrigation farming on their remaining land are identified based on their preference.
❖ The budget allocation provided for each PAPs and open to work individual or group by
merging their allocated budget.
Monitoring Indicators:
❖ Number of beneficiary PAPs
❖ Number of animal fattening inputs provided
❖ Contribution of the provided inputs to the PAPs and their dependent
❖ Type and number of irrigation inputs need preference against actual performance
❖ Contribution of the packages for the improvement livelihood activities of the supported PAPs,
Budget allocation and activities;
Depending on the level of impact, the budget allocation, minimum one and maximum three bulls and
other accessories will be supported based on the level and proportionate economic loss impacts. Based
on their needs for the fattening package a total of 66 PAPs identified to participate. The package
expected to support 66 PAPs, 254 youth, and dependent family members. The first animal fattening is
for three month for sales and 4 round fattening and sales in a year. The budget allocation assumed for
the first three months and continues from self-generate income after three months. The total activity
cost estimated to birr 6,426,750. The numbers of fattening animals for support depend on the level of
land loss impacts and minimum 1 and maximum 3 bulls and total 110 bulls with accessories input will
be provided and supported for Pap's. The budget based on the land level of loss, income loss and
number of dependent weighted average. Summary of the proposed budget presented in table that and
for detail refer to Annex 2 (excel sheet 2.3)
Table 14: Animal Fattening livelihood scheme (Summary of cost and budget plan)
Unit
Unit Qty cost Total
Bulls Bulls 110 20,000 2,200,000
shed
Shed (M2) 440 4,000 1,760,000 4m2 for 1 animal fatten
total 110 bulls; 15kg/d/bull for 90
Feed Kg 148,500 15.00 2,227,500 days
110 bulls for 3monyth and
Vet month 330.00 50.00 16,500 50br/month
water Liter 148,500.00 1.50 222,750 110 bulls 15 lit/d/bull for 90 days
Total 6,426,750
Source: Annex 2(Excel sheet 2.3)
7.3.1.4 Support for Poultry
Definition of Package: Poultry farm (Egg and meat chicken) is contributing nutrition food supply and
the package expected to benefit from the growing market demand-supply gap for egg or meat in the
urban area, where consumption of the product is remarkably high. As project corridor are in the middle
market to Addis Ababa, Shahshamne or Hawassa where large number of institution, universities and
conference center and the business is feasible in market and generating substantial income and
sustainable livelihood.
Aim/Goals of the Package:
This package aims to restore the livelihood of the PAPs by engaging in meat or egg poultry activities
to contributes income generation by providing improved chicken poultry input.
Package Activities:
The activity primarily support in providing improved livestock and other required input for fattening
58
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
and sales to generate additional income that support PAPs livelihood restoration
Number of PAPs and dependent: The area has potential and suitable climate for animal husbandry 38
PAPs identified as they need assistance on fattening farm and including youth a total 254 dependent
family members expected to participate and benefit
Resources Required/Assumption
❖ Provide Improved egg or meat chicken and other accessory input (feed, vet, etc.)
❖ Provide in kind as start-up and avoid disbursing fund as seed money
❖ The nature of the package preferably in group or individual and those interested in group can
merge their allocated budget and to be organized in groups by woreda cooperatives and micro
enterprises. The budget allocation made for each individual to be flexible in group or individual
based on their budget share.
❖ Provide awareness on the essence and objectives of LRP from the beginning, develop business
skill and financial management capacity building training for implementing partners and PAP s
groups.
Responsible body
❖ ERA secure and allocate the budget and woreda administration, woreda sector office and kebele
structure involve for implementation
❖ Independent LRP implementation unit to be contracted/assigned by ERA
❖ Woreda administration and sector office organize PAPs, establish grievance committee
❖ The independent body arrange training and provide start-up capital
❖ Administration and land administration provide management and technical support
❖ Woreda sector office organize PAPs in to cooperative and linking them with credit facilities and
markets)
❖ ERA provide budget and oversee and Monitor its implementation
Training and capacity building support will be provided primarily by woreda agriculture office, woreda
micro enterprises development and woreda cooperatives
Mode of organization:
The numbers of PAPs who need to restore their livelihood restoration plan by participating on the
irrigation farming on their remaining land are identified based on their preference.
❖ The budget allocation provided for each PAPs and open to work individual or group by
merging their allocated budget.
Monitoring Indicators:
❖ Number of beneficiary PAPs
❖ Number of chicken and poultry input inputs provided
❖ Contribution of the provided inputs to the PAPs and their dependent
❖ Type and number of irrigation inputs need preference against actual performance
❖ Contribution of the packages for the improvement livelihood activities of the supported PAPs,
Budget allocation and activities;
Depending on the level of impact, the budget allocation, minimum one and maximum three bulls and
other accessories will be supported based on the level and proportionate economic loss impacts. Based
on their needs for the poultry package a total of 38 PAPs identified to participate. The package expected
to support 38 PAPs and 127 dependent family members. The total activity cost estimated to 3,895,800.
The numbers of chicken for support depend on the level of land loss impacts, income loss, number of
dependent and 20-50 chicken and total 1510 chicken with accessories input will be purchased and
provided for 38 PAPs depending on the level of land loss, income loss impacts and number of
dependent. Summary of the proposed budget presented in table that follows and for detail refer to Annex
2 (excel sheet 2.4)
59
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Table 15: Poultry farm budget
Description Unit Qty Unit cost Total
Chicken No of chicken 1,510 250 377,500
Shed M2 302.0 2000 604,000
Feed Kg 67,950.0 40 2,718,000
vet Vet Chechen months 4,530.0 10 45,300
Other cost 151,000
Total 3,895,800
7.3.1.5 Support for Dairy Farm Inputs
Definition of Package: Milk and butter are among the most produced and traded items of dairy products
around Meki, Ziway and other town along the corridor. As PAPs expressed local dairy cow breeds are
less productive, improved varieties are suggested for their livelihood change. The major annual inputs
required for the task are supply of dairy cows, fodder and veterinary services. Therefore, the package is
providing required dairy farm inputs in order to help PAPs in existing or additional dairy activity to
generate additional alternative means of income
Dairy farm activities provide wide ranges of benefit as supplementary food and income sources and
preferred needs of PAPs as one of the livelihood restoration activities. The dairy enterprises will be
individual and household base for ease of management. Hence, shed is considered and each PAPs needs
to organize themselves solve expected problem to arises at each stages of the work. The number of dairy
cows to be provided depends on the level of land expropriated by the project and income loss and
number of dependent.
Resources Required/Assumption
Provide Improved dairy cows for milk and provide dairy input accessories (feed, vet, etc.)
Provide in kind as start-up and avoid disbursing fund as seed money
The nature of the package preferably in group or individual and those interested in group can
merge their allocated budget and to be organized in groups by woreda cooperatives and micro
enterprises. The budget allocation made for each individual to be flexible in group and individual
budget share.
PAPs expect to contributes resources in their capacity that also ensure sense of ownership to the
livelihood scheme for sustainable operation.
PAPs expected to contribute labour and other inputs as may be required
Provide awareness on the essence and objectives of LRP from the beginning, develop business
skill and financial management capacity building training for implementing partners and PAP s
groups.
Responsible body
❖ Woreda administration and sector office mainly agriculture office provide technical support
❖ Woreda cooperative and micro enterprise organize PAPs in group of cooperative and linking them
with credit facilities
❖ Independent LRP implementation unit to be contracted/assigned by ERA
❖ ERA provide budget and Oversee and Monitor its implementation
Monitoring Indicators:
❖ Number of beneficiary PAPs
❖ Number of dairy farm inputs provided
❖ Contribution of the provided inputs to the workforce
60
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
❖ Contribution of the packages on the improvement of the livelihood activities of the supported
PAPs, through the pre-package and post package data comparisons
The number of PAPs who need to restore their livelihood restoration by participating in dairy farming
were identified on their preference needs for their livelihood restoration.
❖ Total number PAPs for dairy farm input -------9PAPs
❖ Budget allocation support for one year until the cows give birth and benefit
❖ Dairy farm based required inputs are mainly dairy cow, feed, shed and Veterinary service and
labour by PAPs and family members.
Budget
Based on their needs for the dairy farm package a total of 9 PAPs and including their youth total of about
24 youth and dependent family members will participate and benefit under this package. The numbers
of dairy cows for support depend on the level of land loss impacts and weighted average of the other
criteria. Accordingly, minimum 1 and maximum 3 dairy cows and total 13 dairy cows with other
accessories inputs will be supported for 9 PAPs depending on the weighted average of land loss and
income loss impacts and other factors. The total cost under this package estimated to birr 959,725.00.
The package cost and budget share indicated for each PAPs and the work can be undertaken individual
or in group and the budget allocation was made for each PAPs and those interested in group can also
form groups by merging their allocated budget. The summary of the budget for dairy farm package
indicated in table below and for detail refer to separate Annex 2(Excel sheet 2.5)
Table 16: Support for Livestock (Dairy farming) Package for Pap's
Description Unit Qty Unit Cost Total
Dairy Cows Number 13 60000 780,000.00
Shed M2 52 1000 52000
Feed Kg 11700 10 117000
Water Lt 17550 0.5 8775
Vet Cow month 39 50 1950
Total 959,725.00
Source: Annex 2 (sheet 2.4)
7.3.2 Non agriculture based livelihood activities
7.3.2.1 Support for Cattle/livestock Market and Trade Business
Definition of Package: There is distinction between livestock marketing and livestock fattening
proposed in previous section. Fattening is the practice of keeping the livestock for some month and sales
after fattening, whereas cattle/livestock market and trading is direct buying and sales with some profit
margin. Cattle and livestock marketing may not involve husbandry and it is livestock transaction
business to generate an alternative income from direct buy and sale. The business is direct sale
transaction preferred and identified based on consultation with PAPs groups believed as the sector
potential financial leverage. Thus those who have prior experience in the sector interested preference
need to engage in this business
Package Activities:
Based on the survey and consultation with PAPs group, livestock and cattle production is high in the
project corridor and also highly growing market demand. Industrial parks and meat and livestock
processing also established by private for export also located in Bulbula area and high market demand
potential. PAPs that have lost parts of their land due to the land acquisition of the road project, and
PAPs who have physical ability to carry out cattle trade business expresses their needs and based on
the survey identified 60 PAPs for participation in this package. Therefore, cattle trade package is based
61
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
on identified needs and prior work experience. The required cattle trade inputs package mainly purchase
and provide business startup number of cattle and other operational cost. The number of cattle planned
based on the level of impacts and weight average (land, income and Dependency)
The number of PAPs who need to restore their livelihood restoration plan by participating on the cattle
marketing are identified on their preference.
❖ Total number PAPs (cattle marketing )-------60PAPs
❖ Beneficiaries 60 PAPs and 210 dependent family members
Number of PAPs and dependent: The detail list and budget allocation for each PAPs and dependent
worked in separate excel sheet and total of 60 PAPs and 210 dependent family, members under this
package.
Resources Required/Assumption
❖ Land assumed remaining land and also share cropping arrangement
❖ Cattle and other accessory input (feed, shed and vet, etc.)
❖ Provide in kind as start-up and avoid disbursing fund as seed money
❖ The nature of the package preferably in group for common market shed and other common and to
be organized in groups by woreda cooperatives and micro enterprises. but those interested
individual could be given their budget share allocated and should be open and flexible based on
interest
❖ Compensation already paid for PAPs and expect to contributes labour and other resources in their
capacity as required.
❖ Woreda cooperative office and other sector office organize PAPs in to cooperative and linking
them with market and credit facilities for sustainable access to financial service
❖ Provide awareness on the essence and objectives of LRP from the beginning, develop business skill
and financial management capacity building for implementing partners and PAP s groups.
Responsible body
❖ Independent LRP implementation unit to be contracted/assigned by ERA
❖ Woreda administration and sector office organize PAPs, establish grievance committee
❖ The independent body arrange training and provide start-up capital
❖ Administration and land administration provide management and technical support
❖ Woreda sector office organize PAPs in to cooperative and linking them with credit facilities and
markets)
❖ ERA secure and allocate the budget and woreda administration, woreda sector and kebele structures
involve for implementation
❖ ERA provide budget and oversee and Monitor its implementation
Training and capacity building support will be provided primarily by assigned experts from available
sources (woreda agriculture office, woreda cooperative and micro enterprises development and woreda
cooperatives and or others).
Monitoring Indicators:
❖ Number of beneficiary PAPs
❖ Number of cattle provided
❖ Contribution of the provided inputs to the PAPs and their dependent
❖ Type and number of cattle and other input against actual performance
❖ Contribution of the packages for the improvement livelihood activities of the supported PAPs,
Budget allocation and activities; The total cost and budget for this package amounts birr
3,351,600. The cost and budget based on the weighted land loss, income loss and dependent family
members. The input package depend s on weighted loss and 1 to 3 cattle/bulls and a total 72 cattle/bulls
and other input will be supported for the identified needy PAPs group. The proposed budget is for the
first one months after which to operate from revenue/income generated from the livelihood activities.
62
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
The proposed budget is closely within the budget share and summery of budget under this package
presented in table below and for detail refer separate excel sheet Annex 2 (Sheet 2.6)
Table 17: Cattle marketing and budget
Description of cost unit Qty Unit Price Total
Cattle No 72 35,000 2,520,000
Shed M2 288 1000 288,000
Feed Kg 21600 25 540,000
Vet Month 72 50 3,600
Total 3,351,600
7.3.2.2 Support for Grain trade livelihoods scheme
Description of the Package: This package identified for PAPs who have shown keen interest/need in
grain trade and marketing for their livelihood restoration.
Aim/Goals of the Package:
Initial startup provided for interested PAPs for sales and profit earning that continues on self-revolving
basis after wards.
Package Activities:
Grain trade is one of the major market product in the area and start up grain will be supported in kind
based on the proportionate and weighted average (land loss, income loss and number of dependent)
Resources Required/Assumption
❖ Allocate budget for purchase and provide in kind start up allocated quintals of grain for initial sales
and revolving basis after wards.
❖ Provide in kind as start-up and avoid disbursing fund as seed money
❖ The budget allocation was made for each individual PAPs to be flexible in group and individual
budget share and those interested in group can merge their allocated budget and to be organized in
groups by woreda cooperatives and micro enterprises.
❖ PAPs expect to contributes resources in their capacity that also ensure sense of ownership to the
livelihood scheme for sustainable operation.
❖ PAPs expected to contribute labour and other inputs as may be required
❖ Provide awareness on the essence and objectives of LRP from the beginning, develop business skill
and financial management capacity building training for implementing partners and PAP s groups.
Number of PAPs: Based on their needs for the grain trade and marketing package, a total of 37PAPs
and including youths and family members’ total 137 members expected to participate and benefit under
the grain trade package.
Mode of organization:
The grain enterprise organized in market shed provided four in one and total of five groups will be
established. The market shed will be established at the center or near towns and PAPs may come from
different location and kebeles to market their business in same shed. As much as possible group
formation is preferred for this livelihood package.
Monitoring Indicators:
❖ Number of beneficiary PAPs
❖ Number of PAHs needs Local Transport Enterprise provided
❖ Contribution of the packages on the improvement of the livelihood activities of the PAPs,
through the pre-package and post package data comparisons
Budget
This package support for 37 PAPs and including youths, a total 137 dependent family members planned
participate and benefit under this package. The budget allocated for each PAPs individual based on the
63
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
weighted average of land loss impacts and other factors. The total budget is birr 2,405,000. They can
pull and merge their allocated budget for market shed in one place and organized in groups at
implementation stage. The summery of the budget for the package indicated in table below and for
detail refer to Annex 2 (excel sheet 2.7)
Table 18: Grain trade business and proposed budget
Description Unit Qty Unit cost Total
Startup Grain for sale qt 370 4000 1,480,000
Weigh scale # 37 1000 37,000
Market shed # 370 2000 740,000
Transport & Other (10%) 148,000
Total 2,405,000
Source: Annex 2.1 (excel sheet 2/7)
7.3.2.3 Local Transport
Local transport Package: based on the need assessment and PAPs information, the project kebeles
have strong urban rural linkage and rapid peoples movement and large public transportation and high
demand for people and good transportation service from rural to urban and urban. The market demand
reveals local Transport Enterprise service is high and hence PAPs need to involve local transport in
order to generate an alternative livelihood income. In the project corridor cart transport service operates
by women and male and generates income sources. As revealed during consultation, carts and Bajaj are
used in the area as local transport. Although, PAPs preferred Bajaj transport service, cart transport
agriculture product from rural to market place and considering the local demand as rural and urban
linkage and also high budget demand and hence in discussion with PAPs group under this package,
cart transport was found the preferred option selected as local transport activities.
Aim/Goals of the Package:
During the field study, some PAPs who had lost their land due to the project expressed their needs to
involve Local Transport Enterprise (Cart or Bajaj) that expect their livelihood improvement.
Package Activities:
PAPs and their youth and family members were expressed their preferred needs to participate in local
transport. The cart transport contribute Local Transport of the rural and within skills and knowledge of
PAPs to operate and also within budget limit of the Package. Hence, cart with full accessories of drive
animals to be provided for PAPs interested in this package.
Resources Required/Assumption
❖ Provide cart with drive animals (Horse) and other accessory for cart transport
❖ Provide in kind as start-up and avoid disbursing fund as seed money
❖ The budget allocation was made for each individual PAPs to be flexible in group and individual
budget share and those interested in group can merge their allocated budget and to be organized in
groups by woreda cooperatives and micro enterprises.
❖ PAPs expect to contributes resources in their capacity that also ensure sense of ownership to the
livelihood scheme for sustainable operation.
❖ PAPs expected to contribute labour and other inputs as may be required
❖ Provide awareness on the essence and objectives of LRP from the beginning, develop business skill
and financial management capacity building training for implementing partners and PAP s groups.
Responsible body
❖ Independent LRP implementation unit to be contracted/assigned by ERA
❖ Woreda administration and sector office organize PAPs, establish grievance committee
❖ The independent body arrange training and provide start-up capital
64
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
❖ Administration and land administration provide management and technical support
❖ Woreda sector office organize PAPs in to cooperative and linking them with credit facilities and
markets)
❖ ERA provide budget and Oversee and Monitor its implementation
❖ Urban livelihood schemes like trade and market business or local transport service is proposed to
work in nearby town areas and town administration should closely support road project affected
peoples in providing workplace and other assistance
Monitoring Indicators:
❖ Number of beneficiary PAPs
❖ Number of PAHs needs Local Transport Enterprise provided
❖ Contribution of the packages on the improvement of the livelihood activities of the PAPs,
through the pre-package and post package data comparisons
The number of PAPs who need to restore their livelihood restoration plan by participating on the Local
Goods Transport Enterprise as their preference.
❖ Total number PAPs need (Local Transport Enterprise)-------6 PAPs
Budget
The number of input package determined based on the weighted average of land loss impacts, income
loss and dependency ratio presented in separate excel Annex 2. Based on their needs for local transport
package a total of 6 PAPs and 25 dependent will participants and benefit in this package. In this package
of local transport, cart, horse and accessories are the major input. One cart planned for each PAPs under
the package and number of drive animals (horse) varies depending on the weighted average land/ income
loss and others and the total cost estimated to birr 309,100. The summery of the local transport cost
presented in the following table and for detail refer to Annex 2(Excel sheet 2.8)
Table; Local transport
Unit Qty Unit cost Total
Cart number 6 12000 72,000
Horse number 19 7000 133,000
Shed M2 76 1000 76,000
feed & other lump 28,100
Total 309,100
Source Annex 2 (Excel sheet 2.8)
7.4 Non Land Livelihood Affected (Meki and Ziway Link Road)
Description of the Package:
According to the two-town administration, economic livelihood affected is less likely and the affected
property considered non-economic mainly resident houses. The compensation was paid as residential
with presumption that all the project-affected area are residential houses. However, the PAPs group
consulted indicates and complaint the affected houses are also used for business and even with trade
license, pay government tax, and entitled as business entity. According to WB (OP2), all project affected
are entitled for livelihood restoration regardless of legal ownership entitlement or other criteria.
Based on the survey and consultation identified the livelihood and non-livelihood affected properties.
In Meki road link a total of 38 PAPs affected and Ziway road link 74 PAPs and total 111PAPs affected
in the two road link. From the total 111 houses affected from which 93 (98%) of the house are residential.
However, the survey and discussion interview with PAPs and other stakeholders indicates 18 PAPs
affected their houses used for multi purposes, i.e., residential attached with other economic livelihood
sources (grain trade/mill houses, shops, coffee, and tea house, et c).
65
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Majority of these economic livelihoods affected front parts and partially affected. The affected people
already compensation and still expressed their income reduced for which they claimed livelihood
restoration plan. The PAPs complain low compensation and require the LRP to allocate budget to
compensate livelihood loss for those who actually affected their livelihood income.
Accordingly, based on the survey and consultation of the affected people, identified 18 PAPs economic
affected and eligible for LRP. Based on the need assessment and consultation identified five livelihood
packages to support those 18 PAPs and family members to restore their livelihood. The livelihood
activities are to improve on their existing work and skills.
Accordingly, the LRP package identified for the PAPs along the road link includes mill houses and
grain trade (5PAHHs); Local beverage and coffee houses (4PAHHs); Metal work (1PAHHs); Shops
(6PAHHs) and Hotel and Restaurants (2PAHHs)
Aim/Goals of the Package:
Non-land livelihood affected in town areas of the road link of (Meki &b Ziway) towns and PAPs
identified to restore their livelihoods.
Package Activities:
Based on the survey result and consultation with PAPs various livelihood package identified and
suggested as livelihood restoration of PAPs affected their non-land livelihood in town along the link
road. In town area of the link road, identified the following livelihood restoration activities based on
the survey and consultation with PAPs group along the two road link (Meki & Ziway)
Mill Houses and grain trade
For the mill house and grain trade affected, the mill and major parts of the house is already there and
replaced with compensation already paid them. The livelihood restoration is to consider for the reduced
income due to time taken for relocating the property and dissatisfaction of customers that may cause
income loss. Like for the land based, the weighted average of income loss and number of dependent is
used as proxy indicator for budget allocation.
Local beverage, coffee & Tea houses
Local beverage, coffee and tea houses are local consumable supply for market which support large
number of people in both Meki and Ziway town. This group have already been in the market and already
owned some equipment and material to run the business and the livelihood support is to further improve
their work through support them in additional material purchase and furnish the work place. As an
alternative, the affected people also requested the town administration to provide them market and work
place in the appropriate center place of the town
Metal and work
In this enterprise one project affected and his preferred needs for livelihood is to improve on the line of
his long years’ experience in metal and work. He is interested to work in the remaining premises of his
holding and also requested the town administration to provide market shed work place in the
appropriate place.
House and Shops
As described in the previous section, the road project located along the previous road way and the
livelihood impacts was minimal. However, the road inevitably have affected available house and shops
along the front side of the road corridor. The purpose and use of the house for multipurpose residential
attached with shops have been affected.
Hotel and restaurants
66
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
In this enterprise two projects affected and preferred needs to improve on their previous work experience
of hotel and restaurant business. As an example the hotel business known by “Bush Hotel” affected
about six bed rooms.
Number of PAPs (Meki & Ziway road link): Based on the survey and consultation of the affected
people, 18 PAPs identified economic livelihood affected and based on their need assessment, five
livelihood packages identified to support their livelihood. The livelihood activities are to improve on
their existing work and skills. Accordingly, the LRP business package identified along the two town
road link includes mill houses/grain trade (5PAHHs); Local beverage and coffee houses (4PAHHs);
Metal work (1PAHHs); Shops (6PAHHs) and Hotel and Restaurants (2PAHHs)
Table 19: Meki and Ziway town Link road PAPs preference need
No Business activities #HH % % %
1 Mill House & Grain trade 5 23.8 27.8 27.8
2 Local beverage, coffee/tea 4 19.0 22.2 50.0
3 Metal work 1 4.8 5.6 55.6
4 Shops 6 28.6 33.3 88.9
5 Hotel & Rest 2 9.5 11.1 100.0
Total 18 85.7 100.0
Source; Annex 2 (excel sheet 2.9)
Mode of organization:
The above LRP already owned private like mill and others were also used to operate private and expect
to continue in private. However, the PAPs also suggested town administration to provide market place
like shed for shop in the center. The market shed will be established at the center and PAPs may come
from different location and kebeles to market their business in same shed by pulling and merging their
budget allocated.
Responsible body
❖ Town administration should support in proving market shed at proper market place
Monitoring Indicators:
❖ Number of beneficiary PAPs
❖ Number of PAHs needs Local Transport Enterprise provided
❖ Contribution of the packages on the improvement of the livelihood activities of the PAPs,
through the pre-package and post package data comparisons
Budget
Based on the survey and consultation out of total 111 PAPs along Meki and Ziway town link road, a
total of 18 PAPs affected their non-land economic livelihood. The type of livelihood affected are mill
house and grain store, coffee and tea houses, metal work and wood works , shops ,hotel and restaurants.
These PAP group prefer their livelihood to scale up in the area of their long life business. Based on the
survey and consultation with project affected five-business enterprise was identified. The budget
allocated for each PAPs based on the level and weighted average of income loss impacts and other
factors. The total budget estimated to birr 1,273,500.00. They can pull and merge their allocated budget
for market shed in one place and organized in groups based on interest. The summery of the budget for
the package indicated in table below and for detail refer to Annex 2 (excel sheet 2.6)
Table 20: Grain trade Enterprises
Number of
Type of business Total Budget
PAPs
1 Grain trade/mill house 5 340,000.00
2 Local food/beverage, coffee/tea 4 273,000.00
3 Wood/Metal work 1 60,000.00
67
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
4 Shops 6 360,000.00
5 Hotel & Restaurants 2 240,500.00
Total 18 1,273,500.00
Source: Annex 2.1 (excel sheet
7.5 Organizing PAPs in group and cooperatives
The organization of PAPs in group and cooperatives enables to mobilize resources and collective
effort and also reached effectively for management of the delivery of input, services and facilities
to support livelihood economic activities. Thus, it is required to promote PAPs with incentive
budget to form working groups and cooperative group. The PAPs organize themselves around
common preference need of livelihood income-raising activities with technical assistance of woreda
cooperative office and LRP implementation unit.
a) Formation of groups preferably based on preferred similar livelihood activities
b) The PAPs beneficiaries must themselves select the members, leaders and rules of their
groups. i.e. In the groups should be really participatory. Volunteer membership and mutual
consent the PAPs and the group selects its own members based on certain criteria like
adjacent farm lots and/or home plots, family ties, common (community) interests,
friendships, religious affiliation, etc.; furthermore, willingness to accept mutual
responsibility for group activities. This willingness may regard joining a nucleus
enterprise, sharing production aids, possession of special skills or a pool of implements
(among laborer) and so on.
c) Membership accept mutual responsibility and joint liability for self-help activities; and
d) Trust each other to such an extent that none of them would dominate or exploit the other.
The formation of viable and stable groups/cooperatives requires exerting effort in organizing PAPs
groups with patience and needs additional time effort and budget to be allocated as incentives for
PAPs interested to be organized in group and cooperatives. Majority of PAPs have shown less
preference for group/cooperatives. It is assumed about 191 or 40% of PAPs to be organized in
group/cooperatives and the incentives to carry out group/cooperative livelihood development
actions estimated to birr 1,912,000. This budget is used for cooperative promotion and additional
assistance for PAPs preferred in group/cooperative livelihood schemes.
7.6 LRP FOR VULNERABLE GROUPS
The issues of vulnerable people are given special consideration under OP 4.12; Paragraph 8 and
Ethiopian Social Protection Policy. These legal provisions consider the specific needs of vulnerable
groups especially the landless, the old aged/elderly, widows/women and unemployed youths. These
categories of people are unable to work and assisted through direct based on their land loss and
vulnerability impacts to overcome potential economic shock due to the project economic loss and
maintain their life and protect them from higher risk. In table 21 and 21a, below, the 111 PAPs
68
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
were identified as vulnerable groups from the total 571 PAPs affected greater than 20% of their land
and. The vulnerable groups identified include old aged; Widows/Female Headed Households who
have no care and support; physical disabled and chronic illness unable to work due to health or other
reason.
Table 21: Types of vulnerability
Type of Vulnerability # VGs %
Old aged (above 70) 12 11
Widows/Female Headed Households 5 5
Physical disability 38 34
Chronic illness 56 50
Total 111 100
Source: PAPs census survey, 2020
The list of PAPs in the table 21 below identified based on old aged (greater than 70 years);
widows/Female Headed Households who have no care and support; physical disabled and chronic
illness unable to work due to health or other reason.
With regards to budget allocation, all vulnerable may not necessarily receive equal support and
hence their budget allocation based on vulnerability, land loss, number of dependent family
members. The land compensation may not necessarily for asset creation, but to be provided cash
handout support to sustain their livelihood. Based on the weighted average land loss, income loss
and dependent family members and other vulnerability index, the total budget for vulnerable group
support is birr 4,311,200.40. This budget to be disbursed based on the budget allocation for each
PAPS as direct social support to commensurate the land loss impacts and their vulnerability.
Accordingly, the total budget for vulnerable group support indicated in table below, and detail refer
Annex 2 (sheet 2.10)
69
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Table 21a: Vulnerable groups and Budget allocation
No WORE Kebele NAME FA 5.2Tot
DA MIL al land 5.4land % Land loss
Y # Depende hold area (Land weighted
SIZ Depen Wor ncy ratio size taken by taken/Total Weighted Income Weighted dependen weighted Budget Budget
Age Sex E dent k age (%) (ha) the road hold) land loss loss income loss t average allocation Share
1 ATJK Abine Germama Kadir Mihoro 31 1 7 2 5 40 2 0.57745 28.8725 0.008037 69294 0.008037 0.0059 0.007324 31,576.27 31,576.27
2 ATJK Abine Germama Samuro Wash 90 1 12 5 7 71.42857 1 0.229 22.9 0.003187 27480 0.003187 0.014749 0.007041 30,355.68 30,355.68
3 ATJK Abine Germama Mana Mandado 80 1 7 2 5 40 2 0.75 37.5 0.010438 90000 0.010438 0.0059 0.008925
Dukamo 38,478.27 38,478.27
4 ATJK Abine Germama Gamado Debisoo 28 1 2 1 1 100 1 0.8305 83.05 0.011558 99660 0.011558 0.00295 0.008689
Dubbee 37,459.14 37,459.14
5 ATJK Abine Germama Abarrazamadkulu 42 1 9 4 5 80 1.5 1.23945 82.63 0.01725 148734 0.01725 0.011799 0.015433
w/yoha 66,534.54 66,534.54
6 ATJK Abine Germama Woyyemee Tafaa 35 2 11 2 9 22.22222 2.75 2.213 80.47273 0.030799 265560 0.030799 0.0059 0.022499
Mieessaa 96,998.27 96,998.27
7 ATJK Abine Germama Jlado Dekebo 77 1 24 5 19 26.31579 1 0.544 54.4 0.007571 65280 0.007571 0.014749 0.009964 42,955.68 42,955.68
8 ATJK Abine Germama Moomina Huser Habib 44 1 7 2 5 40 1 0.4928 49.28 0.006858 59136 0.006858 0.0059 0.006539 28,190.27 28,190.27
9 ATJK Abine Germama Kaabboo Heeyii 45 1 9 7 2 350 3 1.046 34.86667 0.014557 125520 0.014557 0.020649 0.016588
Hinseenee 71,513.95 71,513.95
10 ATJK Abine Germama Zesha Bartii Alee 80 2 7 2 5 40 1.5 0.5 33.33333 0.006959 60000 0.006959 0.0059 0.006606 28,478.27 28,478.27
11 ATJK Abine Germama Kadiroo Dallee Dabbee 35 1 7 2 5 40 1.5 0.625 41.66667 0.008698 75000 0.008698 0.0059 0.007765 33,478.27 33,478.27
12 Dugda Dodota Dambal Kebo Desalagne Raje 75 2 5 1 4 25 2 0.484 24.2 0.006736 58080 0.006736 0.00295 0.005474 23,599.14 23,599.14
13 Dugda Dodota Dambal Bujaa Tufaa Degaga 38 1 7 5 2 250 2 0.861 43.05 0.011983 103320 0.011983 0.014749 0.012905 55,635.68 55,635.68
14 Dugda Dodota Dambal Taneshe Danbo Tagore 75 2 3 1 2 50 1 0.642 64.2 0.008935 77040 0.008935 0.00295 0.00694 29,919.14 29,919.14
15 Dugda Dodota Dambal Gada Tola Badeso 55 1 8 4 4 100 2 0.666 33.3 0.009269 79920 0.009269 0.011799 0.010112 43,596.54 43,596.54
19 ATJK Edo Gojola Wako Gemada Gobana 57 1 13 5 8 62.5 3 1.75 58.33333 0.024355 210000 0.024355 0.014749 0.021153 91,195.68 91,195.68
20 ATJK Edo Gojola Garu Wariyi Huqee 90 1 9 6 3 200 1 0.69 69 0.009603 82800 0.009603 0.017699 0.012302 53,034.81 53,034.81
111
Total 339 71.85334 1 862240 1 1 1 4,311,200.4
1 4,311,200.40 0
Source: PAPs Survey, November/December 2020
70
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
7.7 TRAINING AND CAPACITY BUILDING
a) TARGET GROUPS TRAINING NEEDS
The LRP implementation involves different stakeholders, and training capacity building will be
required at two major level, 1) Woreda and kebele implementing sectors and 2) PAHHs and youths.
In order to ensure quality and the training should be in order of sequence, separate training session
for implementing body and PAPs. First, train the implementing sector/stakeholders as trainers of
trainer to cascade down to the PAHHs. The two training session, 1) stakeholders and 2) PAHs and
youth groups can attend in one training session.
b) Capacity building for stakeholders
It was realized that, stakeholders consulted have less understanding on the issues of livelihood
restoration plan and less awareness on land policy, land expropriation and the national and regional
proclamation on land and related issues. The aim and essence of livelihood restoration objectives,
implementation and strategies should be tailored and internalized among implementing stakeholders
and experts. Thus, invite well trained and experienced staffs assigned from available sources that
helps to develop the skills of existing woreda sector office staff to effectively support the
implementation of the LRP. Trained woreda staff will then mentor the kebele management and
extension workers and the PAPs to cascade the LRP implementation. The trainings ought to be
designed and provided for the sector offices in collaboration with project implementation team of
experts. The training topic for sector is mainly on “LRP essence and objectives for sector office.
The aim of the training is awareness raise session for management and experts drawn from woreda
administration and sector office. The training participants will be concerned woreda stakeholders
management and technical frontline experts in line with proposed livelihood package. The
stakeholder training participants/trainees are those influence and political commitment for decision
making and those in line with proposed livelihood package and stakeholders training participants
are most likely to be drawn from the following sectors;
Sector office and number of training participants
Number of
No Sector office training participants experts/Trainees/Participants
1 Woreda administration 2
2 Town administration 2
3 Woreda Agriculture office 2
4 Livestock and fishery development office 2
5 Woreda Water resources and irrigation development office 2
6 Woreda cooperatives promotion office 2
Total 12
NB:, The number of participant from sector office could be one or two depending on importance
and priority for LRP and other additional sector office could be included as demanded.
71
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
The training topic for Woreda and kebele implementing staffs will be selective on the area
demanding capacity building for implementation. The training for stakeholders mainly to develop
understanding on the issues of livelihood restoration plan and awareness on land policy, land
expropriation and the national and regional proclamation on land and related issues.
Trainers
The trainers at woreda level are higher level and experienced mix of discipline in agriculture and
non-agriculture. The trainers will be invited depending on the type of livelihood and the trainers
will come and invited from own sources and other sector office demanding special trainers type.
The trainers include independent LRP implementation consultant and woreda sector office as may
be required (agriculture office, livestock and fishery, TVET and micro enterprise development and
others who will be invited as required. In order to encourage and ensure trainers full engagement,
trainers incentives will be provided that encourage trainers participation. The independent
consultant will decide trainers, invite trainers and coordinate the training.
The woreda expert who trained will train and coach kebele level LRP stakeholders. The training
will be cascade down to kebele level and all development participants mainly kebele cabinets,
kebele management structures including development agent .who will play key role in the
implementation of the restoration enterprise will be trained.
c) CAPACITY BUILDING FOR PAHHs AND YOUTHS
In order to achieve the proposed livelihood restoration plan and objectives, training and capacity
building in management, technical and financial management is highly important and critical to
establish sustainable livelihood restoration. Accordingly, based on consultation, interview and
queries with PAPs, identified PAPs training gaps and needs and deduced knowledge capacity
required line with the proposed package of activities that requires practical training to achieve the
objectives and targets of the LRP. The PAPs training need also suggested in discussion with woreda
sector offices stakeholders during discussions. As to the key informant respondents, there was lack
of training and awareness in the previous compensation fund disbursement and indicated training
and capacity building as paramount important for the LRP. Thus different training session expected
for different groups at different level, depending on the type of livelihood package and type trainees
and training participants.
Training target groups: Including the vulnerable, the land based eligible for land loss greater than
20% are 571 PAPs. However, the vulnerable (111PAPs) are unable to work and provided as direct
72
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
social support. Therefore, excluding the VGs, the training participants for the livelihood activity
package will be for 460PAPs for the land based livelihood affected PAPs. The non-land economic
livelihood affected 18PAPs due to Meki and Ziway link road. Therefore, the total training
participants will be 478 including land based ((460) and Meki and Ziway town Non Land (18PAPs).
Non Land livelihood affected/Town road link: For the non-land town road link identified 18
PAPs and 15 youths of PAPs participate in line with their livelihood identified that includes local
food, coffee and tea house; hotel & restaurant, shops and grain trade and metal works. The training
mainly focus on essence and objectives of the LRP and basic training on customer handling, market
and financial management
Rural Land based livelihood affected: For rural land based livelihood affected, the LRP identified
460 PAPs eligible to engage livelihood restoration activity package. The training capacity building
mainly to address 460PAHs/PAPs identified eligible for LRP. In addition, youth family members
of PAPs will also provide training capacity building together with PAPs with the objective to assist
their PAHHs and initiate them to start their own business toward self-support. Thus in addition to
460PAPs, a total 472 youths will participate the training capacity building under the land based
impacted PAPs group. The key areas of training for land based livelihood affected PAPs the training
type identified in the line with their livelihood activity package and includes :
Awareness creation on essence of livelihood restoration and strategies
Agricultural input and extension services for increased production and productivity
Livestock management training (for both dairy production and animal fattening),
Financial literacy and money management training for efficient financial use and
management (practice credit & saving strategy and financial planning at the household level);
Business skill alternative income generating activities, linkage to market and financial
institutions.
In general, training and capacity is proposed for PAHHs and their youths. Awareness on
financial concept and essence of livelihood restoration and financial management is a pre-
condition before fund disbursement.
d) Quality of the training
To ensure quality of the training, the focus should be result oriented training, experienced staffs to
be assigned from available sources that helps to develop the skills of existing woreda and kebele
sector office staff to effectively support the implementation of the LRP. The training should be in
separate groups and number of participants should be limited and manageable below 50 participants
73
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
in one training session. In order to ensure quality of the training, divide the training session for
groups of PAPs and for cost effectiveness suggest to use available woreda or kebele resource mainly
meeting hall. The refreshment and transport cost for training participants included in the LRP
budget. The training place preferably if arranged in center of the kebele appropriate to accommodate
trainees from two or more kebele in one place. Refreshment and periderm/ incentives expected to
encourage training participation and included in the training cost.
e) Trainers and responsible partners
Woreda stakeholders Trainers; Majority of the livelihood package is agriculture related activities
and agriculture sector important stakeholder sector to recruit trainers. The training schedule is for
short term and technical and vocation education Training (TVET) may give short day skill training
for PAPs preferred metal and wood work. In general, the woreda sector office, TVET and .micro
enterprise development as well as independent LRP implementation unit also involve in training for
stakeholders. In order to meet quality and result oriented training capacity building, well trained
and experienced staffs may also invited from other institutions that helps to develop the skills of
existing woreda sector office staff to effectively support the implementation of the LRP. Trained
woreda sector staff will then mentor the kebele management and extension workers and the PAPs
to cascade the LRP implementation.
Trainers at kebele level: The woreda expert who trained at woreda level will train and coach kebele
level training for kebele management, Development agents and PAPs. The training will be cascade
down to kebele level and all development participants mainly kebele cabinets, kebele management
structures including development agent .who will play key role in the implementation of the
restoration enterprise will be trained.
f) Training time schedule
The LRP essence and objectives for sector office staffs will be provided at the beginning as training
of trainers. The trained woreda sector office assist and develop awareness on LRP for PAPs and
their youths to understand the basic essence and objectives of LRP and self-support livelihood
scheme development. Awareness on financial concept and essence of livelihood restoration and
financial management is a pre-condition before fund disbursement. As planned in the LRP
implementation schedule, if the LRP get approval in January 2022, then after two month for budget
secure and preparatory time, and training for stakeholders can start early April 2022 and followed
by training for PAPs in same month.
74
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
g) Training and capacity building Cost
Training will be given for woreda and kebele implementing stakeholder stakeholders and the PAPs.
The training cost and budget break down planned to be cost effective and use available woreda
and kebele meeting place. The woreda stakeholders training to be made in woreda meeting hall or
other appropriate woreda sector office meeting hall. The PAPs training place preferably can be
arranged in center of the kebele appropriate to accommodate trainees from two or more kebele in
one place. In order to encourage training participation refreshment and transport cost is required
and included in the training budget. The training cost includes budget for trainers and training
participants. Accordingly, the total training cost required for training participants will be birr
1,416,000. The trainers cost estimated based on total training man days required and total number
of days and unit cost per day. Accordingly, training requires total 28 training man days input for
30 training days and 650 birr/day and the total trainers cost is birr 546,000 The total training cost
including trainers fee and training participants estimated to birr 1,962,000. The sector office to
participate identified based on their role in implementation of the LRP that are listed in preceding
section that includes (Agriculture office, Livestock & fish development office; water resource and
irrigation development, cooperatives promotion office, etc.). The training participants includes
478PAPs and 274 youths; The training and capacity building budget breakdown is as indicated in
table below.
75
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Table 23: Summary of Training Type and Cost
# # Other cost
Trainees/Participan Transport Total
Total #Trai Trai (Refreshment
No Types of training ts Cost/Traine cost/traine Total cost
Traine ners ning and other)
es/Day es/day
PAPs Youth es Days Birr/trainees
Awareness raise training session for Sector
1
office
LRP essence and objectives for sector office 12 - 12 2 2 300 250 550 13,200.00
1.1
staffs
2 Training for Rural land based affected PAPs
Startup training (Concept and essence of 460 690 6 2 200 200 400 552,000.00
2.1
Livelihood restoration plan
Livelihood package technical knowledge &
3
skill development
Agriculture input & technical extension 174 87 261 4 3 200 200 400 313,200.00
3.1
support
Irrigation & pump operation and Irrigated crop 70 35 105 2 3 200 200 400 126,000.00
3.2
production
3.3 Dairy farming management 9 4 13 2 3 200 200 400 15,600.00
3.4 Cattle trade 60 30 90 2 3 200 200 400 108,000.00
3.5 Poultry 38 18 56 2 3 200 200 400 67,200.00
3.6 ▪ Livestock fattening 66 33 99 2 3 200 200 400 118,800.00
3.7 ▪ Grain Marketing 37 17 54 2 3 200 200 400 64,800.00
3.8 Local transport 6 3 9 2 3 200 200 400 10,800.00
Training for Meki & Ziway link road town- 18 15 33 2 2 200 200 400 26,400.00
4 Non land livelihood Package/ Non-Land
affected (PAPs)
5 Sub Total cost for training participants 1,416,000.00
6 Trainers perdiem and training fee 28 30 400 250 650 546,000.00
Total Training cost 1,962,000.00
Source: Census survey, November 2020
76
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
7.8 SUMMARY OF LIVELIHOOD RESTORATION ACTIVITIES AND BUDGET
The LRP investment budget estimated for each group that includes budget for rural land-based
livelihood affected, non-land livelihood affected (Meki & Ziway link road), Vulnerable groups,
training, and capacity building; independent consultant LRP implementation cost, internal monitoring
and evaluation cost and external post audit cost.
Option I
The PAPs livelihood needs identified first livelihood needs and second livelihood needs as alternative
options for the livelihood alternatives. Based on PAPs first choice (Option I), the total LRP cost for
LOT2 of Meki–Ziway road section estimated to birr 56,845,966.This includes budget for land based
and non-land based affected PAPs as well as independent consultant cost, training capacity building,
cost ; internal monitoring cost; midterm evaluation and post implementation audit cost. The budget
summery is given in the following table and detail in Annex 2 (Excel Sheet 2.12)
77
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Table 22a: Summary of the LRP activities and Budget (Option I)
N Economic Sector/Livelihood activity (Option 1) Responsible
o body
PAP Family Budget
s members
1 Agriculture Related Activities
Farm (Agriculture inputs) for PAPs 174 676 16,881,800 woreda
agriculture
Irrigation farm 70 252 6,581,250 woreda
agriculture
Fattening 66 254 6,426,750 woreda
agriculture
Poultry farm inputs 38 127 3,895,800 woreda
agriculture
Dairy 9 24 959,725 woreda
agriculture
Sub total 357 1309 34,745,325
2 Non-Agriculture Related Activities
Cattle trading 60 210 3,351,600 woreda trade
office
Grain trade market 37 137 2,405,000 woreda trade
office
Local transport service 6 25 309,100 woreda
transport
sub Total 103 372 6,065,700
Total (Land based affected for 40,811,025
Rural kebele)
3 LRP for Non land Livelihood
affected (Meki Ziway road link)
Grain trade/mill house 5 22 340,000 woreda trade
office
Local food/beverage, coffee/tea 4 18 273,000 woreda trade
office
Wood/Metal work 1 4 60,000 TVET
Shops 6 26 360,000 woreda trade
office
Hotel & Restaurants 2 9 240,500 woreda trade
office
Subtotal (Non land affected (Meki & 18 79 1,273,500.
Ziway town link road) 00
Total (LRP activities) 478 1760 42,084,525
4 Vulnerable groups 111 339 4,311,200
5 Training and capacity building 478 474 1,962,000
(478APs)
78
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
6 Incentive assistance cost for 191 1,912,000
group/cooperative
7 Independent consultant cost (5%) 2,513,486
8 Community and Organizational 527,832.12
expert (1%)
9 Woreda implementation committee 533,110.44
and GRM (1%)
10 Internal Monitoring and Evaluation 799,666
cost (1.5%)
11 Midterm evaluation (1%) 546,438
12 Post implementation Audit (3%) 1,655,708
Total 56,845,966
Option II
As indicated in preceding section, the PAPs livelihood needs identified under two scenarios/options
for the livelihood alternatives. Based on PAPs second choice (Option II), the total LRP cost 57,027,699
including budget for land based and non-land based affected PAPs as well as independent consultant
cost, training capacity building, cost; internal monitoring cost; midterm evaluation and post
implementation audit cost. The option II budget is slightly higher than option I. The budget summery
is given in the following table and detail in Annex 2 (Excel Sheet 2.12).
Table 22b: Summary of the Project (Option II)
N Economic Sector/Livelihood (Option 2) Responsible body
o activity
PAPs Family Budget
members
1 Agriculture Related Activities
Farm (Agriculture inputs) for PAPs 102 393 9,896,227.5 woreda agriculture
9
Irrigation farm 61 218 5,735,089.2 woreda agriculture
9
Fattening 126 482 12,269,250. woreda agriculture
00
Poultry farm inputs 55 183 5,638,657.8 woreda agriculture
9
Dairy 12 31 1,279,633.3 woreda agriculture
3
Sub total 356 1307 34,818,858
2 Non-Agriculture Related Activities
Cattle trading 56 194 3,128,160.0 woreda trade office
0
Grain trade market 35 128 2,275,000.0 woreda trade office
0
Local transport service 13 52 669,716.67 woreda transport
79
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
sub Total 104 374 6,072,877
Total (Land based affected for
Rural kebele)
3 LRP for Non land Livelihood
affected (Meki Ziway road link)
Grain trade/mill house 2 9 136,000.00 woreda trade office
Local food/beverage, coffee/tea 2 9 136,500.00 woreda trade office
Wood/Metal work 2 8 120,000.00 TVET
Shops 8 35 480,000.00 woreda trade office
Hotel & Restaurants 4 18 481,000.00 woreda trade office
Subtotal (Non land affected (Meki 18 79 1,353,500
& Ziway town link road)
Total (LRP activities) 478 1760 42,245,235
4 Vulnerable groups 339 4,311,200
5 Training and capacity building 1,962,000
(478APs)
6 Incentive assistance cost for 191 1,912,000
group/cooperative
7 Independent consultant cost (5%) 2,521,521.7
6
8 Community and Organizational 529,519.57
expert (1%)
9 Woreda implementation 534,814.76
committee and GRM (1%)
1 Internal Monitoring and 802,222
0 Evaluation cost (1.5%)
1 Midterm evaluation (1%) 548,185.13
1
1 Post implementation Audit (3%) 1,661,000.9
2 6
Total 57,027,699
Based on the alternative analysis between option I and Option II, PAPs first preference needs most
likely to be on the interest of the PAPs for their livelihood restoration and the budget slightly lower
and hence Option I align PAPs first and priority livelihood need and found preferred option for LRP
implementation.
7.9 SOURCE OF FINANCE
As indicated in the preceding section option (I) was considered for the LRP and detail budget break
down. The overall financial requirement for the livelihood restoration plan including training and
capacity building and all other operational cost estimated to birr 56,845,966. Finance is an
indispensable for implementation and successful realization of the livelihood restoration plan.
80
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Development and Implementation of Livelihood Restoration needs securing adequate fund for
implementation.
The LRP budget is to be covered by government of Ethiopia. The Ethiopian Road Authority as
government entity should plan budget allocation to cover the budget in consultation with budget holder
ministry as well as prime minister social and economic affairs and other concerned government body.
The consultant propose immediate establishment of fund mobilization team lead under prime minister
office of economic and social affairs and ERA should play facilitation role.
81
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
CHAPTER EIGHT; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
8.1 IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT
The effective and successful implementation of the LRP ultimately depends upon workable
institutional and organizational arrangements made for its implementation. The federal government
expected to allocate budget and regional government structure provide assistance and oversee
implementation of the LRP as required with minor roles. Whereas the major implementing organ and
implementation mechanism preferably undertaken are within the existing project structure. Thus, ERA
and woreda government structure are the major implementing organs with roles and responsibilities.
Based on the existing project structure ERA is the main responsible body provide assistance and
oversee the overall implementation of the LRP. However, implementation of LRP requires the
participation of several institutions at different levels. The LRP is to be implemented by ERA with
close coordination of other key stakeholders that includes;
▪ Ethiopian Road Authority
▪ Woreda Administrations
▪ Town Administrations
▪ Kebele Administrations
▪ Woreda sector office
▪ PAPs representatives
From the woreda sector office, the major responsible sectors to support implementation of the LRP
include trade and Industry development; Market Development; Agriculture and Natural Resource;
Livestock and fishery; Micro enterprise development; TVET; Job Creation and Food Security Office;
Cooperative Promotion Offices, respective town administrations and their sector office and others.
8.1.1 Ethiopian Road Authority
Ethiopian road Authority is land acquiring body and responsible for right of ways management.
Therefore, ERA in consultation with other council of minister or concerned line minster mobilize and
allocate the budget required for implementation of the LRP. The expressway and special project
contract administration directorate is responsible and mandate of contract administration of the
expressway and special projects of the country. This directorate is responsible in budget securing ,
financial resource mobilization and other support. Ethiopian road authority (ERA) is responsible for
budget allocation, recruit and assign an independent implementation consultant and LRP will be
implemented by the government structure through displaced people rehabilitation office whose functioning
82
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
and effective institutional framework who is the proper implementation, monitoring of the LRP. Based on
ERA organizational structure the Environment, Social and Occupational Health and Safety
Management Directorate directly responsible for social and environment management. These
directorate is responsible in coordinating the study and coaching implementation, internal monitor and
evaluation of the LRP. There are other stakeholders and partners with ERA to assist and facilitate the
LRP implementation process.
8.1.2 Independent LRP Implementation consultant
ERA and woreda government structures play the guiding role and major implementing collaborates.
The coordination role is to be played by an independent implementation unit who coordinate and
mobilize woreda level structures. The independent unit works closely with woreda sector office and
play the lead role in coordinating woreda and kebele level structure.
8.1.3 World Bank and other donor institutions
The World Bank expected to provide technical support in development and implementation of
livelihood restoration plan and involve in review and clear the livelihood restoration plans, follow up
of the implementation and provide technical advice as appropriate.
8.1.4 Woreda LRP coordination & Implementation main committee
ERA through the LRP implementing consultant to be hired and Zonal and Woreda level LRP
implementation committee has a decision-making power who are already part of the PIU. The woreda
LRP coordination and Implementation Committee will be draw from woreda administration and
woreda sector office and have the responsibility to establish subcommittee (woreda technical
committee) and oversee the delivery of inputs for PAPs and livelihood restoration planning,
implementation, monitoring and funding and represents all the sectors responsible for facilitating the
LRP implementation. The LRP is to be mainly implemented by ERA through the independent
consultant to be assigned by ERA who coordinate the overall implementation process. The major
stakeholders and key players includes; but not limited to;
Ethiopian Road Authority, mainly Expressway directorate; Environment and social and safety
management directorate)
Woreda administration and sector office
Meki & Ziway town administration
ATJK and Dugda Woreda Agriculture and Natural Resource Offices,
Woreda livestock and fishery development office
Woreda micro and small enterprises development office
83
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
ATJK and Dugda Cooperative Promotion Offices
Towns Industry and trade development office
Key Roles and Responsibilities of the woreda LRP Implementation Committee includes:
Coordinate woreda sector office and resources
Overseeing ethics, compliance and governance issues and ensuring that the livelihood restoration
process is managed fairly and transparently and is free of corruption and discrimination;
Ensuring alignment of livelihood restoration plan with LRP plan ;
Providing an advisory role, which includes resolving internal and external livelihood restoration
issues, monitoring the budget;
Reviewing monitoring report provided by the woreda and kebele subcommittee like Procurement
committee ensuring that livelihood input is provided to PAPs as per the budget and issues are
addressed in an efficient and effective manner.
Work closely with grievance redress subcommittee in accepting, investigating and addressing
grievances and complaints of PAHs to ensure that the livelihood restoration process is managed
fairly and transparently and is free of corruption and discrimination; and; and
Responding to implementation problems identified in internal and external monitoring reports.
The woreda LRP Implementation and coordination Committee will meet once every months and evaluate
the status of LRP implementation and any other issues that may arises in the due course. The meeting place
will be either the Woreda administration office or any location as may be appropriate for committee
members.
8.1.5 Woreda LRP Implementation Technical team
The woreda LRP coordination and implementation main committee may establish other subcommittee
at woreda level, mainly woreda LRP Implementation Technical team who is responsible for
technical management of LRP implementation. The woreda Grievance Committee will also new
established to oversee and amicably solve for any grievance that may arises in the process.
8.1.6 Community Organization and management experts
ERA will assign independent consultant who is responsible for LRP implementation. The independent
consultant will assign one organization and management expert for each woreda who mobilize and
organize PAPs group in each kebele and works under the supervision of the independent consultant.
His role is to support in organizing and management of PAPs in group who prefer to establish group
based livelihood and also assist the independent consultant and woreda technical teams. Therefore, in
addition to the independent consultant, organization and management exert is required who organize
PAPs group and assist PAPs for some period of minimum six months though mentoring and coach
84
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
PAPs to share benefit according to their budget share and minimize conflict based on mutual consent
between PAPs groups and facilitate LRP implementation process. Thus, the independent consultant
will deploy one organization and management expert for each woreda who mobilize and organize
PAPs group and works under the supervision of the independent consultant. This task is part of LRP
implementation and the budget for the expert included with Independent consultant to be hired by the
independent consultant for LRP Implementation.
8.1.7 Fund Transfer and Management
The LRP fund should reach the PAPs as per the plan proposal and the fund transfer and financial fund
should not be complicated and should not be open for embezzlement. The budget is allocated through
ERA who is authorized body for budget transfer to the beneficiary. The allocated budget should be
used for the proposed livelihood activities that needs to ensure utilization of the budget for the intended
livelihood purpose. The budget transfer through procurement committee and then distribute the
materials for PAPs will have major drawbacks complex, long process, delay due to bureaucratic
system and delay of budget to reach the target in need and further in the long process of procurement
fund embezzlement and less likely to reach the PAPs on time to restore for their livelihood. From the
compensation experience, long decision making and fatigue they were hectic to bureaucratic system
in decision making. Furthermore, the PAPs mention that lack of awareness and training indicated as
major constraints. According to PAPs, if training and awareness given each PAPs can take
responsibility and prefer the livelihood budget to transfer to their joint account of husband and wife.
They were hectic to bureaucratic structures and preferred direct transfer of their livelihood budget
and they are willing to sign commitment to allocate the budget received for the intended livelihood
purpose. The are some precondition for PAPs to access livelihood budget 1) participation in training
and 2) signed commitment for use of the fund for the intended livelihood purpose to ensure allocation
of the budget for the intended uses, 3rd precondition may be PAPs themselves to takes responsibility
share through group collateral signed between PAPs who know each other.. In this case one PAPs
check and controls the other for utilization of the LRP budget and vis-versa that expected to operate
as planed livelihood schemes and realize sustainable livelihood. The PAPs takes responsibility in
procurement of livelihood inputs and implementation of his/her livelihood schemes that expected to
reduce complain and grievance that may arise in budget transfer and procurement process. The overall
LRP implementation, reporting and organizational arrangement is indicated in the following
organizational flow chart.
85
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Figure 7: LRP Implementation Organizational Structures
ETHIOPIAN ROAD
AUTHORITY
Independent
Implementation unit
Woreda LRP coordination & Woreda institutions
Woreda administration and Implementation main (Micro enterprises,
woreda sector office committee TVET,etc)
Woreda LRP
Implementation Technical
team
Community Organization
and management expert
Woreda Grievance committee
PAPs/Kebele
PAPs/Kebele PAPs/Kebele PAPs/Kebele PAPs/Kebele
Livelihood Livelihood
Livelihood Livelihood
Livelihood schemes schemes
schemes schemes
schemes Livelihood
Livelihood schemes Livelihood
Livelihood Livelihood
schemes schemes
schemes schemes
PAPs AND STAKE HOLDERS
TRAINING AND CAPACITY BUILDING
External Independent Audit 86
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
8.1.8 Woreda grievance committee
The LRP implementation is complex and challenging in many aspects. Although, once existing
grievance redress committee for the compensation management, for LOT 2 project, the road project
already in completion and the previous GRC are not in place and not actively function and needs to
establish new Grievance Redress Committee (GRC) for the LRP implementation. The woreda LRP
grievance redress committees consists six members drawn from concerned woreda sector offices
including woreda administration; woreda agriculture; woreda livestock development; Micro Enterprise
Development and Representatives of PAPs.
The GRC is to ensure PAPs have avenues for redressing grievances related to any aspect of livelihood
restoration plan and implementation. The GRC committee comprises six members to be drawn from
concerned sectors including implementing stakeholders and PAPs representatives. Women also to be
represented in the committee to reflect women interest and the composition of the GRC preferably at
least two women and four male in the GRC. In the case of conflict or disputes related to LRP, any
issues are to be submitted in the form of an application to the kebele administration or Kebele GRC
and then choose two elders each for arbitration and try to solve problems amicably. If problem not
solved pass the case to the woreda GRC for the final decision of the grievance.
8.1.9 Kebele level sub committee
The same structure of the woreda committees will be established at kebele level to assist LRP
implementation at kebele level. The kebele committee consists kebele chair; kebele manager; kebele
development agents; kebele opinion leaders groups, PAPs and others. The committee will organize
public meeting and confirm eligible PAPs and support in providing relevant information and
coordinating the implementation of the LRP. The major works of kebele level technical committee
includes validation of eligible PAPs, mobilize PAPs for livelihood restoration plan awareness and
implementation, arrange meeting place and local resources for training of the PAPs, provide
management assistance implementation, help in selection and getting of appropriate working places,
support in establishing livelihood restoration enterprise, involve in monitoring and evaluation
activities. Moreover, they will assist the PAPs in selecting, purchasing and transporting the types of
inputs required for undertaking their livelihood schemes to provide assistance to vulnerable PAPs and
women groups and others.
87
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
8.1.10 Grievance Redresses Mechanism and Procedure
As mentioned in preceding section, the LOT 2 road project completed and the previous GRC is not in
function and suggest to establish new GRC. The grievance related to LRP needs procedures for redress
of grievances at each stage of the implementation process. The grievance procedure enable to respond
to the complaints of the PAPs efficiently, easily accessible, transparent and fair and to avoid the need
to resort to complicated formal channels to redress grievances. The grievance redress mechanism
should be easy and workable with its own working procedure. To this end, grievance redress (GR)
committees have to be established at woredas and kebeles. The PAPs present their grievance to first
contact point, kebele Grievance Redress Committee (GRC) and then woreda and ERA.
Ethiopia Road Authority
Woreda GRC
Kebele GRC
PAPs
The ERA safeguard specialist and staffs work closely with GRC and collect information on LRP
progress when needed, listening to their concerns about the LRP and recording them, receiving
demands and complaints, recording them regularly and sharing them with ERA assigned
implementation team and woreda GRM committee. To facilitate decision making mobile phone
numbers of GRM committee and LRP implementation committee will be shared for PAPs and Kebele
administrations. The grievance redress mechanism (GRM) should be in place and transparent to
respond to project-related grievances in an efficient and effective manner. As per OP 4.12 of the WB,
GRM should be accessible and appropriate to bring about remedial measures for complaints.
88
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Appropriateness and accessibility signifies the need to have a workable GRM arrangement tailored to
local context.
Trainings will be been given for GRC; and a focal person is to be designated as a frontline contact to
entertain grievances. The woreda LRP Woreda LRP coordination & Implementation main committee
collect grievances weekly or monthly and discuss with the woreda grievance committee and others
relevant stakeholders for possible redressing of complaints that may arises.
8.1.11 External Independent audit
The post audit as external evaluation will be undertaken by an independent party and his role and
responsibility to evaluate the overall success of livelihoods restoration plan and objectives; determine
whether the process successfully restored and assure achievement of the LRP objectives, draw learning
lessons and recommendation for scale in future LRP planning.
8.2 Roles and Responsibility matrix
Identifying key role of proposed institutional arrangement at the organizational and local level is
important for responsibility share and commitment to assist the displaced or affected PAPs in their
effort to restore and improve their livelihoods. The organizational and reporting hierarchy indicated
in preceding organizational chart and summary of stake holders roles and responsibility indicated in
the following table.
Table 23: Stakeholder and responsibility share
No Stakeholder Roles and Responsibility
1 Ethiopian Road Authority(ERA) and Budget allocation and overall management
other directorates Assign independent implementing unit
2 ERA Express way road management Assign independent implementing unit
3 ERA (ESSMD/Environment, safeguard Coordinate LRP implementation management, M & E
and social management) Directorate
4 Independent LRP implementation Coordinate over all implementation of the LRP
5 Community organization and The independent consultant is accountable and responsible for
management expert independent LRP implementation consultant. The Independent
consultant is required to hire the required manpower for LRP
implementation, and the budget required for community development
expert included in the LRP budget.
6 Regional and zonal government Oversee LRP implementation management, M & E
structures
7 Woreda administration Instruct Woreda sector office to support LRP
Oversee woreda level LRP implementation and
Provide management decision on major issues
89
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
8 Woreda LRP coordination & Provide political and decision making at woreda level
Implementation main committee
9 Woreda LRP Implementation Technical Technical assistance at woreda level
team
10 Woreda grievance committee (WGC) Responding to complaints to ensure that all received complaints are
recorded; that LRP implementation process is responsive to
complaints; and that corrective actions are mutually acceptable.
11 Woreda agriculture, livestock and fishery Assist the PAHs in providing advice for selecting the type of breeds,
and other sector office purchase of inputs, construction of dairy farming and fattening sheds
and associated establishments, feed supply, veterinary services and
sanitation
12 Woreda Cooperatives Organize PAPs in group & associations as required ;Establish as
cooperative group and give certification; Link PAHs with credit
providing institutions (MFIs) and cooperatives to access loans
13 Woreda TVET Provide skills training and mentorship mainly on livelihood
demanding technical skills like Wood & metal work
14 Town administration Assist non land livelihood activities in road link in provide working
place
Provide business center/market shed place for non-land livelihood
activities
15 Labour and social affairs Provision of direct cash support and linkage to social security services
(vulnerable groups)
16 ERA and partners ( M & E) Follow up of the implementation and provision of technical
support/advice as appropriate
Monitoring and Evaluation of the LRP Implementation
17 External independent Audit Evaluate the overall success of livelihoods restoration
plan
90
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
CHAPTER NINE; LRP IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
9.1 GENERAL
The livelihood restoration will have two distinct phase, i.e. Planning and Implementation. This current
task assignment is Livelihood restoration planning phase and put ground plan for implementation. The
implementation is not part of the current task assignment. The submission of the LRP marks the end
of the livelihood restoration planning phases. The implementation of the LRP requires procurement
and disbursing and capacity building training to be implemented by separate independent team. Based
on this work plan, implementing unit revise the activities, work time plan and strategies, and schedule
to implement the LRP. Livelihood restoration plan preparation has passed through sequence of steps
that include livelihood need preference assessment; Livelihood impacts identification; identification
of eligible and target beneficiaries; Livelihood strategy formulation; organization and institutional
arrangement; Budget and detail cost proposal , monitoring and evaluation framework development.
The PAPs and woreda stakeholders aspire and urged timely implementation of the plan. The proposed
LRP planned to be implemented in nine months period. This LRP documents prepared based on
collected baseline data, consultation of PAPs and others stakeholders participation and likely to be
practical for implementation.
9.2 Implementation Schedule
The time schedule to complete the Physical implementation for the livelihood Restoration Intervention
is planned to complete within 12 month period. The project affected people (PAPs), woreda
administration and stakeholders’ sector office appreciate the effort being undergoing for livelihood
restoration plan. The project affected peoples raises their livelihood restoration in place as outstanding
issues and urged fast implementation of the LRP.
ERA thorough the independent consultant and sector offices will provide the identified trainings and
orientation session and equip the PAPs with basic skills, knowledge, attitudes and practices related to
the livelihood restoration activities. Over next two months after the training, and establishment of
implementation committee, ERA/independent consultant will conduct market assessment and update
the budget if may be required. After training of PAPs on the objectives and used of the livelihood fund,
ERA transfer the livelihood fund to common account of husband and wife and then PAPs proceed to
implement the livelihood activities for the next six or more months.
91
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Accordingly, if the LRP documents get approval in January 2021 and budget secured March 2022,
the implementation of the LRP can start April 2022 and complete April 2023. The external
independent audit will be conducted after six months of LRP implementation completed and the overall
implementation schedule indicated in chart that follows.
92
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Figure 8: Time schedule and Activities to implement LRP
Oct
2022 2023 2023
J J A S O N D J F M A
No Major activities J F M A M
Completion and Approval of Need assessment
1) and LRP document
2) Secure budget and preparatory time
Initial Training for stakeholders and experts and
3) LRP implementation committee
Refresh Stakeholders Consultation and establish
4) LRP Implementation Committee
Training and Capacity Building for PAPs &
5) Form GRC
Organization of PAPs in groups of LRP or
6) cooperatives
7) Preparation of Working Center
8) Transfer budget and LRP Investment Fund
9) GRM and Monitoring
Procurement of Input and Commissioning of the
10) enterprise
11) PAPs starts Livelihood activities
12) Technical support, Market linkage & coach
13) Follow up, internal M & E
14) External Independent Audit
93
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
There should be clear understanding between livelihood restoration plan and livelihoods
implementation stages. The LRP is the planning stage mainly to identify eligible PAPs and business
opportunity and plan modalities of assistance required toward livelihood restoration for the PAPs as
general framework. The Livelihood implementation is expected to be executed based on the LRP
documents. The execution is to be undertaken by an independent implementing unit to be assigned
by ERA that coordinate the overall implementation process. The implementation is not left to the
independent unit and involve other stakeholders mainly woreda and kebele structures and also needs
to establish livelihood implementation team and woreda grievance redress committee and also kebele
level GRC as may be required. The external independent audit will be conducted after completion of
the LRP within one year of the LRP implementation and evaluate effectiveness of the LRP
implementation and whether the livelihood restoration and rehabilitation implemented has brought
the desired effect restoring or (improvement in the livelihoods of PAPs.
94
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
CHAPTER 10; MONITORING AND EVALUATION
10.1 General
It is important to monitor LRP implementation progress and evaluate and measures achievement status
of intended LRP objectives, i.e., project-affected people have had their livelihoods restored and in
place to levels prior to project or improved level. Toward this end, monitoring, and evaluation (M
&E) procedures and system is required to readily identify problems and successes as early as possible.
Monitoring involves period checking to ascertain whether activities are going according to the plan. It
provides the feedback necessary for the project management to keep the performance on schedule. By
contrast, evaluation is essentially a summing up, the end of the project assessment of whether those
activities actually achieved their intended objectives.
10.2 Purpose of Monitoring
The purpose of monitoring is to provide project management, and directly project affected persons
with timely, concise, indicative information on whether the measures are on track to achieve
sustainable restoration and improvement in the welfare of the affected people, or that adjustments are
needed.
10.3 Monitoring Plan
The monitoring and evaluation process will be Participatory including all the stakeholders (PAP,
Zonal, Woreda and Kebele administrations, and other concerned institutions). The independent
consultant coordinate and guide the internal monitoring and the responsible will be drawn from
environment and social management directorate of ERA and project implementation Partners
including woreda sector office and PAPs representatives.
• Evaluate PAPs’ socio-economic situation vs. a baseline situation
• Assess and evaluate the LRP implementation status and suggest action for improvement.
• All project activities are recorded, documented and maintained in a timely manner.
• Ensure awareness, public information and public consultation are made in a timely manner
The monitoring report by the woreda LRP technical Committee will be submitted to the woreda LRP
coordination and implementation main committee. A copy of this will be submitted to ERA for
management follow up.
10.4 Types and stages of Monitoring
The implementation of LRP commits investment resource and also means of poverty alleviation and
deserves intensive monitoring and follow-up mechanisms and efforts as well as systematic evaluation
to make the whole livelihood restoration efforts effective and successful. Internal monitoring and
95
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
evaluation activities will continue during implementation of the LRP and after implementation with
the objective to ensure effective implementation of the LRP and achieve its intended objectives. The
type of evaluation depend on the type and nature of the project which commonly include Internal,
Interim and External evaluation. For this particular Project, Interim evaluation may not suggested due
to short period project to complete in one year. Thus monitoring and evaluation of the LRP will be
conducted in two stages
Internal and Monitoring evaluation to be carried by implementing body (ERA and sector office)
Midterm evaluation (Optional and conducted as may be required)
External evaluation/post implementation and completion audit to be undertaken by an independent
body
Developing effective and efficient monitoring and evaluation system is important management tool to
direct and monitor implementation of the proposed livelihood activities. Monitoring and evaluation
requires budget and the required cost allocated and included in the LRP budget.
10.4.1 Internal Monitoring and Evaluation
The internal team will monitor both the performance and impact of the LRP, whereby performance
monitoring measures physical progress against project milestones established in the LRP; while impact
monitoring assesses the effects of the LRP. Periodic internal monitoring and evaluation help to ensure
livelihood in place through full-scale implementation of the proposed activities. Therefore, close monitor
is required and expected at all level. The main responsible partners are ERA through environment,
safeguard and social management directorate, government structure mainly Woreda level sector offices
and kebele structures are all indispensable to realize the planned livelihood restoration businesses package
as identified with PAPs groups. It would also need to evaluate the implementation, benefit, cost and
sustainability. Internal and external monitoring and evaluation mechanisms are indicated as management
tool to direct and monitor implementation of the proposed livelihood activities. Monitoring by itself
requires budget and the required cost allocated and included in the LRP budget. With this understanding
the detail management procedure and monitoring indicators and responsibility share are discussed and
presented in the following section.
INDICATORS AND LOG FRAME
The baseline income and livelihood situation were discussed in preceding section (section 5.1.5:
livelihood and income). The mean average annual income before and after the project decline from
54,500 to 43,841 and decline by about 20%. In terms of food security, 64% of the PAPs used to eat 3
times a day before the project. The actual progress will be measured against this baseline information
and many other numerical indicators that discussed in this section. The LRP aims livelihood restoration
96
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
or improvement and hence the M & E measure the extent or percent change income or livelihood
changes.
The additional indicators includes number of livelihood enterprises planned and implemented;
number of PAPs started the proposed livelihood enterprise by gender; type & number of LRP
enterprises planned and actually established; Number of PAPs trained in livelihood business and
technical support; Number of livelihood enterprises organized and number of Livelihood Enterprises
provided Working space for their livelihood enterprise; Amount of livelihood restoration fund
allocated and disbursed; Amount of Procurement of Input (cattle, shoats, poultry, , seed etc.) and raw
material like fertilizer, feed, .etc. The basic strategic objectives, key performance indicators,
implementers or lead institutions, means of verification, time frame and general assumption for the
main indicators are presented in detail in the following log frame;
Monitoring and Evaluation indicators (LOT2-Meki-Ziway Road section) project
Description Verifiable indicators Responsible Time frame Source of Assumptions
information for
verification
Strategic Objective
of LRP
PAPs livelihood and % change in income Post audit 2022/23 Evaluation LRP activities are
income restored in independent reports implemented
place by 20% or consultant
improved
Ensure Livelihood Number and ERA; woreda data 2021-2022 Monitoring data PAPs and all
restoration of 478 proportion of Technical sources stakeholders are
PAPs in place PAHHs selected by Committee, GRC Progress Reports committed to
gender and Assigned livelihood
engaged livelihood Independent implementation
restoration consultant Government and
activities as donor support
planned schedule attained; Resource
Mobilization
realized and
Restoration plans
implemented as
planned
Ensure Livelihood Number and ERA; woreda data 2021-2022 Monitoring data Government and
Restoration of 460 proportion of farm Technical sources donor support
Agriculture/ Rural based PAHHs Committee, woreda Progress Reports attained; Resource
Based PAHHs, registered and selected sector office, GRC PAPs Mobilization
by gender for crop Assigned realized and
intensification Independent Restoration plans
production, livestock consultant implemented as
development, and planned
other farm based PAPs and all
enterprises, Have land stakeholders are
affected households committed to
established livelihood livelihood
sources? implementation
Ensure urban based Number and ERA; woreda data; 2021-2022 Monitoring data Town
livelihood restoration proportion of non- woreda sector office sources administration
for 18 PAPs farm based PAHHs Technical Progress Reports support in place
registered and selected Committee, GRC, PAPs Resource
by gender for urban Assigned Mobilization
97
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
based and non-farm- Independent realized and
based enterprises, consultant Restoration plans
implemented as
planned
PAPs and all
stakeholders are
committed to
livelihood
implementation
Ensure Livelihood Number and ERA; woreda data ; 2021-2022 Monitoring report Budget and other
social support provided proportion of Technical social resource
for 111 Vulnerable registered and selected Committee, woreda available for social
groups vulnerable persons by sector office GRC support
age, gender for Assigned
receiving special Independent
support in social consultant
welfare security
system
Identified Livelihood Number PAPs planned ERA; woreda data ; 2021-2022 Progress reports PAPs participate
activities implemented and implemented their Technical and monitoring Stakeholders
as planned proposed livelihood Committee, woreda data sources of supports
activities, agriculture, sector office GRC the project office Budget secured
and non-agriculture Assigned and allocated
activities Independent
consultant
Micro enterprise
development; Youth
organizations and
Output Key indicators
✓ Proposed LRP agriculture and non-agriculture ✓ # of LRP evaluated and approved and implemented
related activities implemented and realized ✓ # of PAPs engaged in both agricultural and non-agricultural
livelihood activities
✓ Initial capital grant used for establishing ✓ Amount of capital resource secured and mobilized
livelihood activities
✓
✓ 478 PAPs and 272 youth receive required ✓ Number and % PAPs and youths received short term
mentoring and capacity building awareness raise training
training service ✓ # of PAPs received skills training, mentorship and extension
services,
✓ Identified 111 Vulnerable groups supported ✓ # of vulnerable group/PAPs received direct cash support
✓ Grievance addressed ✓ # of grievances received & resolved
✓ Technical skills enhanced Simple quarterly ✓ # of training report, attendance report
reports ✓ # of physical inspection of sites, start-up activity conducted
Input ✓
✓ Finance, ✓ Financial resource allocated as inputs for implementation
✓ Human resource and ✓ Independent consult & other HR assigned to implement
✓ Trainings ✓ ERA allocate and mobilized resources and structures for
✓ PAPs commitment implementation, M & E
✓ Mentoring , M & E
10.4.2 Midterm evaluation
Midterm evaluation may be required although, short period that implementation of LRP to complete
in one year. Midterm evaluation is not mandatory and optional and conducted as may be required.
98
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
10.4.3 External Independent Audit
The post audit as external evaluation is mandatory requirement that will be undertaken by an
independent body and the required budget is included in the LRP cost and to be allocated from
government through ERA. The LRP implementation as well as M & E involves cost as indirect and
overhead cost. With this understanding, the budget required for LRP implementation and post audit
cost is included in the proposed budget. The objective of the external evaluation is to evaluate the
overall success of livelihoods restoration plan and objectives; determine whether the process
successfully restored and improved the living standards and livelihoods of the affected peoples and
their families.
The external and post audit can be made at two stage, mid-term audit and final completion audit. The
midterm evaluation is to assess progress and challenges while implementing the LRP. whereas the
final external monitoring and evaluation will take place after completion of the LRP within one year
of the LRP implementation through the third party/independent consultant whether the livelihood
restoration and rehabilitation implemented has brought the desired effect (improvement in the living
standard of PAPs. Also, the audit will be conducted whether the outcome of the livelihood restoration
operation complies with the livelihood restoration Policy of the World Bank, and the GoE legal
requirement. Thus, after one year the expropriation has been completed and the LRP assistance to the
PAPs has been made, then after an impact evaluation will be conducted to assess whether the PAPs
have improved their living conditions in relation with the baseline status established during the
socioeconomic and livelihood need assessment.
99
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
REFERENCES
Detailed Livelihood Restoration and CSR Plan, February 2017
Development and Implementation Of Livelihood Restoration Plan for Ribb Dam and Reservoir PAPs,
2016
DFID , 2000 : Analytical frame work:
Enhancing capacity for enterprise and innovation: An investigation of the livelihood assets and strategies
of rural youth in East Africa, Literature Review of Theoretical & Conceptual Issues Surrounding Youth,
Youth Livelihoods & Sustainable Rural Development
FDRE Constitution; 1995
FDRE, National Social Protection Policy, 2014
Frank Vanclay (2017) Project-induced displacement and resettlement: from impoverishment risks to
an opportunity for development?, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 35:1, 3-21, DOI:
10.1080/14615517.2017.1278671; attps://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2017.1278671
GOE: Expropriation of Landholdings for Public Purposes and Payment of Compensation Proclamation;
GOE 2005
GOE: Revised Cooperative Societies Establishment Proclamation No 220/2014
IFC, International Financial Corporation, creating market, creating opportunities, Draft Good practice
hand book, Land acquisition and resettlement, Module 5
IFC: Handbook for Preparing a Resettlement Action Plan
Involuntary Resettlement And Sustainable Development Conceptual Framework, Reservoir
Resettlement Policies, And Experience Of The Yudongxia Reservoir; ADB East Asia Working Paper
Series, 2017
Land Access, Resettlement and Livelihood Restoration Management Plan – Production in Papua new
Guinea 2013
Livelihood Restoration Plan (LRP) in Ghana, 2012
Livelihood Restoration Plan, Draft Final Report, Toronto, Canada March 21, 2017
Livelihoods research: some conceptual and methodological issues, Colin Murray, September 2001
RAP (Resettlement Action Plan Document, LOT2, Meki-Ziway section of Modjo-Hawassa highway
road project, Up dated 2019
Review of Resettlement Policy Frame work ( RPF), ULGDP-WB 2007
Solomon Islands Government Land Acquisition and Livelihood Restoration Plan, May 2017
World Bank OP 4.12, revised 2013 - Involuntary Resettlement, Planning and implementation in
development projects, 2004
100
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
ANNEX 1: CONSULTATION
Annex 1.1 Consultation With PAPs
Public consultation and group discussion was conducted in each project kebeles and this document
presents summary of the report conducted in respective kebeles. The full FGD minute and Lists of
Attendants are attached in the Annex of this report)
Consultation 1: Tepho Choroke Kebele, Dugda Woreda
Date: 28-12-2020
Main Agenda: Discussing on impact of the road project both benefit and negative aspects, identify
severely affected and their need for their livelihood restoration of households affected by the road
project. The major issues raised during the consultation meeting held with the project affected people
at Tepho Choroke Kebele are summarized as below;
• The group discussed on the benefits of the express Road- it is designed in a way it reduces
accident to the people and their animals. They also said the road also provides an alternative
and fast access to other major towns. The FGD participants also expressed their concerns on
the negative impacts of the road;
o The construction work of the road didn’t properly integrate flood protection measures and
flooding risk to the livelihood of the community by flooding their farms and houses.
o The under pass bridge made by the project in their kebele is narrow, short height and
flooded and full of silts in rain season and low standard that cannot be used for the intended
purpose.
o The under pass bridges made do not allow a vehicle to pass, the under pass bridge is even
very low and tight to accommodate the passage of residents and their animals.
o It is holding water floods under the bridge during the rainy season and blocking the
passage of the residents and also causing flooding to their farms.
o The group said the project people promised them in the beginning to create a flow line
collecting all the run-off either to a river around and another one linking to the lake around,
but they didn’t deliver on their early promises.
o The road didn’t take into consideration the existing rural road networks and the bridges
should have been properly linked to the existing roads, instead of leading to people’s
farms.
o A school in the community also didn’t get a bridge nearby the school, and students on
the other side of the road couldn’t get an access to their school.
101
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
• The participants said the largest family size in their community is 25 with lowest one being 3,
while the average family size is 8. And the largest land holding size is about 15 ha, while the
lowest one is 0.25 ha and the average one being 5 ha.
• The group said there are no communal or public land holding available there is no possibility
of land replacement for people who lost their land in their kebele.
• According to the group, the major crops produced by the residents of the kebele are Maize,
Wheat, and Teff, and the main challenges in crop production are limited improved seed supply
and lack of fertilizers.
• The group said the major livestock’s in their community are sheep, cattle, and poultry. They
said the weather is suitable for livestock’s and the only challenges are vaccines are in short
supply.
• The major off-farm activities in their communities in the kebele are; small businesses and
livestock marketing, according to the group.
• On gender issues, the group said women and men in the kebele benefit from resources equally
in the families and there is no major rights abuses. Women headed households are supported
by close relatives and other male family members. The women also share their farm land to
continue their farm activities when their husbands die.
• The group said, old aged are mostly supported by their children in doing farming activities.
People with disabilities are supported by their children or close family members to carry out
farming activities.
• The ideal livelihood restoration alternatives suggested by the group members included;
o Provision of work shades for doing businesses in towns
o Employment opportunities based on skills
o Dairy and fattening activities
o Poultry production
• The group also suggested the government need to provide the project affected people with a
startup capital for doing these livelihood alternatives.
• On areas of interest for youth in the kebele, they said they can work on businesses like shops
and livestock and fattening activities, transport services irrigated agriculture by providing
motor pumps. Youth are also interested in getting organized to work in group or in the form of
cooperatives.
Consultation 2: Dodota Dembel Kebele, Dugda Woreda
102
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Date: 22-12-2020
Main Agenda: Discussing on impact of the road project, severity of impacts and how to restore the
livelihood of households severely affected by the road project. The major issues raised during the
consultation meeting held with the project affected people at Dodota Dembel Kebele are summarized
as below;
• On the benefits of the road project the group said, it is part of the development of the country
and they have no basic objections on the construction of the road.
• And on the negative impacts of the road project the participants raised the following things as
a major concern;
o The participants said the road is fenced, which restricted their movement within and out
of their kebele. They said the road almost buried their community instead of creating
access; their kids couldn’t go to school, and their cattle couldn’t get access to water.
o The group said the fence of the road separated the water source in their neighboring
kebeles and the community is having trouble to access drinking water for their cattle.
o They also mentioned that the road project also took large amount of land for parking
their trucks. It also took away the football play ground that was being used by their
youth, both lands were taken without any payment.
o They said youth who were organized to sell sand were also displaced without any
compensation payment given to them.
o It was said that the road divided the community and their school and their children could
not go to school, when the road is fenced.
o They raised the absence of a close by under pass in their area as a major problem too.
o In addition the group said the road also divided the community from their church, they
lost their privilege of getting respectful burial in their local church.
o The said the under pass very narrow, short height and below standards to pass their
carts and not alone vehicle and furthermore, it collects flood water and does not have a
safe exit for the water during rainy seasons and it is causing extensive flooding. In the
last rainy season about 6 houses were fully destroyed due to the flood originating from
the under pass.
o The group also raised forceful measures and torture taken against them, whenever they
tried to raise their concerns peacefully.
103
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
• The major crops produced in the area were mentioned as maize, wheat and teff. Lack of
improved seeds, fertilizer, chemicals and the absence of capital and loan opportunities were
mentioned as challenges in crop production.
• The group also discussed gender related issues;
polygamy is a common practice in the area. It was
said that in the past women and girls were
suppressed and their rights were abused and they
used to get limited opportunities, which is no
longer the case. When the compensation was paid,
the husbands and wives were equally authorized to
withdraw the money as signatories. Female headed
households share their land with another person to do farming.
• The livestock in the area were mentioned; cattle, sheep, donkey, and goat and the major
constraints mentioned were shortage of grazing land, distant water sources, accidents from cliff
created by the borrow pit and distant drinking water for the animals.
• The off-farm activities mentioned were small businesses like shops as discussed by the group.
• The participants said old aged people and people with disabilities are relying on their children
for doing farm activities, if they have children. But those without children share their farm land
with those who are able to farm. And there are also limited traditional support mechanisms.
• The potential livelihood restoration alternatives for project affected people mentioned by the
group included;
o Livestock rearing, marketing and fattening
o Small shops or petty trading
o Transport services for those with driving interest and skills
o Irrigation agriculture by creating small dams on the river in their area
• Majority of the youth in the kebele are jobless and unemployed. While a few of them are
engaged in informal loading of vegetables on tracks and other small activities.
• Some of the potential income generation activities for the youth included;
o Organizing the youth as cooperatives to sell sand, previously there were youth who
were working as a group engaged in selling sand but were displaced by the project
o Livestock, fattening, and poultry by providing them with necessary initial capital
Consultation 3: Elka Chelamo Kebele
Date: November 31/12/ 2020
104
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Venue: Kebele administration office
Participants: kebele cabinet and Community Representative Group
In parallel session of the data survey, consultation was conducted in each of the project kebeles. The
majority of the points raised by the project affected people shared similar opinions and affected by the
project directly or indirectly where majority of them explained as remaining land remained
unproductive and not used economic value for them. In general, the project affected peoples have
expressed inadequate compensation paid and reflected their felt needs for the LRP and very positive
towards the proposed business enterprise.
The consultation meeting with the PAPs conducted in the kebele affected due to the main road
alignment and Borrow pits. An introductory awareness creation was given on the objectives of the
consultation and its aims to assess the project impacts and livelihood restoration need assessment.
During the consultation with the target PAPS broad agenda was briefly explained;
Agendas and points of discussion
▪ The road projects benefit and adverse impacts, impacts, compensation and use of fund, severely
affected and livelihood restoration and the way forward for the livelihood restoration of the
severely affected
▪ Identify livelihood restoration needs and maps potential livelihood restoration business
activities in their respective kebeles
▪ Participation of PAPs for proposed business activities
▪ Discussed road project and related impacts and compensation uses and application of fund
related issues was raised as complaint and discussed as learning for the LRP
Positive Impacts
They pointed as the road project contribute for market linkage with town and expect as it improves
rural-urban linkage. The benefit of the road project is mainly in its contribution to facilitate trade and
marketing and administrative purpose by using the road corridor.
Negative Impact
Two major problems were raised as an outstanding issues;
1) The road diverted high flood to previous farm land area and the livelihood sources of about 27 households
at risk and urges immediate mitigation measures to their problems
2) Borrow pit was initially said to be taken for only four years and compensation was given only for four years.
Further said as the borrow pit will be only 3-4 meter depth, but it was cut 5-7 meter that still remain open
and not in place for use for which we are paying government land tax for it. In rainy season indicated as
105
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
their livestock at risk and even risk for human life to cause life loss. The road project on completion stage
and contractor is planning to hand over and our farm land not in place mainly borrow pits are not refilled
with appropriate soil to enable cultivation. The Borrow pit land areas are not made economically productive
and less likely to be productive in the future long term period and wasted farm land which is their economic
livelihood sources.
The consultant clarified compensation according to the appropriate proclamation and the difference
may be due to new proclamation and further stressed to focus the way forward for their livelihood
restoration.
Participants after discussing the issues in detail, the idea and proposed livelihood restoration looks
very good, but very late and agreed to provide data on the need assessment survey questionnaires and
cooperated in identifying their livelihood needs and selected their preferred business and other basic
information required.
Consultation 4: Jawe Boffo Kebele, Dugda Woreda
Date: 26-12-2020
Main Agenda: Discussing on impact of the road project, severity of impacts and how to restore the
livelihood of households affected by the road project. The major issues raised during the consultation
meeting held with the project affected people at Jawe Boffo Kebele includes.
• The participants mentioned that the Express Road is beneficial as it reduces risks of accident and they
said the availability of the road is good for the development of the area and in terms of creating fast
access for residents to places.
• On the negative impacts of the road, the participants said; the road project took away their farm land
and the compensation paid was not sufficient to the farmers.
• The group also expressed their concerns on how the displaced farmers were paid under different policies
without consideration from the government.
The group also complained about the under pass bridge
created for the kebele, which is exposed to flooding and
is not allowing for people’s movement during rainy
seasons. The resulting flood is also affecting people’s
farm. During rainy seasons, people couldn’t cross to the
other side to fetch water from their water source for their
households.
106
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Figure 9 FGD taking place at Jawe Boffo Kebele, Dugda
• The group also discussed that the over pass bridge in their kebele was made far from the existing road
crossing the new road and it was built into people’s farm on both sides of the bridge. There were also
unnecessary informal pedestrian roads that are being created in people’s farms along the sides of the
road that are destroying people’s farms without any proper compensation to the owner. The participants
said this is even causing conflict and fight between people.
• The participants said crop production is the major means of livelihood for their communities. The basic
constraints in farming are lack of fertilizer, chemical supplies, and capital for improved seeds. They
said livestock production is also common in their community but there is no vet clinic in their area and
travel long distance for the service or use private vet clinics at higher prices.
• On gender issues, the group said there is a big respect for the rights of women and young girls in their
communities. The rights to access and use of resources is also respected for women and girls.
• On the care of people with disabilities and old age people, the participants said they are mostly taken
care of by the family and close relatives. But when there is major problem, people try to help on their
own initiatives individually and as a group.
• Some of the livelihood restoration alternatives suggested by the group included;
o Long term benefits to farmers who lost their land through the income generated from the road
project, when it is fully operational
o Provision of urban land for the people who lost their land as an asset to the farmers for their
future generation
o Creating an area where to do small businesses as market opportunities along the road for
farmers who lost their land
• The group also suggested some income generation alternatives for youth in their kebele;
o Organizing the youth and providing loans for providing some services like maintenance of carts
and Bajaj etc. by providing necessary initial capital
o Youth can also work on poultry, if organized and were provided with space and required capital.
o Establishing a factor that processes agricultural products in the area to create job opportunities
for the youth and access to market for the farmers.
Consultation 5: Wayo Gebriel Kebele, Dugda Woreda
Date: 26-12-2020
Main Agenda: Discussing on impact of the road project, severity of impacts and their need assessment
to restore the livelihood of households affected by the road project
107
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
The major issues raised during the consultation meeting held with the project affected people at Wayo
Gebriel Kebele were;
• The group said the Express Road is good in connecting the residents to other towns and places.
• On the other hand they said their community is exposed to an unusual flooding which resulted from the
road project, as there was no proper drainage path created for the run- off. The community expressed
the negative impacts of the road project outweighs its benefits, and nine houses were destroyed by the
flooding even lives of three people were lost due to the flooding.
• The group also expressed their concerns on the amount of the compensation paid to them, when they
tried to present their demands to the authorities, they were not given response from the authorities. They
also complained the rate of compensation paid for their kebele was lower compared to other kebeles.
• The group raised, when initial consultation for the project, the community raised flooding as critical
concern, however the project promised to divert the flooding and protect the community but the promise
was not realized. They said the project also made other promises like creating market shades for
affected people, but also didn’t deliver on its promises.
• The group said, some of the farmers who lost their lands had only small plot of land as small as 1 Kerti
(0.25 ha), and the project promised to organize them and provide them an urban land to restore them
and enable them to work, but nothing is done for them until now.
• The participants also complained about the way the LOT2 camp was established in their kebele by
displacing 29 households from the site. They said when the camp was established, the project people
convinced the people who were displaced from the camp saying that the camp is only temporary shelter
and the land will be returned to them in less than four years and compensation was paid only for 4
years. But the camp building is a permanent one and in the next round the people were paid for another
4 years. So the people displaced were paid only for 8 years in total, while the new policy says for 15
years. The affected people are still raising their concerns to authorities but no response yet. The group
admitted receiving 200 sq. meter of land from Meki Town for each of the 29 HH’s displaced from the
camp, but they didn’t have the capacity to construct a house on the plot to benefit from it, as the
compensation paid to them was not sufficient.
• The group also raised their complaints on the waste water released from the camp, which is being
released directly to the community on an open field. They said the waste is polluting their environment
and exposing them to bad smell and respiratory illnesses. However, the project also making effort in
which the solid waste collected by dump truck and minimized the problem.
108
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
• The group also expressed their concern that there is only one bridge created for the kebele and the
community is divided by the Express Road. They said even that bridge is very short and narrow and no
vehicle or even difficult for cart to pass under it. They said the road also divided their access water
point, farm land, school and drinking water for their cattle too. From the contractor side possible effort
were made in discussion with communities and within the budget limit and over pass and under pass
constructed at appropriate place demanded and agreed with communities at the time.
• They said they were told the borrow pit in their kebele will be only 3.5 meters but now the contractor
dug 9 meters deep and the site is not filled back and is now cracking further due to rift valley and earth
quake, which is a risk for their community.
• The group mentioned that the access road to the camp that is being used by the contractor is even below
the standard of village roads and the contractor should upgrade to provide proper service to the
community.
• According to the group, the kebele have no drinking water. The water in their area has got high Fluoride
content and not suitable for drinking. They said the people are buying 1 Jerrican at 30 Birr, which is
transported from Meki town.
• The participants said in order to restore the people who lost their land, further consideration need to be
made to provide additional compensation for the people. They also said government need to provide
additional support to enable them to be productive on their remaining lands. The people also want the
government to address their lack of access to clean water for drinking.
• The group raised that there is a big potential for irrigated agriculture in the kebele including vegetable
production and the government should provide project affected people with necessary start up to buy
motor pumps with a better capacity and improved seeds. They said they can also work on livestock
production, fattening, fishery, and poultry activities, if they get access to loan opportunities.
Consultation 6: Consultation with PAPs along the Meki Link road
Date: December 25/12/ 2020
Venue: Private Primary school
Participants: PAPs and Representative
An introductory awareness creation was given on the objectives of the consultation and its aims to
assess the project impacts and livelihood restoration need assessment. During the consultation with
target PAPs broad agenda was briefly explained;
Agendas and points of discussion
109
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
▪ The road project and related impacts, severity of impacts mainly in terms of urban related
economic and livelihood sources losses and the way forward for the livelihood restoration of the
severely affected
▪ Economic livelihood sources impacts, compensation and livelihood restoration effort for the
PAPs
▪ Identify potential business and the requirement of PAPs participation for proposed business
activities
▪ Seek target groups views on factors to be considered for successful accomplishment of the
business plan enterprise and LRP.
The PAPs were invited who have been affected by the road projects and their socioeconomic
occupation and income sources from different occupational activities grain traders, mill houses, self-
employed in private school and small tea and coffee houses. Prior to the discussion with PAPs,
discussion was made with woreda municipality land uses expert and shared view on compensation and
land taking process and problem. As to the town administration, land use engineer involved and
responsible for the compensation payment, several land measurement has been taken and long process
in deciding the compensation amount for each PAPs. He further stated the first compensation was
computed by committee and requested for payment which said very high that government cannot
afford to pay, and latter instructed us to revise and accordingly, the revised compensation worked with
participation of zone land administration and almost no significant change and finally decided
accordingly. Asked if non land economic livelihood sources loss and replied that only one non land
economic loss (Bush Hotel) and all the others are initially given for residents and there is no other
business in the link road corridors as to the expert involved in land measurement and also member of
compensation committee. After taking this basic information, discussion continued with PAPs and
they shared their feelings and views which summarized here under;
110
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
In line with the above “Agendas” discussion continued with PAPs groups. An introductory
explanation was briefly given on the objective of the current study, mainly to identify severely
affected and asked initial condition of the link road corridor and the road project impacts (benefit
and negative), livelihood affected, their needs for livelihood restoration and invited participants to
share their views and briefly stated their views as summarized below;
• Asked from the beginning what was existing condition and use of the road along the proposed road link
and replied that, it was initially gravel road that connect with SNNPRS (Guraghe zone and Butajira
which was 30 meter width. The road link expanded along the previous road way (90m) and partly
affected our economic livelihoods and other property.
• Regarding the benefit it is good that asphalt construction contributes our development in many aspects
and changes our living environment and improvement for development
• Regarding the negative raised many issues;
The project affected persons expressed that “compensation’ is inadequate to replace our
property lost due to the project and they told that on complaint process to region and courts
process to get their property in place
They said the road is under construction and already demolished our property, but majority
yet didn’t collected the earmarked allocated compensation and complaint on the process in
which their land was taken
Some people also witnessed as they were prisoned for refusing and asking their right
Finally, indicated as their voice was not heard and asked to pass their concern to
responsible body if no decision making at all.,
• Regarding their need for livelihood, they said, majority of them in urban business as well as rural farm,
based business (grain production and marketing, grain trade, milling, shops, hotel and restaurants and
pointed Bush hotel and availability other small tea and coffee houses before demolition
111
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
• Asked clarification on town administration view that insisted and considered the area as residential.
The issue raised for reconciliation conflicting views, confirmation and legality of their business. As
replied by PAPs they are the one provided business license and no one works without license and
confirmed their business license at their hand. Each household affected were contacted for the type of
business affected and other socioeconomic profile collected and identified about ____ business (Shops
and others) in both Meki and Ziway road link.
• After the meeting observed on property affected, majority of them affected partially and identified two
Pap's economic livelihood affected. According to the town administration, the remaining land is
adequate to run their business and replacement area was not provided. The two PAPs were not given
replacement or working area.
CONSULTATION 6: All Other kebeles
Similar consultation conducted in all other kebeles and major points of discussion and their concern
share similar view. A total of 246 project affected people, (157 Male and 90 female) were participated
in all the kebeles. The full consultation minute and Lists of Attendants are attached in the Annex of
this report)
Figure 10: Consultation and Number of participants by kebele and sex
Kebele Male Female
Abine Germama 8 5 13
Abono Gabriel 10 6 16
Dodota Dambal 9 4 13
Edo Gojola 11 5 16
Elka Callamo 12 6 18
Giraba Korke Adii 11 6 17
Haxe Leman 9 6 15
112
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Jawe Bofo 8 5 13
Meki town link road 8 3 11
Naggaling 9 3 12
Oda Bokota 7 6 13
Tepo Choroke 9 5 14
Tuchi Dambal 8 6 14
Warja Woshugula 10 6 16
wayo Gabriel 12 7 19
Wolin Bulaa 7 5 12
Ziway/Batu town link road 9 6 14
Total 157 90 246
In parallel session of the data survey, at least one or more consultation session conducted in each of
the project kebeles. The majority of the points raised by the project affected people shared similar
opinions and affected by the project directly or indirectly where the majority of their remaining land
remained unproductive for not used economic value for them due to the road impact. In general, the
project affected peoples have expressed inadequate compensation paid and in all the kebeles
consulted reflected their felt needs for the LRP and very positive towards the proposed business
enterprise.
Figure 11: Partial view of consultation in other kebeles
Some of the participants noted as the project pretended and if what you are now saying LRP is
practical, we require income generating works including working place or alternatively employment.
They indicated as they have seen huge money provided through compensation, money alone is not the
end, and requested income generating scheme support for their sustainable livelihood sources.
113
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
ANNEX 1. 2: Consultation with woreda and town administration office
Consultation with woreda and respective woreda town administration was also conducted (November
2020). The stakeholder consulted confirmed that from a socio-economic benefit point of view the road
project is expected to have considerable benefit for socio-economic development of the development
corridor along the eastern Oromia and southern region. The topic of interest for discussion includes;
▪ Facilitation of public participation and coordination of stakeholders to be involved in
livelihood restoration as required.
▪ Facilitate land replacement process and other appropriate measure, if any
▪ Dissemination of information to the kebele and concerned stakeholders for the livelihood
restoration need assessment
All stakeholders expressed their view that the road project expected to contributes economic
development and growth of their woreda and local area along the way. The people affected by the
project are for the public purpose and their live should not be worsened. These people expended their
compensation fund in buying commonly called “Chereka/illegal land in near buy urban and unable to
construct on it. They have been already taken their land and how and where their livelihood to live.
They agree as there should be coordinated effort in providing them land replacement in urban or rural
depending on their interest. There should be policy direction and all the local administrations pledged
to play their due part/role during of livelihood restoration of the project. They are ready to cooperate
in all aspect and pledged to play their respective expected role that includes: The consultant explained
the purpose and need for the livelihood in the way forward that each to identify and exert effort for
livelihood sources to be supported which will be proposed accordingly for implementation. To this
end each PAPs required to fill the required information on the level of project impacts and his
livelihood restoration option as a base for the livelihood restoration planning.
As their final word, the kebele/Local authorities and community representatives stated that the
community is waiting for the implementation of the livelihood restoration participate in identifying
and running business for its own benefit to ensure his livelihood in place on sustainable basis. This
includes inculcating sense of ownership and facilities and extending cooperation in all development
stages. They also proposed that community representatives should be involved in committee to be
formed for such tasks of identification and validation of eligible PAPs.
Annex 1.3: Consultation with sector office
Woreda Agriculture Office
114
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
According to Dugda woreda agriculture, the road project and bridge and drainage structure has caused
indirect impacts, mainly high flood on farmland (Shubi Genno Kebele, Elka chellamo, Giraba Korke,
wayu Gabriel, Abono Gabriel, Dodota Demabal). The under pass constructed also not in required
height and lacks ditch and high flood in rain season and unable to serve crossing. As a result, crop
production and livelihood affected. As alternative measures suggested to road authority to n control
the flood effects. To improve the PAPs livelihood suggested improved irrigation, input supply (motor
pump, improved seeds, fertilizers) and promote efficient use of water and land resources (Meki river
and Meki/Haro Demabal) and ground water potential to be used for irrigated farm to improve their
livelihood sources.
ATJK woreda Land Administration and Land Use Office
Rural Land Administration and Use office is the major stakeholder and implementer of the
interventions of PAPs. During discussion the office said that, the livelihood restoration task does not
have clear implementation strategies especially with regard to who to implement. There are people
who will be displaced and also people who will not be displaced but lose their land and property partly.
Adequate work is not done in relocating the people and the office will coordinate with the
implementing partner and other stakeholders in planning and implementation of the livelihood
restoration interventions. The office realized that; not all eligible persons are included whereas others
who are not eligible also took compensation. There are also additional PAPs as a result of the
continuing road construction underway. Moreover, those displaced and compensated have knowledge
limitation of using the compensation money wisely. During the previous compensation, the
compensation fund disbursement made without adequate awareness on the application and use of the
fund. In response suggested to give orientation and train the beneficiaries in collaboration with other
respective stakeholders. These people and their livelihood source threated by the road project for the
public purpose and According to the proclamation PAPs provided replacement land with no cost and
accordingly, suggested urban land replacement for severely affected with no additional cost to PAPs.
These people and national development, and should not worsened their livelihood system and
suggested to allocate budget and policy direction to provide urban land for severely affected.
Dugda woreda Land Administration and land use
As per the views of the office, livelihood restoration is very important though considered late. Many
of the PAPs have wasted their compensation money on different unplanned expenses. The office will
work with these PAPs and with others that are not yet received compensation in order to restore them
effectively. According to the woreda office awareness creation has been made during compensation
on proper use of compensation fund and the same is to be done on restoration activities. There are
115
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
PAPs who preferred to settle or planning to settle in woreda town. However, there was a challenge to
allocate land for the individual requests due to scarcity of land in the town, but may be considered if
organized in groups and also policy direction from the regional government. The office will
collaborate and work together with the LRP implementation unit to resolve all these issues and other
livelihood restoration interventions during implementation.
Meki and Batu Towns administration and Municipalities
Both Meki and Batu/Ziway towns municipalities are major stakeholders since some of the PAPs
have preference need to settle and some of them already invested their compensation fund in accessing
urban land in these towns. Some of the PAPs expended the meager compensation fund at their hand
for purchase of illegal houses commonly called “ Chereka House” indicate illegally constructed house
in the moon night. Some of the PAPs exhausted their money on illegal house and the town
administration consider illegal and take action in some place. According to Batu town, these people
are dislocated for development and should have been provided land in the town had there was
organized effort to support them. There should have been organized system to cooperate and provide
land in urban. They all underlined the need for Development and Implementation of Restoration Plan
and have indicated their commitment and willingness to participate. In this respect, they are expected
to issue land for livelihood activities preferably if organized in groups with policy direction from the
region. They are willing to help in planning and, support of appropriate and profitable livelihood
restoration activities, provide support solve related grievances that could be raised concerning
problems in the towns, participate in organizing the people into associations, and related tasks. The
town administration consulted have accepted their involvement on the above activities during planning
and implementation of the livelihood plan and suggested coordinated effort from the woreda to the
lowest grass root kebele administration.
Annex 1.3: Consultation with kebele
Similar to the woreda structure concerned kebele Stakeholders were consulted including Kebele
Administration offices; Project Affected Persons; Extension Workers of Kebele Office of Agriculture.
The kebele administrations of the project kebeles where the PAPs have already been impacted or
going to impact are the potential stakeholders. They will be responsible for organizing and mobilizing
the PAPs, supporting and facilitating the implementation of the Restoration Plan. They will be engaged
in the creation of awareness to PAPs HHs regarding the livelihood restoration aspects through
awareness received from the implementing stakeholders and the consultant.
116
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Stakeholders consultation (LOT2)
Name Organization Position Contact
Debala Dadhi Water Resources 0921 677614
Bedho Hamda Agriculture Horticulture 0924577026
Bate Benga Head Dugda Woreda Head Woreda Agric 0910732144
agriculture
Meru Rorisssa Meki town administration Engineer 0910377303
Tollessa Shume Dugda woreda IMx Head IMx 0913397779
Roba Barisso Dugda woreda land use 0949818385
Mersha Tolessa Dugda woreda< compensation 0913831283
Hayeta Dallacha Dugrda woreda administration D/head 0911095170
Beshir Mekuria ATJK woreda social affairs
Bora Credit and saving Dugda woreda 0916019769
Dereje Regassa TVET/Meki town 0910266834
Annex 1.4 Consultation on cross cutting issues
Focus Group Discussion with Males
In parallel to the survey data collection, focus group discussion conducted in each kebeles of the two
woredas. The consultation result shows that the idea of livelihood restoration plan is very encouraging
and should be implemented to the earliest possible time. The FGD helped to identify potential,
constraints and possible restoration option in their area and participatory livelihood strategies.
c) Focus Group Discussion with Women HHs
Consultative meetings were held with representatives of women affected households in respective
kebeles. Female headed households have been using their land for renting to other male farmers on the
basis of crop sharing or cash rent. Mostly the agreements are to share one third of the total farm
production whereas the remaining two third portions of crops is taken by the other farmer. In many of
the cases, female headed households give their lands for their children based on this established
agreement. They mentioned that their livelihood was highly dependent on land either in crop
production or on sources of animal feed/grazing land or crop residue. As mentioned by the female HH,
their land affected by the project impacts their livelihood basis and worries to feed themselves and
their families due to related enormous problems. Some women group mentioned the road project
divided their farm and or grazing land and long walk to access on the other side of the road and difficult
117
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
to manage their farm and grazing land. The road project made possible effort and constructed
over/under Pass Bridge at different place. However, in some place PAPs and in some place women
and PAPs have complain on the road corridor separated and divided social relation. The construction
of the road also caused land farm divide and long-distance walk and denied access to their remaining
farmland parcel on the other side of the roadway.
Focus Group Discussion with Vulnerable PAPS
The study also conducted FGD with vulnerable PAPs that included those aged (>70 yrs.), disabled,
sick and others. These groups are project affected and some of them needs special assistance to derive
their livelihood and other used to rent their lands with the arrangement of sharing the produce with
their counterpart. Those who have still some land left over want to maintain such practice even though
the benefit they get is going to diminish significantly. Others who totally lost their land will continue
to purchase food crops from the market until the compensation money is exhausted. The disability
groups expressed the road project divided their farm land and construction of the road limit their
movement and long walk to the over pass bridge to access the other side of their farm or graze land
which they used looking after cattle prior to the advent of the road corridor. Similarly, they stated as
the road creates access to market, but for disabled denied to easily walk long distance to the overpass
bridge and some mentioned as no more able to go to marketplace owing to the barrier created by the
road corridor. Moreover, they complained that their properties and assets on the other land divide are
often robbed by others since they cannot access to protect it. Some of this group have certain physical
limitation and unable to work and needs additional support social support as they cannot able to work
income generating activities like the young people. These groups are citizen who lacks care and
support, affected by the project, lost their land which is their long years livelihood sources and
demanding appropriate livelihood support which takes their status into consideration.
118
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
ANNEX 2: MINUTE OF MEETING
119
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
120
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
121
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
122
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
123
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
124
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
125
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
126
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
127
No 1.2WOREDA 1.1 Kebele 2.1 NAME 2.6 2.7 2.11FAMILY # Work 5.2Total land hold size (ha) 5.4land % Land loss weighted Budget Budget
Age Sex SIZE Dependent age area (Land average allocation Share
taken by taken/Total
the road hold)
1 ATJK Abine Germama Kadir Mihoro 31 1 7 2 5 2 0.57745 28.8725 0.007324 31,576.27 31,576.27
2 ATJK LOT2 Meki-Ziway
Abine Germama Road Proejct
Samuro (37.1km), Need Assessment
Wash 90 1and Livelihood
12 Restoration
5 Plan, 7 Final Report,
1 0.229 22.9 0.007041 30,355.68 30,355.68
3 ATJK Abine Germama Mana Mandado Dukamo 80 1 7 2 5 2 0.75 37.5 0.008925 38,478.27 38,478.27
4 ATJK Abine Germama Gamado Debisoo Dubbee 28 1 2 1 1 1 0.8305 83.05 0.008689 37,459.14 37,459.14
5 ATJK Abine Germama Abarrazamadkulu w/yohanis 42 1 9 4 5 1.5 1.23945 82.63 0.015433 66,534.54 66,534.54
6 ATJK Abine Germama Woyyemee Tafaa Mieessaa 35 2 11 2 9 2.75 2.213 80.47273 0.022499 96,998.27 96,998.27
7 ATJK Abine Germama Jlado Dekebo 77 1 24 5 19 1 0.544 54.4 0.009964 42,955.68 42,955.68
8 ATJK Abine Germama Moomina Huser Habib 44 1 7 2 5 1 0.4928 49.28 0.006539 28,190.27 28,190.27
9 ATJK Abine Germama Kaabboo Heeyii Hinseenee 45 1 9 7 2 3 1.046 34.86667 0.016588 71,513.95 71,513.95
10 ATJK Abine Germama Zesha Bartii Alee 80 2 7 2 5 1.5 0.5 33.33333 0.006606 28,478.27 28,478.27
11 ATJK Abine Germama Kadiroo Dallee Dabbee 35 1 7 2 5 1.5 0.625 41.66667 0.007765 33,478.27 33,478.27
12 Dugda Dodota Dambal Kebo Desalagne Raje 75 2 5 1 4 2 0.484 24.2 0.005474 23,599.14 23,599.14
13 Dugda Dodota Dambal Bujaa Tufaa Degaga 38 1 7 5 2 2 0.861 43.05 0.012905 55,635.68 55,635.68
14 Dugda Dodota Dambal Taneshe Danbo Tagore 75 2 3 1 2 1 0.642 64.2 0.00694 29,919.14 29,919.14
15 Dugda Dodota Dambal Gada Tola Badeso 55 1 8 4 4 2 0.666 33.3 0.010112 43,596.54 43,596.54
16 Dugda Dodota Dambal Hamndu Ya;ii Gadiso 75 1 5 0 5 1.5 0.559 37.26667 0.005186 22,360.00 22,360.00
17 Dugda Dodota Dambal Da;o Ya;I Gadio 85 2 6 3 3 1 0.356 35.6 0.006253 26,957.41 26,957.41
18 ATJK Edo Gojola Kufa Edaoo Gobana 35 1 9 6 3 1 0.75 75 0.012858 55,434.81 55,434.81
19 ATJK Edo Gojola Wako Gemada Gobana 57 1 13 5 8 3 1.75 58.33333 0.021153 91,195.68 91,195.68
20 ATJK Edo Gojola Garu Wariyi Huqee 90 1 9 6 3 1 0.69 69 0.012302 53,034.81 53,034.81
21 ATJK Edo Gojola Husen Gasu Wariyo 57 1 9 6 3 3 0.75 25 0.012858 55,434.81 55,434.81
22 ATJK Edo Gojola Aliyii Ilkisoo 45 1 9 6 3 2 0.5625 28.125 0.011119 47,934.81 47,934.81
23 ATJK Edo Gojola Aliyi Ansabo 85 1 8 5 3 1.5 0.57 38 0.010205 43,995.68 43,995.68
24 ATJK Elka Callamo Midakso Ogate Huge 75 1 9 6 3 1 0.43 43 0.009889 42,634.81 42,634.81
25 ATJK Elka Callamo Bobaa Roobaa Quda 73 1 8 3 5 2 0.43 21.5 0.006939 29,917.41 29,917.41
26 ATJK Elka Callamo Ijaro Badaso Tibiso 30 1 6 3 3 2 0.5 25 0.007589 32,717.41 32,717.41
27 ATJK Elka Callamo Bontoshi Wokkennel 76 2 1 0 1 1.5 0.5 33.33333 0.004639 20,000.00 20,000.00
28 ATJK Elka Callamo Xirunesh Shaayii Gidiboo 73 2 5 0 5 1.125 0.85 75.55556 0.007886 34,000.00 34,000.00
29 ATJK Elka Callamo Nagasaa Goshee 75 1 12 7 5 1.75 0.693 39.6 0.013313 57,393.95 57,393.95
30 ATJK Elka Callamo Jhimboo Damma Birro 60 2 4 1 3 2 0.652 32.6 0.007033 30,319.14 30,319.14
31 ATJK Elka Callamo Idoo Duulee 80 1 10 3 7 2 0.856 42.8 0.010892 46,957.41 46,957.41
32 ATJK Elka Callamo Foollee Doorii 75 1 5 4 1 0.262 0.1262 48.16794 0.005104 22,004.54 22,004.54
33 ATJK Elka Callamo Gare Dugda kallacha 52 1 4 3 1 1 0.717 71.7 0.009602 41,397.41 41,397.41
34 ATJK Elka Callamo Girma Dabale Shayyi 80 2 4 1 3 2 0.477 23.85 0.005409 23,319.14 23,319.14
35 ATJK Elka Callamo Genet Bariye yegasii 70 1 20 12 8 0.75 0.71 94.66667 0.018387 79,269.62 79,269.62
36 ATJK Elka Callamo Gudata kurba Goljii 60 1 5 0 5 2 0.843 42.15 0.007821 33,720.00 33,720.00
37 ATJK Elka Callamo Badheso Ina ALO 75 1 3 2 1 0.75 0.83 110.6667 0.009667 41,678.27 41,678.27
38 ATJK Elka Callamo Tseayi Gashe 67 1 8 4 4 0.75 0.401 53.46667 0.007654 32,996.54 32,996.54
39 ATJK Elka Callamo Banya Duguda Denbobe 80 1 4 0 4 1 0.541 54.1 0.005019 21,640.00 21,640.00
40 ATJK Elka Callamo Tariku Dagife Ayyano 60 2 1 0 1 1.5 0.526 35.06667 0.00488 21,040.00 21,040.00
41 ATJK Elka Callamo Benya Bikoo Diddo 50 1 5 4 1 1.5 0.7 46.66667 0.010428 44,956.54 44,956.54
128
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
42 ATJK Elka Callamo Salmon Dalale Alula 73 1 6 2 4 1 0.23 23 0.004101 17,678.27 17,678.27
43 ATJK Elka Callamo Benya Biyyu Badeso 75 2 4 1 3 1 0.329 32.9 0.004036 17,399.14 17,399.14
44 ATJK Elka Callamo Tura Milki Goljo 90 2 4 1 3 1 0.229 22.9 0.003108 13,399.14 13,399.14
45 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Dhuuga Waagee Baadesoo 65 1 11 3 8 2 0.485 24.25 0.00745 32,117.41 32,117.41
46 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Baqaalee Dhaqaba Dubbasa 40 2 8 6 2 2.25 0.625 27.77778 0.011699 50,434.81 50,434.81
47 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Dasita Mokonnon Fayyia 65 2 8 2 6 5.25 1.125 21.42857 0.012404 53,478.27 53,478.27
48 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Dagaga Turaa 62 1 9 6 3 2 0.561 28.05 0.011105 47,874.81 47,874.81
49 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Qushu Gammachu Banti 60 2 3 0 3 1 0.25 25 0.00232 10,000.00 10,000.00
50 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Qalloo Garbii Qumbii 70 2 6 3 3 1 0.4257 42.57 0.0069 29,745.41 29,745.41
51 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Huluga Kobato Gada 75 1 9 6 3 3 0.625 20.83333 0.011699 50,434.81 50,434.81
52 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Shanga Idao 78 2 9 6 3 0.5 0.18 36 0.00757 32,634.81 32,634.81
53 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Dabale Qabatoo Idaoo 55 1 9 7 2 1.5 0.321 21.4 0.009861 42,513.95 42,513.95
54 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Galatoo Bitta 46 1 11 8 3 0.375 0.304 81.06667 0.010687 46,073.08 46,073.08
55 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Kushu Urgaa Dori 75 2 5 0 5 2.25 1.104 49.06667 0.010243 44,160.00 44,160.00
56 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Roobaa Bittaa 55 1 9 3 6 1 0.5 50 0.007589 32,717.41 32,717.41
57 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Roobaa Takse Dalle 75 1 7 2 5 1.75 0.564 32.22857 0.007199 31,038.27 31,038.27
58 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Jimaa Bobe Boru 75 1 5 4 1 0.75 0.56 74.66667 0.009129 39,356.54 39,356.54
59 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Bobboso Cininoo 85 1 3 0 3 3.25 0.8 24.61538 0.007423 32,000.00 32,000.00
60 Dugda Haxe Leman Duubane Safawa 78 2 9 6 3 1 0.25 25 0.008219 35,434.81 35,434.81
61 Dugda Jawe Bofo Gammada I/Midhakso 72 1 9 6 3 2 1.03468 51.734 0.0155 66,822.01 66,822.01
62 Dugda Jawe Bofo Qaabato Moggoro 85 1 5 3 2 0.5 0.53 106 0.007867 33,917.41 33,917.41
63 Dugda Jawe Bofo Halkane Guddato 75 2 9 6 3 3 0.6225 20.75 0.011675 50,334.81 50,334.81
64 ATJK Naggaling Hayile mariam haregayyi 75 2 7 2 5 2 0.46 23 0.006235 26,878.27 26,878.27
65 ATJK Naggaling Alemayo Hayile Hmde 75 1 5 0 5 1.5 0.783 52.2 0.007265 31,320.00 31,320.00
66 ATJK Naggaling Abreham Gabre hiwoti 34 1 8 4 4 2 0.433 21.65 0.007951 34,276.54 34,276.54
67 Dugda Oda Bokota Barunga Gababe Biliti 72 1 10 3 7 1 0.44 44 0.007032 30,317.41 30,317.41
68 Dugda Oda Bokota Midhakes Tulu Jufar 72 1 12 2 10 0.75 0.5 66.66667 0.006606 28,478.27 28,478.27
69 Dugda Tepo Choroke Marigeta Mebratu tashoma 77 1 5 1 4 5.5 1.944 35.34545 0.01902 81,999.14 81,999.14
70 Dugda Tepo Choroke Lalisa Gutama Bikila 72 1 5 3 2 3 0.624 20.8 0.008739 37,677.41 37,677.41
71 Dugda Tepo Choroke Takli Abara Abobariya 86 1 4 3 1 1.75 0.553 31.6 0.008081 34,837.41 34,837.41
72 Dugda Tepo Choroke Yosef Sheworke Manabaru 68 1 5 1 4 1.25 0.561 44.88 0.006188 26,679.14 26,679.14
73 Dugda Tepo Choroke Almazi Shanku 4 2 6 1 5 1.5 0.75 50 0.007942 34,239.14 34,239.14
74 Dugda Tepo Choroke Almaza Hayile Amade 75 1 7 3 4 2.25 0.875 38.88889 0.011068 47,717.41 47,717.41
75 Dugda Tepo Choroke Worke Gabre Tasama 63 2 10 4 6 1.75 0.485 27.71429 0.008433 36,356.54 36,356.54
76 Dugda Tepo Choroke Yimar Gebayo Adam 77 1 6 3 3 1 0.337 33.7 0.006077 26,197.41 26,197.41
77 Dugda Tepo Choroke Sental Dinniqoo Basher 90 1 7 2 5 2 1.003 50.15 0.011273 48,598.27 48,598.27
78 Dugda Tepo Choroke Qamu Mirga Dambal 70 2 3 2 1 1 0.511 51.1 0.006708 28,918.27 28,918.27
79 Dugda Tepo Choroke Idaoo Obsee Folee 61 1 14 6 8 4 0.894 22.35 0.014194 61,194.81 61,194.81
129
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
80 Dugda Tepo Choroke Garado Badhaso 75 2 7 2 5 2 0.505 25.25 0.006652 28,678.27 28,678.27
81 Dugda Tepo Choroke Bontu Galan Gudata 80 2 7 2 5 1 0.237 23.7 0.004165 17,958.27 17,958.27
82 Dugda Tepo Choroke Gannana Baca Lamii 56 1 8 4 4 1 0.409 40.9 0.007728 33,316.54 33,316.54
83 Dugda Tuchi Dambal Dubbisaa Qarree Name 56 1 4 0 4 1 0.5 50 0.004639 20,000.00 20,000.00
84 Dugda Tuchi Dambal Rahimmaa dambii Tojii 50 2 8 1 7 1.5 0.875 58.33333 0.009102 39,239.14 39,239.14
85 Dugda Tuchi Dambal Dammoo Tolaa badhaasoo 55 2 6 4 2 1.5 0.422 28.13333 0.007849 33,836.54 33,836.54
86 Dugda Tuchi Dambal Turaa Asafaa Caggee 45 1 7 2 5 0.75 0.402 53.6 0.005696 24,558.27 24,558.27
87 Dugda Tuchi Dambal Garii Burqammoo Tufaa 55 2 9 6 3 1.5 0.356 23.73333 0.009203 39,674.81 39,674.81
88 Dugda Tuchi Dambal Kufa Boru Odaa 38 1 13 3 10 6 2.1 35 0.022434 96,717.41 96,717.41
89 Dugda Tuchi Dambal shuffeerii Yaii Danbal 32 1 7 2 5 0.75 0.521 69.46667 0.0068 29,318.27 29,318.27
90 Dugda Tuchi Dambal Gumato Bsriisoo Abukaa 1 4 1 3 5 1.25 25 0.012581 54,239.14 54,239.14
91 Dugda Tuchi Dambal Urgeessa Burqaa Qabbattoo 25 1 5 2 3 1.2 0.67 55.83333 0.008183 35,278.27 35,278.27
92 Dugda Tuchi Dambal Meto Talilaa Roobaa 40 2 4 1 3 1 0.25 25 0.003303 14,239.14 14,239.14
93 Dugda Tuchi Dambal Hamdoo Raboo Godaan 36 1 7 2 5 3 0.75 25 0.008925 38,478.27 38,478.27
94 Dugda Tuchi Dambal Nabii Koyjoo Raboo 29 1 4 0 4 0.25 0.375 150 0.003479 15,000.00 15,000.00
95 ATJK Warja Woshugula Ganno Butaa 47 2 7 0 7 1.75 0.625 35.71429 0.005799 25,000.00 25,000.00
96 ATJK Warja Woshugula Kadira A/Tufaa 42 1 11 7 4 1 0.25 25 0.009203 39,673.95 39,673.95
97 ATJK Warja Woshugula Sure Robe Gobana 2 9 6 3 1.5 0.64673 43.11533 0.0119 51,304.01 51,304.01
98 ATJK Warja Woshugula Abe H/Ahemed 30 1 3 1 2 0.75 0.544 72.53333 0.006031 25,999.14 25,999.14
99 ATJK Warja Woshugula Halima Nagayo Dekabo 4 2 8 5 3 1 0.5 50 0.009556 41,195.68 41,195.68
100 Dugda wayo Gabriel Abda Merga Egato 50 1 9 6 3 1 0.25 25 0.008219 35,434.81 35,434.81
101 Dugda wayo Gabriel Buje Channuhe Kaweti 46 1 11 8 3 0.375 0.19183 51.15467 0.009646 41,586.28 41,586.28
102 Dugda wayo Gabriel Ayi Tufa Shashi 55 1 6 1 5 2 0.894 44.7 0.009278 39,999.14 39,999.14
103 Dugda wayo Gabriel Matoo Balchaa Hedi 80 2 2 1 1 1 0.397 39.7 0.004667 20,119.14 20,119.14
104 Dugda wayo Gabriel Sume Roobaa Urgessaa 67 1 8 4 4 4.75 1.125 23.68421 0.014371 61,956.54 61,956.54
105 Dugda wayo Gabriel Ishetu Teshome W/Yohanis 61 1 11 3 8 5 1.529 30.58 0.017136 73,877.41 73,877.41
106 Dugda wayo Gabriel Gexe Iticha Dhebba 77 2 8 1 7 1 0.506 50.6 0.005678 24,479.14 24,479.14
107 Dugda wayo Gabriel Tesfaye Kebede Aleta 75 1 6 4 2 2 0.506 25.3 0.008628 37,196.54 37,196.54
108 ATJK Wolin Bulaa Gare Selbana Akafete 75 2 4 1 3 1 0.5 50 0.005622 24,239.14 24,239.14
109 ATJK Wolin Bulaa Gabrayas Birhanu Kidane 73 1 6 2 4 1 0.235 23.5 0.004147 17,878.27 17,878.27
110 ATJK Wolin Bulaa shimbo Gada Jilo 40 2 4 1 3 3 0.725 24.16667 0.00771 33,239.14 33,239.14
111 ATJK Wolin Bulaa Ashetu Tashoma Walde Yusi 2 4 0 4 2 1.529 76.45 0.014186 61,160.00 61,160.00
339 71.85334 1 4,311,200.40 4,311,200.40
TOTAL
ANNEX; LIST OF PAPs AND BUDGET SHARE
Annex 2: 10: Vulnerable groups and budget share
Source : Annex 2.10 (Excell Sheet 2.10)
130
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Annex 2.13: PAPs and Budget share
Land Primary livelihood
taken needs 1) Agricultural
% farm inputs 2)
(land Irrigation 3)
Total taken/ livestock/Fattening 4)
land Total dairy/poultry 5) Local
hold land area land Transportation 6)
size taken by holdin Grain trade 7) Fruit Weighted
No Woreda Kebele Name PAHHs Age Sex (ha) the road g size) trade average Total cost Budget share
1 1 ATJK Abine Germama Ana Mishore Wahi 35 1 0.6525 0.5 76.6 Agriculture 0.001934 55,900 78,941.37
2 2 ATJK Abine Germama Hiko Bati Lwme 40 2 1 0.308 30.8 Agriculture 0.002078 55,900 84,819.25
3 3 ATJK Abine Germama Kadir Wariso 30 1 1 0.39062 39.1 Agriculture 0.001291 55,900 52,696.44
4 4 ATJK Abine Germama Woyame Tufa Miesa 40 2 2 0.833 41.7 Agriculture 0.002702 167,700 110,261.08
5 5 ATJK Abine Germama Kabada Tufa Coroqoo 60 1 2.5 0.625 25 Agriculture 0.003786 111,800 154,527.58
6 6 ATJK Abine Germama Shimbo Shandhu Rabo 45 2 1.25 0.35 28 Agriculture 0.001198 55,900 48,876.00
7 7 ATJK Abine Germama Bense Kare Boru 57 1 3 0.75 25 Agriculture 0.002315 167,700 94,475.97
8 8 ATJK Abine Germama Shecho Husen Ferejo 42 1 1.125 0.5 44.4 Agriculture 0.002325 55,900 94,898.76
9 9 ATJK Abine Germama Caalaa Tolaa Boru 26 1 1.75 0.5 28.6 Agriculture 0.001348 55,900 55,005.29
10 10 ATJK Abine Germama Yeshiagn Abebe W/Hane 47 1 3 2 66.7 Agriculture 0.005196 223,600 212,042.45
11 11 ATJK Abine Germama Boxee Danbal Reke 36 2 2.75 0.65 23.6 Agriculture 0.002671 111,800 109,006.74
12 12 ATJK Abine Germama Ume Gudeta Xuxu 50 2 1.25 0.277 22.16 Agriculture 0.001029 55,900 42,010.12
13 13 ATJK Abine Germama Meseret Abera Edale 38 2 1 0.25 25 Agriculture 0.001358 55,900 55,428.08
14 14 ATJK Abine Germama Imu Abera Eda'e 36 2 1 0.25 25 Agriculture 0.001749 55,900 71,385.47
15 15 ATJK Abine Germama Xigee Kabaraa washii 32 2 1 0.5 50 Agriculture 0.001934 55,900 78,941.37
16 16 ATJK Abine Germama Wada Jado 35 1 1.5 0.75 50 Agriculture 0.002119 167,700 86,497.28
17 17 ATJK Abine Germama Difaa Kafanii Sidamoo 46 1 2 0.875 43.75 Agriculture 0.00319 167,700 130,168.71
18 18 ATJK Abine Germama Danabo Calato Hamiyoo 42 1 1.5 0.634 42.3 Agriculture 0.002634 111,800 107,501.89
19 19 ATJK Abine Germama Bedhane sekalo 55 1 4 1.25 31.25 Agriculture 0.004054 167,700 165,438.65
20 20 ATJK Abine Germama Obsee Gulufaa Boharsaa 40 2 2 0.59528 29.8 Agriculture 0.001567 111,800 63,966.67
131
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Land Primary livelihood
taken needs 1) Agricultural
% farm inputs 2)
(land Irrigation 3)
Total taken/ livestock/Fattening 4)
land Total dairy/poultry 5) Local
hold land area land Transportation 6)
size taken by holdin Grain trade 7) Fruit Weighted
No Woreda Kebele Name PAHHs Age Sex (ha) the road g size) trade average Total cost Budget share
21 21 ATJK Abine Germama Shalo Turii Coroqoo 55 1 1.5 0.875 58.33 Agriculture 0.002603 167,700 106,232.62
22 22 ATJK Abine Germama Kafa Hamiyo 45 1 1 0.38015 38.015 Agriculture 0.001658 55,900 67,669.10
23 23 ATJK Abine Germama Rufe Guye 35 2 0.875 0.375 42.9 Agriculture 0.001842 55,900 75,163.42
24 24 ATJK Abine Germama Dabe Hamiyoo 50 1 1.25 0.75 60 Agriculture 0.002706 167,700 110,433.36
25 25 ATJK Abine Germama Fano Tashite Coroqoo 60 1 2.5 0.75 30 Agriculture 0.001924 167,700 78,518.58
26 26 ATJK Abine Germama Jamal Gamachuu 41 1 0.75 0.5 66.7 Agriculture 0.001543 55,900 62,983.98
27 27 ATJK Abine Germama Kormee Turii 38 1 1 0.625 62.5 Agriculture 0.002222 111,800 90,698.02
28 28 ATJK Abine Germama Gisha wodalee Sikaalo 34 1 1.5 0.6065 40.4 Agriculture 0.002571 111,800 104,915.43
Ararso Gamachuu
29 29 ATJK Abine Germama Ganneessoo 52 1 6 1.5 25 Agriculture 0.005803 167,700 236,824.12
30 30 ATJK Abine Germama Kormee Turii Corrooqo 60 1 1.5 0.78 52 Agriculture 0.002775 167,700 113,254.96
31 31 ATJK Abine Germama Bjjt Galato Qabaneso 65 2 1 0.5097 51.0 Agriculture 0.002348 55,900 95,811.08
32 32 ATJK Abine Germama Gannamee Ibsoo Binnoo 40 2 1 0.25 25 Agriculture 0.001554 55,900 63,406.77
33 33 ATJK Abine Germama Qabalee Korbaallo Waqoo 30 2 2.5 1.25 50 Agriculture 0.003272 167,700 133,523.87
34 34 ATJK Abine Germama Rabayo DEBiso Dubbee 32 1 1.125 0.41 36.4 Agriculture 0.001531 55,900 62,497.89
Shagituu Banata
35 35 ATJK Abine Germama Qawewettii 40 2 1.875 0.4088 21.8 Agriculture 0.001333 55,900 54,406.33
36 36 ATJK Abine Germama Dasii Bonura Bariso 50 1 2 0.55779 27.9 Agriculture 0.001676 55,900 68,419.32
37 37 Dugda Abono Gabriel Gabree Kafanii sridanaa 35 1 1 0.22145 22.1 Agriculture 0.000901 55,900 36,785.47
38 38 Dugda Dodota Dambal Gudee Suyee Kalchaa 40 1 2.1 0.5 23.8 Agriculture 0.00213 55,900 86,920.07
39 39 Dugda Dodota Dambal Ayoo Waktola Shubulaa 0 2 2 0.655 32.75 Agriculture 0.00151 111,800 61,604.84
40 40 Dugda Dodota Dambal Ibsa Tufa Aloo 46 1 1.5 0.618 41.2 Agriculture 0.00162 111,800 66,103.56
132
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Land Primary livelihood
taken needs 1) Agricultural
% farm inputs 2)
(land Irrigation 3)
Total taken/ livestock/Fattening 4)
land Total dairy/poultry 5) Local
hold land area land Transportation 6)
size taken by holdin Grain trade 7) Fruit Weighted
No Woreda Kebele Name PAHHs Age Sex (ha) the road g size) trade average Total cost Budget share
41 41 Dugda Dodota Dambal Boxorraa Michuu Babbsu 55 1 1.5 0.622 41.5 Agriculture 0.001629 111,800 66,479.78
42 42 Dugda Dodota Dambal Balcha Hamal Kalchaa 53 1 3 0.754 25.1 Agriculture 0.002911 167,700 118,788.27
43 43 ATJK Edo Gojola Fayyisaa Tufaa Dagaga 35 1 0.5 0.143 28.6 Agriculture 0.000525 55,900 21,428.30
44 44 ATJK Edo Gojola Araara Gute kalcha 40 1 0.25 0.126 50.4 Agriculture 0.001463 55,900 59,722.87
45 45 ATJK Edo Gojola Beddottuu Alomu 45 1 1.75 0.5 28.6 Agriculture 0.001152 55,900 47,026.59
46 46 ATJK Edo Gojola Mahammad Abbile 45 1 0.625 0.54 86.4 Agriculture 0.002418 55,900 98,660.89
47 47 ATJK Elka Callamo Cali Nanaawo Jibo 35 2 1.25 0.38 30.4 Agriculture 0.002049 55,900 83,612.38
48 48 ATJK Elka Callamo Dame Mude Waye 70 1 4 1.44 36 Agriculture 0.003319 167,700 135,436.59
49 49 ATJK Elka Callamo Ali Qawate Habro 36 2 0.875 0.2202 25.2 Agriculture 0.001485 55,900 60,603.99
50 50 ATJK Elka Callamo Haji Ummer Koro Boko 65 1 0.5 0.1365 27.3 Agriculture 0.001683 55,900 68,689.12
51 51 ATJK Elka Callamo Raasoo Funjaa Bantii 62 1 0.75 0.458 61.1 Agriculture 0.003402 55,900 138,820.70
52 52 ATJK Elka Callamo Bakare Erba 55 1 3 1.905 63.5 Agriculture 0.005172 223,600 211,086.10
53 53 ATJK Elka Callamo Galgaloo Tolaa 40 2 1.75 1.576 90.1 Agriculture 0.004805 167,700 196,099.99
54 54 ATJK Elka Callamo Sorse Ilaalaa 50 2 2.5 1.247 49.9 Agriculture 0.00522 167,700 213,028.66
55 55 ATJK Elka Callamo Lata Badhasoo 65 1 3 0.62 20.7 Agriculture 0.002015 111,800 82,249.06
56 56 ATJK Elka Callamo Gameda Tiskee 60 1 2.12 1.693 79.9 Agriculture 0.005075 223,600 207,104.21
57 57 ATJK Elka Callamo Fantaye Barek 60 2 0.5 0.312 62.4 Agriculture 0.000915 55,900 37,323.29
58 58 ATJK Elka Callamo Quufaa Umamaa 35 1 1 0.464 46.4 Agriculture 0.001265 55,900 51,619.37
59 59 ATJK Elka Callamo Korjoo Tufaa Boruu 62 1 1.375 0.5675 41.3 Agriculture 0.002872 55,900 117,204.74
60 60 ATJK Elka Callamo Garii Dugdaa 50 2 1.25 0.917 73.36 Agriculture 0.002504 167,700 102,204.16
61 61 ATJK Elka Callamo G/Korke Adii 65 1 2 1.048 52.4 Agriculture 0.003393 167,700 138,461.21
133
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Land Primary livelihood
taken needs 1) Agricultural
% farm inputs 2)
(land Irrigation 3)
Total taken/ livestock/Fattening 4)
land Total dairy/poultry 5) Local
hold land area land Transportation 6)
size taken by holdin Grain trade 7) Fruit Weighted
No Woreda Kebele Name PAHHs Age Sex (ha) the road g size) trade average Total cost Budget share
62 62 ATJK Elka Callamo Danboo Kane 70 1 4.5 1.051 23.4 Agriculture 0.003791 167,700 154,700.76
63 63 ATJK Elka Callamo Desu Degefa 43 1 1 0.222 22.2 Agriculture 0.00188 55,900 76,730.67
64 64 ATJK Elka Callamo Achamilashi Gashe Dayiso 50 2 2 0.45 22.5 Agriculture 0.001037 55,900 42,323.93
65 65 ATJK Elka Callamo Gobena kofalache Bansee 30 1 1.5 0.674 44.9 Agriculture 0.001749 111,800 71,370.54
66 66 ATJK Elka Callamo Abi Tafo Tufa 55 1 2 1.084 54.2 Agriculture 0.002498 167,700 101,953.65
67 67 ATJK Elka Callamo Dasalegne Tadese Burda 55 1 2 0.61 30.5 Agriculture 0.001601 111,800 65,351.14
68 68 ATJK Elka Callamo Kura wargee Badhane 45 2 1 0.592 59.2 Agriculture 0.001364 111,800 55,679.48
69 69 ATJK Elka Callamo Balcha Midhekso Urjii 40 1 0.5 0.359 71.8 Agriculture 0.001218 55,900 49,722.48
70 70 ATJK Elka Callamo Baqale Takle Wakijjira 70 1 3 0.62 20.7 Agriculture 0.00182 111,800 74,270.36
71 71 ATJK Elka Callamo Bashadu Galashe Bariso 55 1 1 0.292 29.2 Agriculture 0.001455 55,900 59,378.31
72 72 ATJK Elka Callamo Jido Dedota Qunbi 40 1 1 0.389 38.9 Agriculture 0.001092 55,900 44,565.38
73 73 ATJK Elka Callamo Kano Sibnoo Kiyoo 70 1 1 0.325 32.5 Agriculture 0.00114 55,900 46,524.67
74 74 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Takle Regasa Talila 45 1 0.125 0.0999 79.92 Agriculture 0.001794 55,900 73,225.47
75 75 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Jima Bobbee Boru 64 1 1 0.525 52.5 Agriculture 0.001601 55,900 65,335.31
76 76 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Gada Waqtola Doddota 60 1 2.25 0.5 22.2 Agriculture 0.001934 55,900 78,941.37
77 77 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Duressa Bobbe Bufa 47 1 2 0.625 31.25 Agriculture 0.002222 111,800 90,698.02
78 78 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Ifaa Tola 35 1 0.5 0.4375 87.5 Agriculture 0.001399 55,900 57,105.66
79 79 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Aboneshi Jaffo Galalacha 43 2 2.75 0.758 27.6 Agriculture 0.00292 167,700 119,164.48
80 80 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Lemlem Bati Turefi 66 2 3.25 1.125 34.6 Agriculture 0.003766 167,700 153,682.00
81 81 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Ayyura Geda Qaabato 60 2 1.75 0.75 42.9 Agriculture 0.002119 167,700 86,497.28
82 82 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Mesfin Guta Teka 55 1 1 0.375 37.5 Agriculture 0.001646 55,900 67,184.72
134
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Land Primary livelihood
taken needs 1) Agricultural
% farm inputs 2)
(land Irrigation 3)
Total taken/ livestock/Fattening 4)
land Total dairy/poultry 5) Local
hold land area land Transportation 6)
size taken by holdin Grain trade 7) Fruit Weighted
No Woreda Kebele Name PAHHs Age Sex (ha) the road g size) trade average Total cost Budget share
83 83 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Bariisoo Korjii Bulaa 33 1 0.75 0.5625 75 Agriculture 0.001883 55,900 76,841.00
84 84 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Roobee Bulaa 60 2 1 0.5 50 Agriculture 0.001934 55,900 78,941.37
85 85 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Booxee Tolaa 55 1 1 0.5 50 Agriculture 0.002325 55,900 94,898.76
86 86 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Fisaha Yaii Bulaa 32 1 0.75 0.5 66.7 Agriculture 0.001543 55,900 62,983.98
87 87 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Baya Kuru 55 1 0.85 0.5 58.8 Agriculture 0.001934 55,900 78,941.37
88 88 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Shamuu Bitta Hirphoo 50 2 2 0.5 25 Agriculture 0.00213 55,900 86,920.07
89 89 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Dhuuga Jaarsoo Dule 58 1 4 1.625 40.6 Agriculture 0.005505 167,700 224,644.68
90 90 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Boorana Gutaa 45 1 1 0.4 40 Agriculture 0.001313 55,900 53,578.66
91 91 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Nanneso Gurmu 53 1 1 0.5 50 Agriculture 0.002325 55,900 94,898.76
92 92 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Lamii Gurmuu 44 1 1 0.25 25 Agriculture 0.001163 55,900 47,449.38
93 93 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Abe Tafa 53 1 2 0.58 29 Agriculture 0.002314 55,900 94,444.32
94 94 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Bonse Roba 32 1 0.725 0.25 34.5 Agriculture 0.001358 55,900 55,428.08
95 95 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Tufa Dhugaa Jaro 34 1 0.5 0.1375 27.5 Agriculture 0.000708 55,900 28,889.70
96 96 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Dabale Dayo Bula 50 1 1 0.25 25 Agriculture 0.001945 55,900 79,364.16
97 97 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Nuguse Badeso Dabala 65 1 3.75 3.056 81.5 Agriculture 0.007629 223,600 311,362.62
98 98 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Taabota Hamdaa Tushee 40 1 1.875 1.413 75.4 Agriculture 0.004234 167,700 172,790.62
99 99 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Dabo Hamde Tashe 48 1 3.5 0.885 25.3 Agriculture 0.003213 167,700 131,109.24
100 100 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Fikadu H/gorgis Tasem 70 1 4 1.44 36 Agriculture 0.003319 167,700 135,436.59
101 101 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Rade Bariso Buta 50 2 4.2 0.85 20.2 Agriculture 0.001959 167,700 79,945.21
102 102 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Hamdaa Gomjjii 45 1 1 0.325 32.5 Agriculture 0.001727 55,900 70,460.76
103 103 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Badhaanee Gonjiii 40 1 0.625 0.22 35.2 Agriculture 0.001876 55,900 76,542.57
135
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Land Primary livelihood
taken needs 1) Agricultural
% farm inputs 2)
(land Irrigation 3)
Total taken/ livestock/Fattening 4)
land Total dairy/poultry 5) Local
hold land area land Transportation 6)
size taken by holdin Grain trade 7) Fruit Weighted
No Woreda Kebele Name PAHHs Age Sex (ha) the road g size) trade average Total cost Budget share
Guufaa Durreesssa
104 104 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Naabsu 53 1 0.125 0.105 84 Agriculture 0.00122 55,900 49,769.06
105 105 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Durresso Nabso Roomiso 32 1 1.17 0.478 40.9 Agriculture 0.002079 55,900 84,850.90
106 106 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Banse Giijja Edao 43 1 0.222 0.161 72.5 Agriculture 0.00174 55,900 70,993.43
107 107 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Hawii Irressoo 40 1 1.5 0.6 40 Agriculture 0.002556 111,800 104,304.08
108 108 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Amusee Shanqoc 40 1 1 0.62 62 Agriculture 0.002406 111,800 98,206.45
109 109 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Gadaa Desiso 60 1 3 1.26605 42.20 Agriculture 0.004091 167,700 166,948.20
110 110 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Tunnoo Gauattoo 38 1 1 0.62 62 Agriculture 0.002015 111,800 82,249.06
111 111 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Sh/Abdulqadir Galattoo 70 1 2.5 0.71 28.4 Agriculture 0.002809 111,800 114,649.93
112 112 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Diittaa Daaw 45 1 1 0.52 52 Agriculture 0.002371 55,900 96,779.83
113 113 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Ramattoo Waqayoo 30 1 1.5 0.69 46 Agriculture 0.002763 111,800 112,768.87
114 114 Dugda Haxe Leman Kadoloo Jiloo 40 1 0.25 0.3 120 Agriculture 0.000691 55,900 28,215.96
115 115 Dugda Haxe Leman Bashanee Lajjiso 35 2 1 0.34 34 Agriculture 0.001175 55,900 47,935.47
116 116 Dugda Haxe Leman Jamal Doorii 33 1 1 0.23 23 Agriculture 0.000921 55,900 37,589.62
117 117 Dugda Jawe Bofo Sorsee Mammee 38 2 1.75 0.375 21.4 Agriculture 0.001451 55,900 59,206.03
118 118 Dugda Jawe Bofo Hajjii Ibrahim 45 1 0.75 0.33 44 Agriculture 0.001347 55,900 54,973.64
119 119 Dugda Jawe Bofo Teka Gebu Boru 50 1 1 0.221 22.1 Agriculture 0.001487 55,900 60,679.23
120 120 Dugda Jawe Bofo Mihert Abe Geda 19 2 0.125 0.1412 113.0 Agriculture 0.000716 55,900 29,237.70
121 121 Dugda Jawe Bofo Mulegata Endalu Walda 35 1 0.25 0.07 28.0 Agriculture 0.000748 55,900 30,519.81
122 122 Dugda Jawe Bofo Kundale Kufaa Boru 55 1 4 0.938 23.5 Agriculture 0.002748 167,700 112,157.97
123 123 ATJK Naggaling Shugiuxa Aliyi 50 1 0.5 0.11 22 Agriculture 0.001427 55,900 58,218.02
136
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Land Primary livelihood
taken needs 1) Agricultural
% farm inputs 2)
(land Irrigation 3)
Total taken/ livestock/Fattening 4)
land Total dairy/poultry 5) Local
hold land area land Transportation 6)
size taken by holdin Grain trade 7) Fruit Weighted
No Woreda Kebele Name PAHHs Age Sex (ha) the road g size) trade average Total cost Budget share
124 124 ATJK Naggaling Wubiye takle Mariyam 55 1 1.5 0.337 22.5 Agriculture 0.001168 55,900 47,653.31
125 125 Dugda Oda Bokota Girma Aaf Gabre 43 1 1 0.5 50 Agriculture 0.001739 55,900 70,962.68
126 126 Dugda Oda Bokota Shuguxa Bekio Karu 42 1 1 0.5 50 Agriculture 0.00213 55,900 86,920.07
127 127 Dugda Oda Bokota Ayicheh Cakan Kebad 28 2 0.5 0.496 99.2 Agriculture 0.001339 55,900 54,629.07
Amelwerk Gebrtsideq
128 128 Dugda Oda Bokota Ab/ger 60 2 1 0.5 50 Agriculture 0.001152 55,900 47,026.59
129 129 Dugda Oda Bokota Meskarm Bedasu Shelo 40 2 1 0.864 86.4 Agriculture 0.002578 167,700 105,198.04
130 130 Dugda Oda Bokota Desta Hayile Habetye 70 2 1 0.5 50 Agriculture 0.001348 55,900 55,005.29
131 131 Dugda Oda Bokota Almanesh Tekal Bediq 55 2 1.5 0.71 47.3 Agriculture 0.002027 111,800 82,735.15
132 132 Dugda Oda Bokota Feranjo Asaf Gabre 39 1 1 0.378 37.8 Agriculture 0.00224 55,900 91,402.97
133 133 Dugda Oda Bokota Adench Gecho Mesore 70 2 1 0.562 56.2 Agriculture 0.001491 55,900 60,836.58
134 134 Dugda Oda Bokota Abeba Adinqu Maerti 41 1 2 0.546 27.3 Agriculture 0.002236 55,900 91,246.51
135 135 Dugda Oda Bokota Asechal Chekaa Kebad 50 1 1 0.54 54 Agriculture 0.002026 55,900 82,703.50
136 136 Dugda Oda Bokota Habatmu Damise Janka 50 1 2 0.675 33.75 Agriculture 0.002729 111,800 111,358.07
137 137 Dugda Oda Bokota Sida Dedhi Ashemi 42 1 0.75 0.5 66.7 Agriculture 0.002325 55,900 94,898.76
138 138 Dugda Oda Bokota Gaze Cakan Kebad 36 1 0.75 0.5 66.7 Agriculture 0.001934 55,900 78,941.37
139 139 Dugda Oda Bokota Eshate Besamo Bentihun 52 1 2 0.48 24 Agriculture 0.001302 55,900 53,124.22
140 140 Dugda Oda Bokota Melka Gerbi Group 56 1 2 0.463 23.2 Agriculture 0.001263 55,900 51,525.32
141 141 Dugda Oda Bokota Gemachu Walde Jimale 30 1 5 1.144 22.9 Agriculture 0.003223 167,700 131,532.93
142 142 Dugda Oda Bokota Abdi Fuli Kafaniii 30 1 2 0.788 39.4 Agriculture 0.002403 167,700 98,049.99
143 143 Dugda Oda Bokota Lemi Edaa Biyo 60 1 2 0.45 22.5 Agriculture 0.001819 55,900 74,238.71
137
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Land Primary livelihood
taken needs 1) Agricultural
% farm inputs 2)
(land Irrigation 3)
Total taken/ livestock/Fattening 4)
land Total dairy/poultry 5) Local
hold land area land Transportation 6)
size taken by holdin Grain trade 7) Fruit Weighted
No Woreda Kebele Name PAHHs Age Sex (ha) the road g size) trade average Total cost Budget share
144 144 Dugda Oda Bokota Bedo Edao Biyo 50 1 1 0.366 36.6 Agriculture 0.00143 55,900 58,359.55
145 145 Dugda Oda Bokota Niguse Wandemu Tenade 0 1 3 1.075 35.8 Agriculture 0.002868 167,700 117,064.56
146 146 Dugda Oda Bokota Kifile Warqu Badane 45 1 1.075 0.342 31.8 Agriculture 0.001961 55,900 80,038.36
147 147 Dugda Tepo Choroke Hora Nuguse Kebel 43 1 3 1.75 58.3 Agriculture 0.005011 223,600 204,486.55
148 148 Dugda Tepo Choroke Durbaa Dirro Boste 65 1 3 1.447 48.2 Agriculture 0.005485 167,700 223,860.60
Urgessa Buruqaa
149 149 Dugda Tepo Choroke Qabatoo 70 2 2 0.67 33.5 Agriculture 0.002717 111,800 110,887.80
150 150 Dugda Tepo Choroke Damboba Gada Tufa 40 1 1.625 0.75 46.2 Agriculture 0.003097 167,700 126,390.75
151 151 Dugda Tepo Choroke Billo Obse Folle 52 1 5 1.195 23.9 Agriculture 0.004123 167,700 168,244.42
152 152 Dugda Tuchi Dambal Bula Dabballee Tufa 45 1 1.5 0.375 25.0 Agriculture 0.001255 55,900 51,227.33
153 153 ATJK Warja Woshugula Kadir Tibeesso Badhaaso 45 1 1 0.5 50 Agriculture 0.001934 55,900 78,941.37
154 154 ATJK Warja Woshugula Julla Badhaso Shano 50 1 0.5 0.25 50 Agriculture 0.000576 55,900 23,513.30
155 155 ATJK Warja Woshugula Budhaa Shibiroo Qabaato 35 2 1 0.255 25.5 Agriculture 0.00137 55,900 55,898.34
156 156 ATJK Warja Woshugula Abbiyyo A/Tufaa 45 1 2 1 50 Agriculture 0.003673 167,700 149,904.05
157 157 ATJK Warja Woshugula mastawot Tefera Horaf 28 2 1 0.75 75 Agriculture 0.001924 167,700 78,518.58
158 158 ATJK Warja Woshugula Abobu Leajiso Kaweti 35 1 1 0.6065 60.65 Agriculture 0.001789 111,800 73,000.65
Shimalhs Taffarsaa
159 159 ATJK Warja Woshugula Hordofaa 40 1 0.9 0.6 66.7 Agriculture 0.002165 111,800 88,346.69
160 160 ATJK Warja Woshugula Kadiir Magarsoo Thriseer 33 1 2 1.2 60 Agriculture 0.003548 167,700 144,778.60
161 161 ATJK Warja Woshugula Bulbula Geda Qaweti 35 1 2 0.79509 39.8 Agriculture 0.002614 167,700 106,695.53
162 162 ATJK Warja Woshugula Burwusee Immannoo Turii 50 2 2 0.77648 38.8 Agriculture 0.00218 167,700 88,987.81
163 163 Dugda wayo Gabriel Hyredin Tamene Ebiso 45 1 1 0.5 50 Agriculture 0.001739 55,900 70,962.68
138
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Land Primary livelihood
taken needs 1) Agricultural
% farm inputs 2)
(land Irrigation 3)
Total taken/ livestock/Fattening 4)
land Total dairy/poultry 5) Local
hold land area land Transportation 6)
size taken by holdin Grain trade 7) Fruit Weighted
No Woreda Kebele Name PAHHs Age Sex (ha) the road g size) trade average Total cost Budget share
Koorsoo Tashizea
164 164 Dugda wayo Gabriel corrooqoo 30 1 2 0.5 25 Agriculture 0.00213 55,900 86,920.07
165 165 Dugda wayo Gabriel Caaltuu Bonee Korren 30 2 2 0.456 22.8 Agriculture 0.001246 55,900 50,866.95
166 166 Dugda wayo Gabriel Mansee shaallo turii 27 1 0.025 0.0625 250 Agriculture 0.001122 55,900 45,771.80
167 167 Dugda wayo Gabriel KHDIR Kurkuree Godhanr 38 1 0.28 0.0625 22.3 Agriculture 0.000535 55,900 21,835.71
168 168 Dugda wayo Gabriel Besho Gemeda Boku 40 1 1.875 1.5305 81.6 Agriculture 0.004505 167,700 183,841.87
169 169 Dugda wayo Gabriel Badhane jima 47 2 2 0.454344 22.7 Agriculture 0.001438 55,900 58,689.84
170 170 ATJK wayo Gabriel Kusi Midheksa 55 2 1 0.467 46.7 Agriculture 0.001272 55,900 51,901.53
171 171 ATJK Wolin Bulaa Malku Takle Gorigis 40 1 0.25 0.203 81.2 Agriculture 0.001641 55,900 66,964.97
172 172 ATJK Wolin Bulaa Gashwu Adamsu Nigati 60 1 2 0.75 37.5 Agriculture 0.002119 167,700 86,497.28
173 173 ATJK Wolin Bulaa Walde Birahne Kidane 53 1 3 0.994 33.1 Agriculture 0.002682 167,700 109,446.25
174 174 ATJK Wolin Bulaa Amura lolo Suramalo 35 1 0.5 0.268 53.6 Agriculture 0.001009 55,900 41,163.64
175 1 ATJK Abine Germama Tashaala Abuna 32 1 2 0.79509 39.8 Irrigation 0.002419 112,492 98,716.83
176 2 ATJK Abine Germama Warri Sharuro Washa 36 1 2 0.84215 42.1 Irrigation 0.002527 119,150 103,142.97
177 3 ATJK Abine Germama Xayiba Huseen 27 2 1 0.5 50.0 Irrigation 0.002325 70,741 94,898.76
178 4 ATJK Abine Germama Dasta Debbiso Dubbee 25 1 0.5 0.5 100.0 Irrigation 0.001348 70,741 55,005.29
179 5 ATJK Abine Germama Faxuma Jibbaa Didhaa 35 2 2.25 0.875 38.9 Irrigation 0.002212 123,797 90,275.23
180 6 ATJK Abine Germama Kprmme turi coroqo 40 1 1 0.84 84.0 Irrigation 0.002327 118,846 94,962.06
181 7 ATJK Abine Germama Bilisumma tashite 35 1 1.25 1 80.0 Irrigation 0.002696 141,483 110,010.57
182 8 ATJK Abine Germama Garaala Luodole Sakaata 54 1 1.35 0.775995 57.5 Irrigation 0.002179 109,790 88,942.19
Yohaana Mishooroo
183 9 ATJK Abine Germama Daalee 37 1 2.75 0.75 27.3 Irrigation 0.002119 106,112 86,497.28
139
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Land Primary livelihood
taken needs 1) Agricultural
% farm inputs 2)
(land Irrigation 3)
Total taken/ livestock/Fattening 4)
land Total dairy/poultry 5) Local
hold land area land Transportation 6)
size taken by holdin Grain trade 7) Fruit Weighted
No Woreda Kebele Name PAHHs Age Sex (ha) the road g size) trade average Total cost Budget share
184 10 ATJK Abine Germama Lagasa Xunnee Horsisaa 40 1 1 0.71505 71.5 Irrigation 0.002821 101,167 115,124.90
Galaanaa Booharsu
185 11 ATJK Abine Germama Sadhuu 0 1 2 0.787 39.4 Irrigation 0.002205 111,347 89,977.25
186 12 ATJK Abine Germama Gabree Aanaa Ifoo 38 1 1.2 0.30347 25.3 Irrigation 0.00109 42,936 44,499.71
Gammadoo Urgeesso
187 13 Dugda Abono Gabriel Hinseenee 32 1 0.1272 0.10475 82.4 Irrigation 0.000828 14,820 33,788.16
188 14 Dugda Dodota Dambal Nura jadu 28 1 1 0.9277 92.8 Irrigation 0.002529 131,254 103,210.53
189 15 Dugda Dodota Dambal Ayo Waktola Shubula 47 2 2 0.75 37.5 Irrigation 0.001728 106,112 70,539.89
190 16 Dugda Dodota Dambal Idoo Gabuu Waktola 61 1 2 0.65 32.5 Irrigation 0.003453 91,964 140,921.52
191 17 Dugda Dodota Dambal Eda,oo Gabuu Waktola 60 1 2 0.64 32.0 Irrigation 0.003625 90,549 147,959.68
192 18 Dugda Dodota Dambal Folen Urgesa Dodota 48 1 2 0.874 43.7 Irrigation 0.003578 123,656 146,032.04
193 19 Dugda Dodota Dambal Gebeba Jara Bedasa 65 1 2 0.834 41.7 Irrigation 0.002313 117,997 94,397.75
194 20 Dugda Dodota Dambal Baku Gudeta Godena 70 2 2 0.404 20.2 Irrigation 0.002104 57,159 85,869.66
195 21 Dugda Dodota Dambal Ayo Waktola Shubula 38 1 1 0.5 50.0 Irrigation 0.00213 70,741 86,920.07
196 22 Dugda Dodota Dambal Bobe Dadhi Hirphoo 54 1 2 0.672 33.6 Irrigation 0.00194 95,076 79,161.13
197 23 Dugda Dodota Dambal Dhuga Urgesa Dodota 57 1 2 0.444 22.2 Irrigation 0.002001 62,818 81,653.09
198 24 Dugda Dodota Dambal Gemechu Danba Bula 45 1 1 0.578 57.8 Irrigation 0.002114 81,777 86,277.52
199 25 Dugda Dodota Dambal Dalo Tikse Tuchi 48 2 1 0.433 43.3 Irrigation 0.001584 61,262 64,661.11
200 26 Dugda Dodota Dambal Robe Gonbo Gelo 37 2 1 0.361 36.1 Irrigation 0.001027 51,075 41,931.89
201 27 Dugda Dodota Dambal Tola Urgeesaa Dodota 41 1 1 0.258 25.8 Irrigation 0.002159 36,503 88,095.28
202 28 ATJK Edo Gojola Kadiroo Husien 39 1 0.75 0.5 66.7 Irrigation 0.001934 70,741 78,941.37
203 29 ATJK Elka Callamo Usman Milo Ogate 50 1 0.75 0.23 30.7 Irrigation 0.001703 32,541 69,504.40
140
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Land Primary livelihood
taken needs 1) Agricultural
% farm inputs 2)
(land Irrigation 3)
Total taken/ livestock/Fattening 4)
land Total dairy/poultry 5) Local
hold land area land Transportation 6)
size taken by holdin Grain trade 7) Fruit Weighted
No Woreda Kebele Name PAHHs Age Sex (ha) the road g size) trade average Total cost Budget share
204 30 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Xilloo Korjaa Aabbii 47 1 1.5 0.767 51.1 Irrigation 0.002941 108,517 120,010.96
205 31 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Tariku Dagafa Ayano 34 1 1 0.5 50.0 Irrigation 0.001739 70,741 70,962.68
206 32 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Gudaata Korbuu Galcha 54 1 2.25 1.25 55.6 Irrigation 0.003858 176,853 157,459.96
207 33 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Raggasa Dabala Fayyisa 26 1 0.75 0.625 83.3 Irrigation 0.00144 88,427 58,783.24
208 34 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Neso Gurmu Ragasa 50 1 1 0.57765 57.8 Irrigation 0.002113 81,728 86,244.60
209 35 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Shaakuu Bunaa Jilo 0 2 2 0.571 28.6 Irrigation 0.002293 80,787 93,597.84
210 36 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Abbaba Gihiga Maaro 65 1 1 0.542 54.2 Irrigation 0.001249 76,684 50,976.83
211 37 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Bariso Raagoo Badhaane 40 1 1 0.522 52.2 Irrigation 0.002376 73,854 96,967.93
212 38 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Baaritu Dabboo Gobanaa 42 2 2.25 0.467 20.8 Irrigation 0.001467 66,072 59,880.23
Hirphoo Badhadha
213 39 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Wadale 43 1 1.5 0.412 27.5 Irrigation 0.002318 58,291 94,600.78
214 40 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Quustuu Dhuga Daadhi 47 2 0.75 0.357 47.6 Irrigation 0.001214 50,509 49,534.38
215 41 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Mendaye Tilahun 35 1 1.5 0.5 33.3 Irrigation 0.001152 70,741 47,026.59
216 42 Dugda Oda Bokota Aman Fayiso Kawo 70 1 2 0.57 28.5 Irrigation 0.002291 80,645 93,503.79
217 43 Dugda Oda Bokota Abune Buta Galato 45 1 2 0.43 21.5 Irrigation 0.001968 60,838 80,336.34
218 44 Dugda Oda Bokota Shewaye Damie Janka 55 2 0.75 0.694 92.5 Irrigation 0.00199 98,189 81,230.30
219 45 Dugda Oda Bokota Tufa Dadhi Ido 66 1 2 0.465 23.3 Irrigation 0.001463 65,790 59,692.12
220 46 Dugda Tepo Choroke Belanesh zenba 36 2 0.75 0.484 64.5 Irrigation 0.001506 68,478 61,479.13
221 47 Dugda Tepo Choroke Mindayi Damti Adalu 25 1 0.625 0.397 63.5 Irrigation 0.000915 56,169 37,339.11
222 48 Dugda Tepo Choroke Tamasgen Tabale Zawdu 35 1 6.625 2.625 39.6 Irrigation 0.006832 371,392 278,804.39
223 49 Dugda Tepo Choroke Ido Gelana Kufa 34 1 2 0.544 27.2 Irrigation 0.002036 76,967 83,079.71
141
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Land Primary livelihood
taken needs 1) Agricultural
% farm inputs 2)
(land Irrigation 3)
Total taken/ livestock/Fattening 4)
land Total dairy/poultry 5) Local
hold land area land Transportation 6)
size taken by holdin Grain trade 7) Fruit Weighted
No Woreda Kebele Name PAHHs Age Sex (ha) the road g size) trade average Total cost Budget share
224 50 Dugda Tepo Choroke Bula Badhaso Hero 54 1 1.15 0.44 38.3 Irrigation 0.001405 62,252 57,340.79
225 51 Dugda Tepo Choroke Bontu Baruda Gada 28 1 0.25 0.23 92.0 Irrigation 0.00053 32,541 21,632.23
226 52 Dugda Tepo Choroke Gada Urgi Tufa 35 1 2 1.252 62.6 Irrigation 0.003667 177,136 149,669.37
227 53 Dugda Tepo Choroke Malkato Abdi Dula 60 1 2.75 1.801 65.5 Irrigation 0.00591 254,811 241,198.04
228 54 Dugda Tepo Choroke Dashe Gada Tufa 32 1 3.5 1.5 42.9 Irrigation 0.004825 212,224 196,930.64
229 55 Dugda Tepo Choroke Odaa Gudata Tufa 58 1 5 2 40.0 Irrigation 0.006173 282,966 251,935.93
Midhekso Shuguxa
230 56 Dugda Tepo Choroke Kormaa 40 1 1.125 0.239 21.2 Irrigation 0.001333 33,814 54,393.49
231 57 Dugda Tepo Choroke Birru Badhadhi Garmaj 62 1 4 0.924 23.1 Irrigation 0.002716 130,730 110,841.23
232 58 Dugda Tepo Choroke Doni Korma Gudata 30 1 2 0.669 33.5 Irrigation 0.002324 94,652 94,836.36
233 59 Dugda Tepo Choroke Almuu Jima Butta 68 1 1.5 0.3204 21.4 Irrigation 0.00152 45,331 62,049.42
234 60 ATJK Warja Woshugula Aliiyi Abbee Galato 30 1 2 0.41 20.5 Irrigation 0.002118 58,008 86,433.98
Maleka T/Garaesi
235 61 Dugda wayo Gabriel silawandi 55 1 1 0.5 50.0 Irrigation 0.001543 70,741 62,983.98
236 62 Dugda wayo Gabriel Walde Birhane Kidine 50 1 1 0.45 45.0 Irrigation 0.001428 63,667 58,281.32
237 63 Dugda wayo Gabriel Belaynesh Negese Wolde 70 2 2 1.251 62.6 Irrigation 0.003665 176,995 149,575.31
238 64 Dugda wayo Gabriel Tufa Tefa Kufa 40 1 0.75 0.592 78.9 Irrigation 0.002146 83,758 87,594.27
239 65 Dugda wayo Gabriel Tsagaye Mamo Xilaayee 39 1 1 0.579 57.9 Irrigation 0.00153 81,919 62,435.49
240 66 Dugda wayo Gabriel Robe Bedasa Dugda 45 2 1.5 0.541 36.1 Irrigation 0.001442 76,542 58,861.47
241 67 Dugda wayo Gabriel Boru Godana B obe 44 1 1.5 0.347 23.1 Irrigation 0.001191 49,095 48,593.84
242 68 Dugda wayo Gabriel Mulugeta Korme Gebeba 40 1 2 0.546 27.3 Irrigation 0.001845 77,250 75,289.12
243 69 Dugda wayo Gabriel Imu Hirpho Badheso 41 2 1 0.266 26.6 Irrigation 0.001004 37,634 40,975.54
142
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Land Primary livelihood
taken needs 1) Agricultural
% farm inputs 2)
(land Irrigation 3)
Total taken/ livestock/Fattening 4)
land Total dairy/poultry 5) Local
hold land area land Transportation 6)
size taken by holdin Grain trade 7) Fruit Weighted
No Woreda Kebele Name PAHHs Age Sex (ha) the road g size) trade average Total cost Budget share
244 70 Dugda wayo Gabriel Biyo Karu Boba 28 1 2 0.515 25.8 Irrigation 0.001969 72,864 80,352.17
245 1 ATJK Abine Germama Wayame Tufa Mieso 40 2 2 1.046 52.3 Fattening 0.003193 175,275 130,294.41
246 2 ATJK Abine Germama Agabaja Nannesa 55 1 3 1 33.3 Fattening 0.003478 175,275 141,925.35
247 3 ATJK Abine Germama Badhaso Tufa 0 1 3 0.75 25.0 Fattening 0.003292 116,850 134,369.45
248 4 ATJK Abine Germama Badhaso Tufa 0 1 2 0.5 25.0 Fattening 0.001934 58,425 78,941.37
249 5 ATJK Abine Germama Jamal Fanta Qophata 31 1 0.0625 0.022994 36.8 Fattening 0.000444 58,425 18,120.00
250 6 ATJK Abine Germama Teka Alemayo Tadesa 45 1 0.75 0.25 33.3 Fattening 0.000967 58,425 39,470.69
251 7 ATJK Abine Germama Baqaga Debisoo Dubbee 60 1 1 0.5 50.0 Fattening 0.001543 58,425 62,983.98
252 8 ATJK Abine Germama Huseene Banurra Bariisu 35 1 2 0.54936 27.5 Fattening 0.001657 116,850 67,626.45
253 9 ATJK Abine Germama Dadaoo Galatoo Hamiyoo 45 1 2.75 1.25 45.5 Fattening 0.004054 175,275 165,438.65
254 10 ATJK Abine Germama Tadala Xiqqoo Dullaa 45 1 0.525 0.5053 96.2 Fattening 0.002729 58,425 111,354.63
255 11 ATJK Edo Gojola Tuse Bansa 65 1 3 0.88765 29.6 Fattening 0.003219 175,275 131,358.48
256 12 ATJK Edo Gojola Faaxuma Annoota 45 2 1 0.4 40.0 Fattening 0.001313 58,425 53,578.66
257 13 ATJK Elka Callamo Roobduu Fajjoo 70 2 2 0.625 31.3 Fattening 0.002613 116,850 106,655.41
258 14 ATJK Elka Callamo Fungee Baaruda 65 2 2 0.625 31.3 Fattening 0.00144 116,850 58,783.24
259 15 ATJK Elka Callamo Midhekso Darro Dallacha 40 1 0.75 0.461 61.5 Fattening 0.001844 58,425 75,273.30
260 16 ATJK Elka Callamo Kurra Daballe Shayyi 45 2 2 0.431 21.6 Fattening 0.000993 58,425 40,536.92
261 17 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Abbee Milkii 55 1 0.75 0.75 100.0 Fattening 0.00251 116,850 102,454.67
262 18 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Barisoo Midlesoo 65 1 1.75 0.5 28.6 Fattening 0.002325 58,425 94,898.76
263 19 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Nuuro Husen 40 1 1.25 0.5 40.0 Fattening 0.001739 58,425 70,962.68
264 20 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Qadho Nasesso 35 1 1 0.25 25.0 Fattening 0.001554 58,425 63,406.77
143
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Land Primary livelihood
taken needs 1) Agricultural
% farm inputs 2)
(land Irrigation 3)
Total taken/ livestock/Fattening 4)
land Total dairy/poultry 5) Local
hold land area land Transportation 6)
size taken by holdin Grain trade 7) Fruit Weighted
No Woreda Kebele Name PAHHs Age Sex (ha) the road g size) trade average Total cost Budget share
265 21 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Waadoo Deebisoo 43 1 0.75 0.35 46.7 Fattening 0.00198 58,425 80,790.78
266 22 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Hashuu Badhassoo 42 1 2 1.67895 83.9 Fattening 0.004065 233,700 165,889.29
267 23 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Nobii Obsa 30 1 2 0.52 26.0 Fattening 0.001394 116,850 56,886.35
268 24 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Iaxo Said 55 2 3 0.77 25.7 Fattening 0.002948 116,850 120,293.12
269 25 Dugda Haxe Leman Layyisoo Shuramoo 48 1 2 0.5 25.0 Fattening 0.002325 58,425 94,898.76
270 26 Dugda Jawe Bofo Daddossoo Waqayyoo 32 1 0.75 0.625 83.3 Fattening 0.001831 116,850 74,740.63
271 27 ATJK Naggaling Helloo Baallii 40 1 1.5 0.61 40.7 Fattening 0.001406 116,850 57,372.44
272 28 Dugda Oda Bokota Banata buta galla 65 1 1 0.73 73.0 Fattening 0.001682 116,850 68,658.82
273 29 Dugda Oda Bokota Shurabi Banti Ogato 45 2 2 0.45 22.5 Fattening 0.001428 58,425 58,281.32
274 30 Dugda Oda Bokota Bidaara Boqqee Guyyee 45 1 2 0.5 25.0 Fattening 0.001739 58,425 70,962.68
275 31 Dugda Oda Bokota Takaa Cakan Kebad 40 1 2 0.98 49.0 Fattening 0.003041 175,275 124,086.90
276 32 Dugda Oda Bokota Bula Geda Edaee 62 1 1.5 1.326 88.4 Fattening 0.004033 175,275 164,608.00
277 33 Dugda Oda Bokota Beriso Edo Dedi 36 1 1 0.321 32.1 Fattening 0.001131 58,425 46,148.46
278 34 Dugda Oda Bokota Fital Dadhi Ashem 30 1 1 0.68 68.0 Fattening 0.002154 116,850 87,892.25
279 35 Dugda Oda Bokota Bula Dedhi Ashemi 54 1 1 0.5 50.0 Fattening 0.002521 58,425 102,877.46
Kasawn Misgeba
280 36 Dugda Tepo Choroke G/Mariam 40 1 1.25 0.449 35.9 Fattening 0.001817 58,425 74,144.66
281 37 Dugda Tepo Choroke Beliyu Eshetu Cherinat 46 1 1.5 0.874 58.3 Fattening 0.002796 175,275 114,117.26
282 38 Dugda Tepo Choroke Getu leliza Gutama 40 1 1.5 0.448 29.9 Fattening 0.001814 58,425 74,050.61
283 39 Dugda Tepo Choroke Sintayo Mesgaba 32 2 0.25 0.1257 50.3 Fattening 0.001072 58,425 43,737.27
284 40 Dugda Tepo Choroke Shufero Yaii Danbal 0 2 1 0.521 52.1 Fattening 0.001592 116,850 64,959.10
144
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Land Primary livelihood
taken needs 1) Agricultural
% farm inputs 2)
(land Irrigation 3)
Total taken/ livestock/Fattening 4)
land Total dairy/poultry 5) Local
hold land area land Transportation 6)
size taken by holdin Grain trade 7) Fruit Weighted
No Woreda Kebele Name PAHHs Age Sex (ha) the road g size) trade average Total cost Budget share
285 41 Dugda Tepo Choroke Calla Dibboo Barqa 38 2 1 0.239 23.9 Fattening 0.000942 58,425 38,436.10
286 42 Dugda Tepo Choroke Dasta Urgi Tufa 40 1 1.5 0.494 32.9 Fattening 0.002116 58,425 86,355.75
287 43 Dugda Tepo Choroke Danyo Qufa Dori 62 1 1 0.419 41.9 Fattening 0.001943 58,425 79,301.76
288 44 Dugda Tepo Choroke Galane Uma Wakene 50 2 1 0.624 62.4 Fattening 0.001829 116,850 74,646.58
289 45 Dugda Tepo Choroke Hoda Dugda Kallacha 40 1 1.75 0.505 28.9 Fattening 0.001359 58,425 55,475.55
290 46 Dugda Tepo Choroke Damise Wasine Wantago 50 1 1 0.282 28.2 Fattening 0.001236 58,425 50,459.08
291 47 Dugda Tepo Choroke Badho Korma Gudata 55 1 2.5 1.55 62.0 Fattening 0.004941 175,275 201,633.30
292 48 Dugda Tepo Choroke Adanech Ababa Badhasa 60 2 1 0.494 49.4 Fattening 0.002116 58,425 86,355.75
293 49 Dugda Tepo Choroke Fittala Billo Obse 33 1 1.625 0.553 34.0 Fattening 0.001861 116,850 75,947.50
294 50 Dugda Tepo Choroke Urgesa Dessisa Jiru 40 1 1.25 0.762 61.0 Fattening 0.00332 116,850 135,498.09
295 51 Dugda Tepo Choroke Girma Alafa Bajiga 44 1 0.75 0.284 37.9 Fattening 0.002023 58,425 82,561.97
296 52 Dugda Tepo Choroke Dabo Karma Gudaata 40 1 2.5 0.675 27.0 Fattening 0.003511 116,850 143,272.85
297 53 Dugda Tepo Choroke Dugda Gonji Magarsa 40 1 2.25 0.843 37.5 Fattening 0.003116 175,275 127,159.00
298 54 Dugda Tepo Choroke Bulli Idoo Sookaa 50 2 1.5 0.464 30.9 Fattening 0.00146 58,425 59,598.07
299 55 Dugda Tepo Choroke Folle Waabee Gadaa 48 1 4 0.926 23.2 Fattening 0.002916 175,275 119,008.03
300 56 Dugda Tepo Choroke Abule Yaii Hirphoo 30 1 1 0.235 23.5 Fattening 0.001324 58,425 54,017.28
301 57 Dugda Tuchi Dambal Mamitu Wandu Shanqoo 36 2 1 0.2293 22.9 Fattening 0.000528 58,425 21,566.40
302 58 Dugda Tuchi Dambal Getacho Maaruu Jimaa 45 1 1 0.245 24.5 Fattening 0.001347 58,425 54,957.81
303 59 ATJK Warja Woshugula Mominaa Edao Hamdaa 32 2 1 0.25 25.0 Fattening 0.000967 58,425 39,470.69
304 60 ATJK Warja Woshugula Ilma Hieesso Dorsiso 55 1 2 0.9 45.0 Fattening 0.003052 175,275 124,541.34
305 61 ATJK Warja Woshugula Sangoo Edao Badhaaso 43 1 2 0.411 20.6 Fattening 0.002316 58,425 94,506.72
145
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Land Primary livelihood
taken needs 1) Agricultural
% farm inputs 2)
(land Irrigation 3)
Total taken/ livestock/Fattening 4)
land Total dairy/poultry 5) Local
hold land area land Transportation 6)
size taken by holdin Grain trade 7) Fruit Weighted
No Woreda Kebele Name PAHHs Age Sex (ha) the road g size) trade average Total cost Budget share
306 62 ATJK Warja Woshugula Siimalo Urgeessa 65 2 1 0.25 25.0 Fattening 0.000772 58,425 31,491.99
307 63 Dugda wayo Gabriel Shibiru Abawu Mininu 65 1 2 0.5 25.0 Fattening 0.001348 58,425 55,005.29
308 64 ATJK Wolin Bulaa Buzuneshi Kebede Derese 70 2 3 0.75 25.0 Fattening 0.001924 116,850 78,518.58
309 65 ATJK Wolin Bulaa Guyye oda Dodota 40 2 0.75 0.276 36.8 Fattening 0.002005 58,425 81,809.54
310 66 ATJK Wolin Bulaa Nuraa Danaboo Abdii 67 1 3 1.08 36.0 Fattening 0.003662 175,275 149,449.61
311 1 ATJK Edo Gojola Ushi Edasa Gure 45 1 2 0.5 25 Poultry 0.001543 103,200 62,983.98
312 2 ATJK Edo Gojola Malu Qaaabatoo Dhaqabo 40 1 1 0.25 25 Poultry 0.001749 51,600 71,385.47
313 3 ATJK Edo Gojola Qaasim Dadu 38 1 1.75 0.61 34.9 Poultry 0.002579 103,200 105,244.61
314 4 ATJK Elka Callamo Adem Dekeebo Lenjjiso 52 1 2 1.25 62.5 Poultry 0.003858 129,000 157,459.96
315 5 ATJK Elka Callamo Dejene Edasa Gure 32 1 2 1 50 Poultry 0.002696 129,000 110,010.57
316 6 ATJK Elka Callamo Tura Lenjisa Filato 48 1 2 0.73 36.5 Poultry 0.002855 103,200 116,530.99
317 7 ATJK Elka Callamo Maso Mamis Ayito 64 1 2 0.5 25 Poultry 0.002325 103,200 94,898.76
318 8 ATJK Elka Callamo Tigisti Tafaso 70 2 1 0.5 50 Poultry 0.001543 103,200 62,983.98
319 9 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Kadiro Badhaso 38 1 2 0.5 25 Poultry 0.001934 103,200 78,941.37
320 10 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Ababa Galato 30 1 0.75 0.19 25.3 Poultry 0.001024 51,600 41,806.19
321 11 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Bashir Galato 43 1 1.25 0.605 48.4 Poultry 0.001785 103,200 72,859.57
322 12 Dugda Jawe Bofo Husen Obsee 42 1 0.75 0.54 72.0 Poultry 0.002418 103,200 98,660.89
323 13 Dugda Jawe Bofo Shuxxir Wohelo 65 2 3 1.316 43.9 Poultry 0.003033 129,000 123,773.99
324 14 Dugda Jawe Bofo Abbishu Bargo 65 1 1 0.48 48.0 Poultry 0.001693 103,200 69,081.61
325 15 Dugda Jawe Bofo Sh/Kaliil Qasim 42 1 1 0.465 46.5 Poultry 0.001658 103,200 67,670.82
326 16 Dugda Jawe Bofo Bashir Daaree 45 1 2 0.5 25.0 Poultry 0.002325 103,200 94,898.76
146
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Land Primary livelihood
taken needs 1) Agricultural
% farm inputs 2)
(land Irrigation 3)
Total taken/ livestock/Fattening 4)
land Total dairy/poultry 5) Local
hold land area land Transportation 6)
size taken by holdin Grain trade 7) Fruit Weighted
No Woreda Kebele Name PAHHs Age Sex (ha) the road g size) trade average Total cost Budget share
327 17 Dugda Jawe Bofo Husen H/Gaslu 38 1 1 0.25 25.0 Poultry 0.001749 51,600 71,385.47
328 18 Dugda Jawe Bofo Bontu Badhane 65 2 2.125 0.5 23.5 Poultry 0.001348 103,200 55,005.29
329 19 Dugda Jawe Bofo Bobbixso Dhagabo 35 1 1 0.37 37.0 Poultry 0.001439 103,200 58,735.76
330 20 Dugda Jawe Bofo Buuoo Guddata 56 1 1.5 0.375 25.0 Poultry 0.00106 103,200 43,248.64
331 21 Dugda Naggaling Kodir oiimo 30 1 1 0.75 75.0 Poultry 0.001924 103,200 78,518.58
332 22 Dugda Oda Bokota Tedasa Altaye W/Mikael 45 1 2 1.589 79.5 Poultry 0.003858 129,000 157,429.20
333 23 Dugda Oda Bokota Nadhii Dagaga Boruu 56 2 2 0.5 25.0 Poultry 0.001739 103,200 70,962.68
334 24 Dugda Oda Bokota Balcha Kormaa Qufaa 60 1 0.8 0.637 79.6 Poultry 0.001859 103,200 75,869.27
Mulunesh Memo
335 25 Dugda Oda Bokota T/Marime 55 2 3 0.678 22.6 Poultry 0.001758 103,200 71,746.75
336 26 Dugda Tepo Choroke Kuftu Kare Hawas 60 2 1 0.415 41.5 Poultry 0.001347 103,200 54,989.46
337 27 Dugda Tepo Choroke Ture Biyo Baya 52 2 0.75 0.226 30.1 Poultry 0.000521 51,600 21,256.02
338 28 Dugda Tepo Choroke Tola Gonji Magarsa 40 1 2 1.471 73.6 Poultry 0.004368 129,000 178,245.71
339 29 Dugda Tepo Choroke Dhugaa Gonjii Magarsa 40 1 2.25 1.193 53.0 Poultry 0.004313 129,000 176,035.01
340 30 Dugda Tepo Choroke Boxe Bobasa Siga 70 1 2.5 0.575 23.0 Poultry 0.001912 103,200 78,016.67
341 31 Dugda Tepo Choroke Shasho Dabballee Tola 55 2 0.5 0.276 55.2 Poultry 0.000636 51,600 25,958.68
342 32 Dugda Tepo Choroke Dhuga Gonjji Magrsa 0 1 2 0.843 42.2 Poultry 0.003507 129,000 143,116.39
343 33 Dugda Tuchi Dambal Qashu Bobe Bonsa 45 1 0.5 0.12 24.0 Poultry 0.000668 51,600 27,243.77
Rammatoo Hirphoo
344 34 Dugda Tuchi Dambal Barisoo 42 1 3 1.5 50.0 Poultry 0.004043 129,000 165,015.86
345 35 Dugda Tuchi Dambal Shiibbu Hamdaa Goljee 40 1 1 0.5 50.0 Poultry 0.001739 103,200 70,962.68
346 36 Dugda Tuchi Dambal Fittaala Bunyaa Bultumoo 42 1 3 1.316 43.9 Poultry 0.00401 129,000 163,667.47
147
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Land Primary livelihood
taken needs 1) Agricultural
% farm inputs 2)
(land Irrigation 3)
Total taken/ livestock/Fattening 4)
land Total dairy/poultry 5) Local
hold land area land Transportation 6)
size taken by holdin Grain trade 7) Fruit Weighted
No Woreda Kebele Name PAHHs Age Sex (ha) the road g size) trade average Total cost Budget share
347 37 Dugda Tuchi Dambal Balchaa Bousoa Bula 0 1 5 1.439 28.8 Poultry 0.004098 129,000 167,257.31
348 38 ATJK Warja Woshugula Kediro Sheko Feyisoo 40 1 3.5 1.25 35.7 Poultry 0.003467 129,000 141,502.57
349 1 ATJK Abine Germama Gishe Nageso Laqe 35 1 1 0.2359 23.59 cattle trading 0.000935 46,550 38,144.54
Shaggituu baantaa
350 2 ATJK Abine Germama qalulueet 40 2 1.5 0.75 50 cattle trading 0.002706 46,550 110,433.36
351 3 ATJK Abine Germama Bushuraa Dullee Dubbee 40 1 1.0 0.5 50.0 cattle trading 0.001543 46,550 62,983.98
352 4 ATJK Abine Germama Kurkuura Barisso Boba 65 1 2.8 0.64673 23.5 cattle trading 0.002272 46,550 92,741.80
353 5 ATJK Abine Germama Galgalu Mishore Dale 25 1 2.0 1.2668 63.3 cattle trading 0.00331 93,100 135,103.96
354 6 ATJK Abine Germama Shaalloo Turii Corrooqoo 40 1 1.3 0.833 66.6 cattle trading 0.002311 46,550 94,303.69
355 7 ATJK Abine Germama Tesshale Abuna Bedhane 37 1 1.5 0.79509 53.0 cattle trading 0.002419 46,550 98,716.83
Damsalee saalauuoo
356 8 ATJK Abine Germama luoyyaa 42 2 2.0 1.25 62.5 cattle trading 0.003272 93,100 133,523.87
357 9 ATJK Abine Germama Dabbaba zamddkuu 38 1 1.8 0.6225 35.0 cattle trading 0.001826 46,550 74,505.50
358 10 ATJK Abine Germama Fayyisoo guyyaa Tufaa 45 1 3.5 1.0418 29.8 cattle trading 0.002792 93,100 113,942.00
Abbiyyee zamdaka
359 11 ATJK Abine Germama w/yohaanis 50 1 1.3 0.84 67.2 cattle trading 0.002327 93,100 94,962.06
360 12 Dugda Abono Gabriel Hashuu Debisoo Dubee 34 1 1.8 0.3925 22.4 cattle trading 0.001296 46,550 52,873.26
361 13 Dugda Abono Gabriel Anshaa Dullee Dubbee 42 2 0.5 0.178305 35.7 cattle trading 0.001193 46,550 48,684.91
362 14 Dugda Dodota Dambal Bulcha Dabaale Aloo 51 1 1.5 0.759 50.6 cattle trading 0.002531 46,550 103,301.15
363 15 ATJK Edo Gojola Kabale Kunbii Nageso 67 2 1.0 0.5 50.0 cattle trading 0.001543 46,550 62,983.98
364 16 ATJK Edo Gojola Nuro Husen 45 1 1.0 0.64 64.0 cattle trading 0.00167 46,550 68,172.73
365 17 ATJK Edo Gojola Sullxan Badhart 50 1 1.3 0.605 48.4 cattle trading 0.001981 46,550 80,838.26
366 18 ATJK Edo Gojola Mammado Aliyyi 48 1 0.8 0.4 53.3 cattle trading 0.001508 46,550 61,557.36
148
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Land Primary livelihood
taken needs 1) Agricultural
% farm inputs 2)
(land Irrigation 3)
Total taken/ livestock/Fattening 4)
land Total dairy/poultry 5) Local
hold land area land Transportation 6)
size taken by holdin Grain trade 7) Fruit Weighted
No Woreda Kebele Name PAHHs Age Sex (ha) the road g size) trade average Total cost Budget share
367 19 ATJK Elka Callamo Bune Rojo Hawass 63 2 0.3 0.136558 54.6 cattle trading 0.000706 46,550 28,801.10
368 20 ATJK Elka Callamo Geleto Kekabo Wanfaro 35 1 0.3 0.06805 21.3 cattle trading 0.000743 46,550 30,336.40
369 21 ATJK Elka Callamo Fital Gudata Roba 0 2 1.0 0.239 23.9 cattle trading 0.001528 46,550 62,372.19
370 22 ATJK Elka Callamo Bada Urgesso Tufa 60 2 1.0 0.213 21.3 cattle trading 0.001468 46,550 59,926.80
371 23 ATJK Elka Callamo Kababushi Balde Buta 34 1 1.0 0.46 46.0 cattle trading 0.001647 46,550 67,200.55
372 24 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Biyyoo Dhaqqabaa Dubisa 0 1 1.5 0.94 62.7 cattle trading 0.002557 93,100 104,367.38
373 25 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Gonjjii Garaha Boru 62 1 0.8 0.312 41.6 cattle trading 0.003065 46,550 125,088.93
374 26 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Roobe Bula Badeso 35 1 0.5 0.15 32.3 cattle trading 0.000541 46,550 22,086.67
375 27 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Galato Dhagabo 65 1 2.0 0.75 37.5 cattle trading 0.001728 46,550 70,539.89
376 28 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Suara Usu 45 1 1.3 0.64 51.2 cattle trading 0.002648 46,550 108,066.21
377 29 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Goshu Malkato 45 1 1.5 0.5 33.3 cattle trading 0.002325 46,550 94,898.76
378 30 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Xahir Habiib 42 1 1.5 0.4275 28.5 cattle trading 0.001376 46,550 56,165.13
379 31 Dugda Giraba Korke Adii Tujjee Badhoso 45 2 2.0 0.43725 21.9 cattle trading 0.001203 46,550 49,103.45
Workine Melgaba
380 32 Dugda Jawe Bofo G/Mariam 40 2 0.3 0.31 99.0 cattle trading 0.001105 46,550 45,113.88
381 33 ATJK Naggaling Akalu Abate Tashoma 51 1 1.5 0.312 20.8 cattle trading 0.001501 46,550 61,259.37
382 34 ATJK Naggaling Dittoo Dhasobo 40 1 1.0 0.22 22.0 cattle trading 0.001289 46,550 52,606.48
383 35 ATJK Naggaling Dilbezaa Mesebo Shize 45 1 1.0 0.42 42.0 cattle trading 0.001554 46,550 63,438.42
384 36 ATJK Naggaling Laagea H/booru birmaji 66 1 1.0 0.25 25.0 cattle trading 0.001749 46,550 71,385.47
385 37 Dugda Oda Bokota morkate Galato uluka 65 1 1.0 0.805 80.5 cattle trading 0.002833 46,550 115,606.29
386 38 Dugda Oda Bokota Dajani bude ago 45 1 1.0 0.95 95.0 cattle trading 0.002971 93,100 121,265.30
149
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Land Primary livelihood
taken needs 1) Agricultural
% farm inputs 2)
(land Irrigation 3)
Total taken/ livestock/Fattening 4)
land Total dairy/poultry 5) Local
hold land area land Transportation 6)
size taken by holdin Grain trade 7) Fruit Weighted
No Woreda Kebele Name PAHHs Age Sex (ha) the road g size) trade average Total cost Budget share
387 39 Dugda Oda Bokota Nageso Roba Mexo 60 1 1.0 0.38 38.0 cattle trading 0.001267 46,550 51,697.60
388 40 Dugda Oda Bokota kadija H/Edao QABATO 50 2 1.0 0.63 63.0 cattle trading 0.001452 46,550 59,253.51
389 41 Dugda Oda Bokota Ararso Wante Boru 35 1 2.0 0.434 21.7 cattle trading 0.001391 46,550 56,776.47
390 42 Dugda Oda Bokota Lefo Desalgn Lema 32 1 1.0 0.316 31.6 cattle trading 0.000924 46,550 37,699.50
391 43 Dugda Oda Bokota Tewabesh Belay Melka 35 2 1.0 0.266 26.6 cattle trading 0.001591 46,550 64,911.62
392 44 Dugda Tepo Choroke Aba Getacho Sisay 55 1 6.0 1.375 22.9 cattle trading 0.00356 93,100 145,280.52
393 45 Dugda Tepo Choroke Wandu Shanqo Mola 48 1 6.0 2.505 41.8 cattle trading 0.007533 139,650 307,411.48
394 46 Dugda Tepo Choroke Wandu Shanqo Mola 48 1 6.0 2.505 41.8 cattle trading 0.007533 139,650 307,411.48
395 47 Dugda Tepo Choroke Galana Mieso Bajjida 60 1 2.0 1.123 56.2 cattle trading 0.003175 93,100 129,557.81
396 48 Dugda Tepo Choroke Cala Yaii Hipho 32 1 0.9 0.338 39.8 cattle trading 0.001365 46,550 55,726.06
397 49 Dugda Tuchi Dambal Gobanaa Bariisoo Quufaa 42 1 2.1 0.5 23.8 cattle trading 0.002325 46,550 94,898.76
398 50 Dugda Tuchi Dambal Bulaa Guddata Lenjisoo 35 1 0.8 0.375 50.0 cattle trading 0.001255 46,550 51,227.33
Fittaala Dagaggaa
399 51 Dugda Tuchi Dambal Dabbassee 36 1 1.0 0.375 37.5 cattle trading 0.001451 46,550 59,206.03
400 52 Dugda Tuchi Dambal Saffayyee Agoo Ulaa 65 2 1.5 0.625 41.7 cattle trading 0.001636 46,550 66,761.94
401 53 ATJK Warja Woshugula Bannata Qumbii Booqaa 70 1 1.0 0.5166 51.7 cattle trading 0.001777 46,550 72,523.96
402 54 ATJK Warja Woshugula Budhaa Shiruu Qumbii 39 1 2.0 0.48 24.0 cattle trading 0.002279 46,550 93,017.70
403 55 ATJK Warja Woshugula Abdo Tulla Jaarso 50 1 1.0 0.45 45.0 cattle trading 0.002406 46,550 98,174.80
404 56 ATJK Warja Woshugula Adaam Tuiu Dubisoo 35 1 1.0 0.34 34.0 cattle trading 0.001761 46,550 71,871.56
405 57 Dugda wayo Gabriel Suro Roba Gobana 40 1 0.6 0.19614 31.4 cattle trading 0.001821 46,550 74,298.46
406 58 Dugda wayo Gabriel Manaye Mekoneen 36 2 1.0 0.225 22.5 cattle trading 0.001692 46,550 69,034.14
150
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Land Primary livelihood
taken needs 1) Agricultural
% farm inputs 2)
(land Irrigation 3)
Total taken/ livestock/Fattening 4)
land Total dairy/poultry 5) Local
hold land area land Transportation 6)
size taken by holdin Grain trade 7) Fruit Weighted
No Woreda Kebele Name PAHHs Age Sex (ha) the road g size) trade average Total cost Budget share
407 59 Dugda wayo Gabriel Yeshi Dilata 47 1 1.0 0.453 45.3 cattle trading 0.001239 46,550 50,584.79
408 60 Dugda Wolin Bulaa Abe Obsa Qabato 60 1 1.0 0.25 25.0 cattle trading 0.001358 46,550 55,428.08
409 1 ATJK Abine Germama Ayu Shakule fishe 36 2 2.0 0.75 37.5 Dairy 0.002706 73,825 110,433.36
410 2 ATJK Abine Germama Fano Bariso 40 1 2.0 0.78124 39.1 Dairy 0.002191 73,825
411 3 ATJK Abine Germama Kadir Mishoro 31 1 2.0 0.57745 28.9 Dairy 0.001526 73,825
412 4 ATJK Abine Germama Mishoro dale 40 1 3.0 1.2445 41.5 Dairy 0.003455 221,475
413 5 Dugda Oda Bokota Danyee Mangistu Degaga 69 1 5.0 1.288 25.8 Dairy 0.003164 221,475
414 6 Dugda Oda Bokota Kebani Meda Jebo 45 2 0.8 0.445 59.3 Dairy 0.001221 73,825
415 7 Dugda Tepo Choroke Quftu Bula Badhaso 38 2 1.0 0.5 50.0 Dairy 0.001348 73,825
416 8 Dugda Oda Bokota Ararso Gamaada Rooba 56 1 1.0 0.23 23.0 Dairy 0.001703 73,825
417 9 Dugda Tepo Choroke Butiya Balcha Hedato 50 1 1.0 0.55 55.0 Dairy 0.00205 73,825
418 1 ATJK Abine Germama Fayiso mishoro 49 1 2.0 0.75 37.5 Transport 0.002119 61,600 86,497.28
419 2 ATJK Elka Callamo Idoo Korbuu 35 1 0.3 0.291 90.9 Transport 0.001257 37,400 51,305.56
420 3 Dugda Tepo Choroke Gobana Buta Dambal 65 1 2.0 0.588 29.4 Transport 0.00331 49,500 135,090.22
421 4 Dugda Tepo Choroke Abbe Gudata Damboba 60 1 3.0 0.687 22.9 Transport 0.001974 61,600 80,571.93
422 5 Dugda Tepo Choroke Doshe Gada Tufa 65 1 3.0 0.772 25.7 Transport 0.003148 61,600 128,459.92
423 6 Dugda Tepo Choroke Adanech Walcafa Gosha 50 2 0.8 0.233 31.1 Transport 0.000732 37,400 29,893.09
424 1 1 Abine Germama Daniel Badhane 35 1 2 0.72085 36.0 Grain trade 0.002443 65,000 99,713.02
425 2 1 Abine Germama Habib Baqala Debiso 32 1 0.75 0.5 66.7 Grain trade 0.001934 65,000 78,941.37
426 3 1 Abine Germama Damloal Abbunaa 35 1 2 0.4761 23.8 Grain trade 0.001684 65,000 68,714.81
427 4 1 Elka Callamo Abune Boru Salbeno 64 1 2 0.77 38.5 Grain trade 0.00197 65,000 80,399.65
151
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Land Primary livelihood
taken needs 1) Agricultural
% farm inputs 2)
(land Irrigation 3)
Total taken/ livestock/Fattening 4)
land Total dairy/poultry 5) Local
hold land area land Transportation 6)
size taken by holdin Grain trade 7) Fruit Weighted
No Woreda Kebele Name PAHHs Age Sex (ha) the road g size) trade average Total cost Budget share
428 5 1 Elka Callamo Mokonin Wandimu Nefso 45 1 2.05 0.579 28.2 Grain trade 0.001334 65,000 54,456.79
429 6 1 Elka Callamo Abboo Badhane Kitaba 33 2 2 0.546 27.3 Grain trade 0.00204 65,000 83,267.82
430 7 2 Giraba Korke Adii Gabbisaa Dorrii Dalaacha 38 1 2 0.557 27.9 Grain trade 0.001675 65,000 68,345.01
431 8 2 Oda Bokota Wesanu Hayilu Feyisa 42 1 2 1.043 52.2 Grain trade 0.002795 97,000 114,054.86
432 9 2 Oda Bokota Cherenat Ashenfi Abeba 45 1 2 0.796 39.8 Grain trade 0.003203 65,000 130,717.20
433 10 2 Oda Bokota Faye Korbu Dare 65 2 1 0.7478 74.8 Grain trade 0.001919 65,000 78,311.67
434 11 2 Oda Bokota Tesfu Hayile Edeti 50 1 0.5 0.35 70.0 Grain trade 0.001393 65,000 56,854.70
435 12 2 Oda Bokota Mewashi Gebrmeskal 65 2 1 1 100.0 Grain trade 0.0025 97,000 102,031.88
436 13 2 Oda Bokota Mesares Asefa Gebare 45 2 0.5 0.25 50.0 Grain trade 0.001358 33,000 55,428.08
437 14 2 Tepo Choroke Bula Badhaso Hero 38 1 2 0.44 22.0 Grain trade 0.001405 65,000 57,340.79
438 15 2 Tepo Choroke Tufa tuke Idao 69 1 6 1.531 25.5 Grain trade 0.004897 97,000 199,846.29
439 16 2 Tepo Choroke Yeshi Midheksa Dhaba 65 1 1 0.95 95.0 Grain trade 0.00258 97,000 105,307.91
440 17 2 Tepo Choroke Fitala Bilo Obse 36 1 1 0.653 65.3 Grain trade 0.002091 65,000 85,352.81
441 18 2 Tepo Choroke Dabo Korma Gudata 40 1 2 1 50.0 Grain trade 0.004455 97,000 181,818.83
442 19 2 Tepo Choroke Maskata Hora Dambal 45 1 1.5 0.331 22.1 Grain trade 0.002327 33,000 94,961.16
443 20 2 Tepo Choroke Bico Obe Fale 55 1 5 1.25 25.0 Grain trade 0.004249 97,000 173,417.35
444 21 2 Tepo Choroke Bariso Obsee Fole 40 1 1.5 0.447 29.8 Grain trade 0.001617 65,000 65,977.86
445 22 2 Tepo Choroke Gemachu Geramee Gada 70 1 0.875 0.357 40.8 Grain trade 0.001409 65,000 57,513.07
446 23 2 Tepo Choroke Dambale Magraa Badhesa 42 2 0.75 0.256 34.1 Grain trade 0.001763 33,000 71,949.79
447 24 2 Tepo Choroke Rago Urgi Tufaa 63 1 2 0.504 25.2 Grain trade 0.002335 65,000 95,274.97
448 25 2 Tepo Choroke Rago Urgi Tufaa 63 1 2 0.504 25.2 Grain trade 0.002335 65,000 95,274.97
152
LOT2 Meki-Ziway Road Proejct (37.1km), Need Assessment and Livelihood Restoration Plan, Final Report,
Land Primary livelihood
taken needs 1) Agricultural
% farm inputs 2)
(land Irrigation 3)
Total taken/ livestock/Fattening 4)
land Total dairy/poultry 5) Local
hold land area land Transportation 6)
size taken by holdin Grain trade 7) Fruit Weighted
No Woreda Kebele Name PAHHs Age Sex (ha) the road g size) trade average Total cost Budget share
449 26 2 Tepo Choroke Qoricho Wabe Gada 60 1 1.5 0.444 29.6 Grain trade 0.001414 65,000 57,717.00
450 27 2 Tepo Choroke Ture Biyo Baya 52 2 0.75 0.226 30.1 Grain trade 0.000521 33,000 21,256.02
451 28 1 Warja Woshugula Dasiftu Gammado Biifaa 40 2 2 0.75 37.5 Grain trade 0.002119 65,000 86,497.28
452 29 1 Warja Woshugula Tibesso Badhaaso Aanaa 65 1 2 0.75 37.5 Grain trade 0.002315 65,000 94,475.97
453 30 1 Warja Woshugula Abuu Imii Haamda 35 1 2 0.75 37.5 Grain trade 0.002901 65,000 118,412.06
454 31 1 Warja Woshugula Gamado Nagee Baariso 60 1 2 0.5 25.0 Grain trade 0.001543 65,000 62,983.98
455 32 1 Warja Woshugula Useen Ijaaro 34 1 1.5 0.53 35.3 Grain trade 0.002394 65,000 97,720.36
456 33 1 Warja Woshugula Addasha Tusu 43 2 1 0.25 25.0 Grain trade 0.001163 33,000 47,449.38
Kadiro Qabatoo
457 34 1 Warja Woshugula Dubbalcha 60 1 2 0.47 23.5 Grain trade 0.00167 65,000 68,141.08
458 35 1 Warja Woshugula Nuuraa H/Magarso 42 1 2 0.625 31.3 Grain trade 0.002027 65,000 82,719.33
459 36 1 Warja Woshugula Jamaal Irresso 36 1 2 0.5 25.0 Grain trade 0.002325 65,000 94,898.76
460 37 1 Warja Woshugula Barisoo Kallu 28 1 1 0.257 25.7 Grain trade 0.000788 33,000 32,150.36
Total 40,811,025 40,131,209
Source : Annex 2.13 (Excel Sheet 13
153