KALU Institute - Humanitarian Aid Studies Centre

Livelihood Strategies Sustaining Household Food Security:

comparative studies on pastoral and agropastoral Communities in
Wachile Wereda, Borena Zone, Ethiopia

BY
Mesfin Getachew Zegeye

JUNE 2019
ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA
1
KALU Institute - Humanitarian Aid Studies Centre

A Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Master’s in International Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid.

Livelihood Strategies Sustaining Household Food Security:

comparative studies on pastoral and agropastoral Communities
in Wachile Wereda, Borena Zone, Ethiopia

BY
Mesfin Getachew Zegeye
Supervisor Karin Michotte

JUNE 2019
ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA

2
 ACKNOWELEGMENT

Many people encourage and support me during the entire process of this research. Most data
gathering in the rural pastoral area of web, kekelo and Reji were so tiresome activities; there were
times when it seemed like, I would never complete the thesis with in the given period. However,
with persistence and a keen focus, it was finally completed. I want to acknowledge everyone who
participated for their help and support, without them this thesis would never have been finished.
Nothing in life is ever successful without the corporate effort of many gifted people, who were
willing to network and submit their talent, experience and passion for a common goal. I am always
reminded learned from them. This thesis work is the product of countless individuals whose
thought, ideas, perspectives and work have given me the exposure to the knowledge, I have placed
in this thesis. I am glad to use this opportunity to express my indebtedness to all of them, first for
Birhan Iyayew, who told me about Kalu Institute and he inspired me to start my studies. My special
heartfelt gratitude goes to my supervisor Ms. Karin Michotte, for timely delivered constrictive
suggestion and constructive comment during this thesis work. Next my appreciation goes to my
ex -WGM staff, Kana Shumi and Habitamu Kine. I appreciate their kindness and effort for which
they take time to convince other for my achievement.

3
 Author
I was born on 11 September 1976 in Bale zone, Goro wereda, Ethiopia.
I have MA degree in, Economic Geography and Environmental Studies
from Addis Ababa University on 24, July 2009. Besides this, I have
versatile experience with a range of know how in Planning, Budget,
Reporting monitoring and evaluation of organizational plan. In most
case of my career, I spent on managerial position in Oversees operations
of organization, implements plans, manages human resources, financial and physical organization
resources. Therefore, I have more than 10 years’ work experience at senior level managerial
position. Very recently, I was working as Community Engagement Manager for web Gemstone
Mining, a group of Gemfields UK based company, I had also working for KEFI Minerals Ethiopia,
a London listed copper-gold exploration company, as Deputy Social Manager in Resettlement and
livelihood affairs. I had also working as Site Manager at Abaya Galena Agro Industry, planning to
establish sugar factory. As a Manager, spent much of my time in delivering organizational results
that link organization, government, community and international organizations, my managerial
solutions turn ideas into impact by bringing together fresh combinations of expertise and
innovation across multiple disciplines. Know, as KALU Institute - Humanitarian Aid Studies
Centre student, developed a research on, Livelihood Strategies Sustaining Household Food
Security: comparative studies on pastoral and agropastoral Communities in Wachile Wereda,
Borena Zone, Ethiopia, as partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master’s in
International Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid.

Mesfin Getachew Zegeye.

June 22, 2019

4
 ABSTRACT

This study attempts to examine the livelihood strategies of pastoral and agropastoral household in
sustaining household food security in Wachile woreda of Borena zone, Ethiopia. Survey design
was used in this study. Multi- stage sampling technique was used to undertake the study. Both
probability (simple random) and non-probability (purposive) sampling methods were used. A
combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches was employed to collect the required data
and information for this study. Household survey was conducted on 70 pastoral household and 70
Agropastoral household totally 140 sample households were selected randomly through simple
random sampling technique. Primary and secondary data sources were employed to collect
relevant data. Household survey focus group discussion, key informant interview, and direct
observation were used to collect primary data through questionnaire and discussions. Likewise,
review of published and unpublished documents was employed as a typical method to gather the
secondary data. Food security benchmark/ cut off point was employed to analyze and understand
the contribution of livelihood diversification to household food security in the study area. Data
analysis was made using statistical package for social sciences software. The result of the
household survey indicated that among 70 sampled AGPHHH only 19 (27%) household were
become food secure and 51(73%) households were become food insecure. However, with the same
sample size sampled PHHHS 30(43%) were food secured and 40(57%) were food insecure. The
result of this study showed that the study showed that in pastoral households’ family size was seen
to be largest. Interims of ownership large sized land, livestock and annual expenditure, PHHHS
showed better status. On the top of this, PHHHS have relatively higher size of livestock’s, credit
access, inputs, income and social network than AGPHHH. This intern makes PHHHS to employ
diverse income sources and then derive better amount of income to satisfy their food need. This
implies that diverse livelihood resources lead to diverse livelihood strategies and activates (income
sources), Which in turn leads to high income required to meet the food requirement of the
household as all time for active and healthy life. Livestock’s was found to be the most important
livelihood means of most of the sample households in the study areas followed by off- farm, non-
farm and Remittance strategies. The result of this study showed that the access to and ownership
of livelihood resources varied between food secure and food insecure AGPHHH and PHHHS. The
PHHHS households have better access to and ownership of livelihood resources than that of
AGPHHH. Similarly, food secure households were engaged in a relatively higher number of
livelihood activities than that of food insecure households. Pastoral Households with relatively
higher livelihood resources and activities were found to be food secure whereas agropastoral
households with lower access to and ownership of livelihood assets and activities were food
insecure. Similarly, the finding of this study indicated that food secure pastoral households earned
higher amount of income than that of food insecure agropastoral households because of their better
access to livelihood resources and engagement in relatively higher number of livelihood income
sources. Livelihood resources like ownership of livestock was found to be the basis for household
food security.

5
Contents
CHAPTER ONE ..................................................................................................................... 12
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 12

1.1 Background of the Problem ...................................................................................... 12

1.2 Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................... 15

1.3 Objectives of the Study ............................................................................................. 16

1.4 Research Questions ................................................................................................... 16

1.5 Delimitation of the Study .......................................................................................... 17

1.6 Limitations of the Study............................................................................................ 18

1.7 Significance of the Study .......................................................................................... 18

1.8 Structures of the Thesis ............................................................................................. 18

CHAPTER TWO .................................................................................................................... 19
2 LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK .................................... 20
2.1 Discussion and definition of key concepts ........................................................................................ 20
2.3 Trends of Pastoralism Development in Ethiopia .............................................................................. 20
2.4 Land Tenure ...................................................................................................................................... 23
2.5 The concepts of livelihood ................................................................................................................ 24
2.6 Pastoral Livelihood System .............................................................................................................. 25
2.7 Livelihood Resources (Assets).......................................................................................................... 26
3 Household livelihood strategies ........................................................................................... 27
3.1 Livelihood security ........................................................................................................................... 28
3.2 Vulnerability Context (Trends and Shocks)...................................................................................... 29
3.3 Mediating Process (Policy, Institution, and Process (PIP) ................................................................ 29
3.5 Livelihood Outcome ......................................................................................................................... 30
4 The Concepts of Livelihood Diversification........................................................................ 30
4.1 Determinants of Livelihood Diversification ..................................................................................... 31
4.2 Seasonality as Determinant Factor for Livelihood Diversification ................................................... 32
4.3 Asset as a Determinant Factor .......................................................................................................... 32

6
 4.4 Risk Management ............................................................................................................................. 33
4. 5 Labor Market ................................................................................................................................... 33
4.6 Credit Market Failures ...................................................................................................................... 34
5 Food security........................................................................................................................ 34
5.1 Components of food security ............................................................................................................ 35
5.2 Food security: indicators and measurement ...................................................................................... 36
5.3 Food security measurement .............................................................................................................. 37
5.4 food security situation in Ethiopia .................................................................................................... 39
5.5 Determinants of household food security ......................................................................................... 40
5.6 Cause and constraints of food security in Ethiopia ........................................................................... 40
5.7 Household Vulnerability ................................................................................................................... 41
6 Analytical frameworks ......................................................................................................... 42
CHAPTER THREE ................................................................................................................ 45
3.1 Background of the study area ........................................................................................... 45

3.1.1 Physical characteristics .......................................................................................... 45

3.1.2 Climatic Condition ................................................................................................. 46

3.1.3 Geology and soils ................................................................................................... 47

3.1.4 Hydrology .............................................................................................................. 49

3.1.5 Socio-economical characteristics ........................................................................... 50

3.1.6 Population ......................................................................................................... 50

3.1.6 Traditional Social Set up and the Geda System in Borana .................................... 51
3.2 Community and Livestock Mobility ........................................................................................... 53

3.2.1 Regular Mobility (“Godaanssa Fooraa”) ............................................................... 53

3.2.2 Drought Year Mobility (“Godaansa Warraguda”) ................................................. 54

3.3 Economic situation............................................................................................................................ 56
CHAPTER FOUR ................................................................................................................... 58
4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY........................................................................................ 58
4.1 Study Design ..................................................................................................................................... 58
4.2 Research Approach ........................................................................................................................... 58

7
 4.3 Sampling Technique ......................................................................................................................... 58

4.3.1 Selection of the Woreda ......................................................................................... 59

4.3.2 Stratification of the study area ............................................................................... 59

4.3.3 Selection of Kebelles ............................................................................................. 59

4.3.4 Selection of Villages/ Gots .................................................................................... 59

4.3.5 Selection of Sample Households ........................................................................... 59

4.4 Method of Data Collection................................................................................................................ 61

4.4.1Types of Data .......................................................................................................... 61

4.4.2 Data Sources .......................................................................................................... 61

4.5 Method of Data Analysis .................................................................................................................. 64
4.6 Method to Measure the Contribution of Livelihood Strategies to Household Food Security ........... 65

4.6 .1 Establishing the Food Security Benchmark/ Cut Off Point .................................. 65

4.6 .2 Estimation of the Total Annual Household Income ............................................. 66

4.6 .3 Categorization of Households ............................................................................... 67

CHAPTER FIVE .................................................................................................................... 67
5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .......................................................................................... 68
5.1 Livelihood Assets.............................................................................................................................. 68

5.1.2 Demographic and Household Characteristics ........................................................ 68

5.1.3 Household Size ...................................................................................................... 70

5.1.4 Dependency Ratio .................................................................................................. 71

5.1.5 Educational Status .................................................................................................. 72

5.1.6 Religion .................................................................................................................. 73

5.1.7 Natural Resource/ Assets ....................................................................................... 74

5.2 Physical Resource Livestock ............................................................................................................ 75

5.2.2 Regular Mobility (Godaansa Fooraa) .................................................................... 77

8
 5.2.3 Drought Year Mobility (Godaansa Warraguda) .................................................... 78

5.2.4 Effects of Mobility ................................................................................................. 79

5.3 Financial Capital: Access to Credit ................................................................................................... 80

5.3.1 Social Capital: Social Institution like mutual support systems .............................. 81
5.4 Correlation Result ............................................................................................................................. 81
5.5 Vulnerability of Household to Food Insecurity ................................................................................ 83
5.6 Livelihood Strategies ........................................................................................................................ 85

5.6.1Farming Activity ..................................................................................................... 86

5.6.2 Off- Farm Activity ................................................................................................. 88

5.6.3 Non-Farm Activities .............................................................................................. 89

5.6.4 Remittance ............................................................................................................. 90

5.7 The Contribution of Diverse Source of Income to Household Food Security .................................. 90

5.7.1 Farm Income .......................................................................................................... 92

5.7.2 Off Farm Income.................................................................................................... 93

5.7.3 Non-Farm Income .................................................................................................. 93

5.7.4 Remittance ............................................................................................................. 94

5.8 Household Expenditure ..................................................................................................................... 95
5.9 Major Challenges to the Pastoral Livelihood .................................................................................... 96

5.9.1 Increase in Population ............................................................................................ 97

5.9.2 Cross Border Trade Restriction ............................................................................. 97

5.9.3 Decline in Mutual Support ..................................................................................... 97

5.9.4 Decline in Range Productivity ............................................................................... 97

5.9.5 Decline in Livestock Productivity ......................................................................... 98

5.9.6 Decline in Food Security ....................................................................................... 98

9
 5.9.7 Decline of Pure Borana Breed ............................................................................... 99

5.9.8 Decline in Crop Productivity ................................................................................. 99

5.9.9 Increased Consumption of Items Having Addictive Nature .................................. 99

5.9.10 Other Negative Changes ...................................................................................... 99

CHAPTER SIX ..................................................................................................................... 101
6. SUMMERY, FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION ................................................... 101
6.1 SUMMERY .................................................................................................................................... 101
6.2 FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................................... 102
6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................ 103
Annexes................................................................................................................................. 105
Questionnaire ....................................................................................................................................... 105
Check lists for focus group discussion (FGD) and key informant interview (KII) .................................. 111
Reference .............................................................................................................................. 114
Declaration by author ............................................................................................................ 118

10
List of Figure page
Figure 2.1 Conceptual frameworks for livelihood and food security in pastoral households----44
Figure 3.1 map of study area------------------------------------------------------------------------------45
Figure 3.2 Topographic map of study area--------------------------------------------------------------48
Figure 3.3 Traditional Management Set Up in Borana-----------------------------------------------52
Figure 3.4 Mobility map of web Village----------------------------------------------------------------54
Figure5.1 Food security status of AGPHHH and PHHHS--------------------------------------------70
List of Table
Table 4.1 Distribution of sample households by kebeles and villages------------------------------61
Table 4.2 Estimation of the Minimum Income Required Per AE per Year of the study---------68
Table5.1 Age Structure of Sample household head --------------------------------------------------69
Table 5.2 Household size sampled household---------------------------------------------------------71
Table5.3 Dependency ratio of sampled household--------------------------------------------------72
Table5.4 Educational Status of Sampled household--------------------------------------------------73
Table 5.5 Religion of Sampled household-------------------------------------------------------------74
Table 5.6 Land size of sampled household------------------------------------------------------------75
Table5. 7 Livestock ownership--------------------------------------------------------------------------77
Table 5.8 Access to Credit--------------------------------------------------------------------------------81
Table 5.9 Correlation of independent variables------------------------------------------------------- 83
Table 5.10 Determination of risk------------------------------------------------------------------------85
Table5.11 the cumulative effect of independent variables on dependent variables---------------85
Table 5.12 separate effect of independent variables on dependent variable-----------------------86
Table5.13Types of livelihood strategies----------------------------------------------------------------87
Table5.14 Farm Activities--------------------------------------------------------------------------------88
Table5.15 Off-farm activities of sampled household-------------------------------------------------89
Table 5.16 None farm activities--------------------------------------------------------------------------90
Table5.17 Types of Remittance--------------------------------------------------------------------------92
Table5.18 Diversified source of income----------------------------------------------------------------93
Table5.19 Farm income-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------94
Table 5.20 off- farm income------------------------------------------------------------------------------95
Table 5.21 Non-farm income-----------------------------------------------------------------------------96
Table5.22 Types of Remittance--------------------------------------------------------------------------97
Table 5.23 average minimum annual expenditure of households for nonfood items per annum97
Table 5.24 Household income in relation to average annual expenditure------------------------98

11
 CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Problem

Food insecurity, drought and hunger are age-old problems of Ethiopia. More people are chronically
undernourished, because they are unable to obtain enough food by any means. Deneke(2008) noted
that, chronic malnutrition results from continuously inadequate diet, reducing physical capacity,
lowering productivity, stunting growth, and inhibiting learning.
Food security implies an individual always has access to enough food for an active and healthy
life. Food security has numerous interrelated dimensions. Availability of food and access to food
are the two most common defining characteristics of food security. Population growth,
demographic trends, government policies, income levels, health, nutrition, gender, and
environmental degradation affect availability and access to food. As a result, peoples are forced to
have an alternative means of living like collection and sell charcoal and firewood, and grass.
The concept of livelihood has gained wide acceptance as a valuable means of understanding factors
that influence people's lives and well-being, particularly those of the poor in the developing world
(Carney, 1998; Davies, 1996; Rennie & Singh, 1996). There are many different definitions of
livelihoods, but Carney (1998) presents one based on the work of Robert Chambers & Gordon
Conway (1992), which combines simplicity with a focus upon what this research considers to be
important in its distinctive approach.
“Livelihoods comprises the capabilities, assets including
both material and social resources and activities required
for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable if it can cope
with and recover from stresses and shocks maintain or improve
its capabilities and assets both now and in the future without
undermining the natural resource base”. (Carney,1998:4)
Researchers have focused on understanding determinants of vulnerability of livelihood sources
and intensification of poverty among rural people. This has produced much empirical study of
income and activity diversification more than one income earning activities (Reardon et al., 1992;
Ellis, 2000). Ellis distinguished between pulls and push factors that necessitate diversification.
Pull factors are incentives that afford households. The choice to participate in multiple income
earning activities are attracted by some business opportunities. With the same token, taking

12
advantage of forward or backward business integration or to invest their savings from some other
rewarding activity.
Push factors however, are constraints that leave a household no other choice than to diversify in
response to desperate circumstances where income from only one or two activities is insufficient
to meet daily needs. For many poor rural households, diversification may well be conditioned by
“push” factors. As land becomes scarce and agricultural productivity declines; and as households
face fluctuations in their incomes, having more than one source of income becomes the only
imperative to survive (Ellis, 1998).
Davies (1996) provides a detailed understanding of 'adaptable livelihoods'. He argues dynamics of
the livelihoods of the poor in relation to food, as they respond to highly variable conditions (natural
and human) that confront them. He developed the analysis of food security issues in the shale
region. These concepts have generic applicability and are useful in livelihood analysis. Davies
gives emphasis in the context of food security that need to pay attention to the micro level of
analysis- the household. This characterizes livelihood approaches as a whole: they are focused on
the household as the basic unit of analysis and build from that starting point to integrate the
household into other levels within and beyond the local community.
Pastoralists constitute approximately ten percent of the Ethiopian population (over 6 million) and
occupy much of the peripheral lowlands that surrounded the central highland plateaus dominated
by rain-fed small-scale agriculture (Fekadu 1998). Various studies have documented the threats to
pastoral livelihoods in Ethiopia over the last few decades including drought, conflict, and
inappropriate development interventions that have led to the weakening of traditional coping
mechanisms in rural pastoral areas (CRDA,2001; Beruk 2001; Hogg 1997; Helland, 1997). I650n
response to such threats, pastoralists had to adapt the activities and assets from which they derive
a living as well as their patterns of migration. Existing trends indicate that traditional livestock-
based livelihood strategies (defined as pastoral livelihood strategies) alone will not able to provide
enough food for country’s pastoral community.
It is thus evident that non-livestock-based strategies need to supplement or in some cases substitute
previously dominant pastoral livelihood strategies. By now, trends of pastoral livelihood
diversification have been noted among the Borana and Afar where by pastoralists are combining
livestock production with a variety of non-pastoral activities including agriculture, wage labour

13
and trade (See Little et al. 2001; Grahn 2001; Getachew 1991; 2001). Trends of seasonal mobility
amongst pastoralists are changing significantly characterized by increased permanent settlement
in various locations. An emerging alternative for livestock destitute pastoralists has been
settlement in and around urban centers to exploit non-livestock-based livelihood opportunities
(defined as non-pastoral livelihood strategies) that would otherwise be unavailable in rural pastoral
areas.
The unreliability of rural pastoral livelihoods because of recurrent drought and conflict is likely to
ensure the continuing influx of pastoralists in to urban and peri-urban spaces. There is thus an
urgent need to examine the livelihoods of those pastoralists in urban and peri-urban spaces who
constitute some of the poorest and most vulnerable groups in Ethiopia’s pastoral areas. Thus, this
paper will outline the different livelihood options sustaining household food security in the pastoral
community in Oromia region wachile Woreda.
By doing so, this research will be looking for to contribute to the ongoing debates of pastoralists’
livelihood strategies in Borana and elsewhere Ethiopia in general. Particularly this paper had also
used to stimulate the importance of diversification in poverty reduction, agricultural development
and economic growth and it argued for; a broader entry point for poverty reduction that is multi-
sectorial instead of a sole focus on increasing farm incomes. It also identifies the need for a better
understanding of market and non-market constraints faced by the poor in marginal areas and finally
a greater gratitude had been given for the role of mobility and rural-urban links in poverty reduction
and regional development in marginal areas.
The Borana region has been hit by repeated droughts and consequent loss of livestock for the last
three decades, the most recent one being in the period between, 1999-2000. For example, a recent
study estimates that during the years 1980-1997 alone, monetary losses due to livestock deaths in
the Borana plateau exceeded US $ 300 million (Desta 2001, 1). The study further argues that ‘cattle
crashes’, or widespread loss of cattle, occur every 5-6 years, particularly during times of low
rainfall and high stocking rates. Consequently, the need for livelihoods strategies sustain
household food security, assessment of challenges, opportunities of livelihood strategies is
inevitable and compulsory to understand the pastoral livelihood options and possible alternative
solutions.

14
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Regardless of Ethiopia’s rich endowment of different natural resources, the pursuit of food security
remained critical challenge for Ethiopia. Despite considerable economic growth and improvements
in human development across the country during recent decades, lack of availability and stability
of food supplies and access to them confined to be key concern. Indeed, increased population
pressure, environmental degradation and emerging regional trends beg the question. In line with
this Nila (2006) argues that the ability of household to assure all its members sustained access to
enough quantity and quality of food is likely to be most threatened in times of economic
deterioration.
The pastoral system in Ethiopia has been experiencing vulnerability to environmental degradation
and food insecurity. More specifically livelihood insecurity has been characterized the area where
by the large majority of pastoralist depend on food assistance. The Vulnerability is, due to lack of
livelihood diversification constrained by lack of basic infrastructure services, external shocks such
as recurrent drought, flood, conflict and people’s capacities to cope with the shocks, which depend
on factors such as social networks, assets, and political status (Beruk, 2003).
Like other pastoral areas in the country, the Borana people recently experienced chronic food
insecurity. In this area the economy of the people is mainly dependent on livestock production
alone and their consumption requirement is mainly derived directly from livestock and their
products which is a single livelihood means. This way of livelihood is also constrained by several
challenges including: climate change and inappropriate policies and practices.
The shifts have been occurred over time and most pastoral household food needs are derived from
purchase at market, food distribution from NGOs and supplemented by own production. This
intern implies that livestock production could not supply adequate and enough food for
households’ consumption. Thus, the income earned from livestock rising is not adequate to
purchase more food.
Even though, crop production is considered as pastoralists alternative means of food self-
sufficiency; it is however affected by different causalities such as; crop failure and low yield due
to different climatic and environmental problems including: erratic rain fall, drought and low levels
of awareness by most pastoralists. With this regard it is battering to understand the existing
challenges and opportunities of pastoralists to enhance their livelihood diversification options.

15
The Borana community predominantly, continues to rely on livelihoods which are highly
vulnerable to shocks and trends. The probability of occurrence of drought remains high and at the
same time several factors are causing the weakening of efficient resource management and
mechanisms for coping with shocks and stresses such as seasonal migration, and alienation of
traditional rights of access to pastoral resources as well as restrictions of free movement in search
of pasture and water are key threats to the persistence of Borana pastoralist (Baxter 2001, 245).
Pastoralists in the area have also greater opportunities to expand their way of life through;
development of water points, adapting different technological mechanism, access to market,
education, health service, road and cultivable farm lands. Even though, there are plenty of
opportunities in livelihood diversification pastoralists are not using this chance effectively to
diversify their livelihoods.
Thus, the goal of this study is to understand people’s choices and capabilities and their potential
to make choices and the results among the potential opportunities and expanding their choices in
diversifying their means of livelihoods and investigate the main factors which affect their
livelihood diversification practices.
1.3 Objectives of the Study
1.3.1 General Objectives
The genera objective of this study is assessing pastoral and agropastoral Livelihood Strategies
Sustaining Household Food Security.
1.3.2 Specific objective
In line with the general objective, the specific objectives were
❖ To explore the existing livelihood asset (human, social, physical, natural, and financial
capitals) in pastoral and agropastoral community
❖ To explore livelihood strategies of pastoral and agropastoral community how they sustain
household food security.
❖ To investigate the effect of diverse sources of income to household food security in pastoral
and agropastoral community.
❖ To identify the major constraints / problems of pastoral and agropastoral community in
sustaining livelihood strategies and household food security
1.4 Research Questions
To address the objectives, the following research questions were posed to seek answers

16
 ➢ What livelihood assets prevailed in pastoral and agropastoral community?
➢ Which livelihood strategies were selected by pastoral and agropastoral community to
sustain household food security?
➢ What is the contribution of diverse source of income to household food security in
pastoral and agropastoral community?
➢ What are the major problems of pastoral and agropastoral livelihood strategies and
household food security?
1.5 Delimitation of the Study
Pastoral livelihood asset, household food security, livelihood strategies and constraints of
household food security are the key concepts in this research. The study has focused on the
pastoralist area in Wachile Woreda, Borena Zone, Oromia region, Ethiopia. Due to time and budget
limitations it has been carried out in three KAs in inclusive of all climatic zone (based on Woreda
Rural Development and Agricultural office classification) where livelihood strategies practices are
more applicable. Food insecurity problems are very chronic due to climate change and narrow
livelihood options and high population pressure exacerbates it. The study mainly was focus on
household demographic determinant factors influencing livelihood diversification practices of
pastoralists. Therefore, data collected for this study was 2019 data.
The study gives due consideration in survey of major livelihood assets such as natural, physical,
human, financial and social assets; livelihood strategies and income source which were found to
be the main factors to sustain household food security. As far as food security measurement method
was concerned it is beyond the scope of this research to use anthropometric method to measure a
household is food secured or not. Rather the researcher uses indirect measure of food security
which employs average household incomes generated from diverse source and assets base. In line
with this concept, income was used as the key indicator and measure of rural female livelihood
strategies to household food security. As a result, the contribution of pastoral household livelihood
strategies to household food security was measured and analyzed in terms of the average annual
household income generated from farm, off-farm, non-farm and migration source of income by
taking the 2018 production year income data of respondents as a source of information for this
research work.

17
1.6 Limitations of the Study
One of the intentions of this study was to examine livelihood strategies of pastoral households in
rural area. It doesn’t include urban pastoralists. The reason for selecting of rural pastoralists were,
first majority of Borena pastoralists live in rural area, second, urban pastoralists are accessible to
different position in which their livelihood depends.
Some of the questions asked for this research require respondents to recollect past events like
amounts of household production, assets, livestock and monthly/ annual expenditure. This
information might be distorted since it is based on estimation and memory of the respondents.
Another limitation of this study was, the researcher doesn’t use anthropometric method of food
security measurement that requires kilocalories of each food item, lack of skillful enumerators in
household survey and take rigorous step and method that may not completed in the given period
1.7 Significance of the Study
As far as the finding of the research is concerned, it is expected to have wide continuum of
applications. First, the findings of this research are hoped to serve as a reference document for
livelihood strategies of pastoralists which are not mostly studied by researchers. Based on the
findings of the research, it is hoped that the pastoralists household can get attention from both non-
governmental organizations and government bodies. Second, it is supposed to benefit both the
individual pastoralists households and Woreda pastoralists Association. The third advantage of
this research give detail information for nongovernmental organization which is involving in the
study area to generate alternative means of existence for the pastoralists household to support the
present livelihood strategies to sustain household food security. This would investigate some
bottlenecks which hamper the improvement of the pastoralists households to prolong household
food security. This research can contribute in promoting a bit to wide-ranging set up of Wachile
wereda in general and pastoralists household of the study area by giving special emphasis to
variation of livelihood strategies with pastoralists and agropastoral area.
1.8 Structures of the Thesis
This thesis is divided into six chapters. The first chapter is introduction which includes the
background, statement of the problem, objectives, research questions, delimitation, limitations and
organization of the Thesis. The second chapter examines the review of related literature that make
an assessment on the definition and discussion of different key concepts such as household, food
security, livelihood security, vulnerability of household, pastoral and agropastoral household

18
livelihood strategy pastoral and agropastoral household. Subsequently, the linkages between these
concepts are visualized in a conceptual Framework. The third chapter briefly presents the physical
and human characteristics of Wachile woreda. This chapter presents description including
geographical attributes and climate of Wachile woreda. Information on socio-economic
development was presented using secondary data. Topic like economic activities was also
discussed as well. The study design, data collection and analysis are presented in the fourth chapter.
It further explains how the field survey data were collected. The fifth chapter treats discussions
and presentation of data using different charts and diagrams. Finally, the six chapters explore
Summery, conclusion and recommendations of the study.

19
 CHAPTER TWO
2 LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

This chapter presents a review of the literature as well as the definitions of the concepts used.
Analytical frame work and conceptual framework is presented at the end of the chapter based upon
existing literature, in which both livelihood strategies and household food security are applied.
A conceptual framework consists of several concepts that are linked to each other and specifies
the relations between them. It has been developed through the modification or extension of existing
theoretical frameworks for livelihood analysis, specifically those by Ellis (2000) and Niehof and
Price (2001).
What is more, the conceptual framework was developed on the basis of these sources and other
literature to answer research questions and structure of research.
2.1 Discussion and definition of key concepts
The major concepts used in this research are: livelihood asset, livelihood strategies, food security,
vulnerability of household food security and household livelihood strategy. The concepts are
discussed and defined below.
2.3 Trends of Pastoralism Development in Ethiopia
Pastoralists occupy the lowland areas of Ethiopia characterized by arid and semi-arid climates,
which make these areas unsuitable for agriculture.
The arid and semi-arid regions are said to account for 60 percent of the surface area of the country
(Hogg 1996). Apart from numerous smaller groups, there are three main pastoral groups namely
the Somali, Borana, and Afar pastoralists living in the south-east, south, and north-east respectively
(Hogg 1997).These pastoralists derive their living mainly from livestock which serve as the
‘backbone’ of their economies, whilst contributing to the socio-cultural and political organization
of those societies (Hogg 1991, 10).Livestock support the social fabric of pastoral societies serving
as a symbol of social status and item for exchange during various social functions such as marriage,
birth, and initiation ceremonies thus cementing social solidarity (Farah 1996, 129). However, the
last 30years have been characterized by an increasing reliance on no livestock-based activities
including trade, agriculture and wage employment. This has mainly been a result of the declining
viability of traditional livestock- based livelihood strategies.

20
The viability of pastoral livelihoods in Ethiopia has been compromised due to the interplay
between external factors and factors internal to pastoral societies. Some external factors include
expansionist interests of central governments at various points in time resulting in the loss of
valuable pastoral land to state-owned and private entrepreneurial ventures (see Getachew 2001 and
Gamaledin 1992). As Haile-Gebriel (2003, 6) notes, the loss of key grazing and watering points to
various non-pastoral purposes is responsible for the increasing impoverishment of pastoral
communities. Central governments have been critiqued for marginalizing pastoral areas in terms
of integration into national economy and investments in infrastructure and services (CRDA 2001;
Beruk 2001; Hogg 1997; Farah 1996).
Today, Ethiopia’s pastoral areas remain some of the most backward regions in terms of
infrastructural development and basic service provision such as education and health. A series of
state-led development initiatives in pastoral areas in the 1970s and 1980s were not entirely
successful in redressing the imbalances between pastoral and non-pastoral areas. Dynamics within
pastoral systems themselves, which cannot be seen separate to external factors, have shaped the
trajectory of pastoral development. 02Increasing human and livestock populations, recurrent
drought and famine, weakening of traditional resource management systems and sedenterization
are some of the factors which have brought about shrinkage in pastoral resources vital for the
sustenance of livestock.
Conflict is also common to Ethiopia’s pastoral areas both as a cause and consequence of shrinking
pastoral resources, but also because of political interference by national governments. The
vulnerability of pastoralists to market price fluctuations, particularly during times of drought
and/or famine has further led to the depletion of their livestock assets.
Overall, the trajectory of pastoral development in Ethiopia over the last 30 years points to the
declining ability of pastoralists to subsist mainly from livestock-based activities alone, and the
consequent increased significance of no livestock-based activities, including but not limited to
agriculture. At the same time, those who have lost most, or all their livestock assets are unable to
subsist within the rural pastoral economy and must settle in spaces which offer them the maximum
range of alternative livelihood opportunities, including urban and peri-urban spaces. Such trends
are also evident amongst the Borana pastoralists of Southern Ethiopia. Livelihood of pastoralist
communities in Ethiopia is constrained by diverse natural, social and economic problems including

21
recurrent drought, lack of basic infrastructure, conflict, and they have low resilient capacities to
cope with and recover from such vulnerable situations. The large majorities’ livelihoods in most
seasons of the year are depending on food assistance of the government. About 15% of Borena
pastoralists are food-insecure throughout the year. Currently, as an emerging alternative of
livestock destitute, pastoralists in Ethiopia are benign settled in and around urban centers to exploit
the upcoming livelihood opportunities defined as non-pastoral livelihood options like petty trading
and wage employment that would otherwise be unavailable in rural pastoral areas. The
contribution of livelihood diversification to rural and pastoral livelihoods has often been ignored
by policy makers, and there is a general perception among policy makers and technocrats that
pastoral lands are underutilized and therefore should be brought under the plow. The pastoral mode
of life based on mobility is perceived to be backward and needs to be transformed Government
development efforts focus on to make sedentary way of life to pastoralists in favor of cultivation
instead of transhumant nomadism and for ease of provision of social services. Annually, massive
resources are invested by humanitarian aids and government for food security programs. However,
food insecurity is becoming persistent, especially in pastoralist areas that do not have enough
livelihood diversification option around them. The Borana pastoralists have been hit hard by
recurring droughts and consequent loss of livestock for the last three decades, the most recent one
being in the period between 1999 and 2000. The study by estimates that during the years 1980–
1997 alone, monetary losses due to livestock deaths in the Borana plateau exceeded US $ 300
million. The study further argues that “cattle crashes”, or widespread loss of cattle, occur in every
5–6 years, particularly during times of low rainfall and high stocking rates.
The probability of drought occurrence remains high, and at the same time several factors are
causing the decline of livelihood diversification. It is difficult to recover from such shocks and
stresses. Problems like seasonal migration, alienation of traditional pastoral rights of accessing
pastoral resources and restrictions of free movement in search of pasture and water are among
triggering factors of this problem. Thus, a thorough understanding of alternative livelihood
strategies of pastoral households and communities is crucial in any attempt to bring the
improvement of livelihood. It is important to commit a limited resource available for pastoral
development based on new assumption about the rural poor and their livelihood strategies. This
study, therefore, attempted to see pastoral livelihood strategies of Borena pastoral communities of

22
Ethiopia in their struggle to achieve household food security.
2.4 Land Tenure
Land in the pastoral area of Oromia is classified into rangeland, cropland, forestland and water
resource areas. The rangeland of the pastoral communities belongs to the clan. There are two
categories of rangelands in the community. Open graining area is most commonly accessible to all
members of the community and other mobile communities. The second category of rangeland is
the so called “Kalo” means reserved rangeland, which is managed at Reera level in Borana. The
reserve is often fenced putting a confined area of land out of free grazing so that some pasture
would be available during the dry season. It is also made available to calves, oxen, lactating
animals, and weak animals which cannot go for fora2. Access to the reserve is discussed and
decided by Jarsa Reera (the community elders), and only few animals are allowed to graze at a
time so that the reserve is not depleted.
Crop farming is expanding in pastoral areas of Oromia. It is recently introduced in the pastoral
communities of Borana. The farmland is locally called Obru. A community member could request
the Kebele Administration to get a plot of land for crop production. Based on the request of an
individual, the Kebele administration consults Abba Olla- traditional village leader. Currently,
local government administrations started playing role in limiting the expansion of cropland and
resolving conflicts associated with cropland expansion. The kebele administration in consultation
with the Jarsa Reera permits cultivation of a given plot for crop farming. The Jarsa Reera checks
if the intended cultivation would affect grazing area, reserve pastureland, routes to grazing areas
and water points and passes a no objection to the community/Kebele administration.
The farmland could be inherited to sons. In most agropastoral areas, land transaction exists.
However, as the land in the pastoral community is fragile, continuous ploughing for a longer period
is not feasible. Due to this one can use the plot for one or two seasons. If the first person abandons
the plot, other persons will request the local administration and traditional leaders to use the land
without the permission of the former user of the same plot. This is because the land belongs to the
clan (the community) and the Abba Olla has the authority to relocate the land for another purpose.
Some years back, anybody could go and start faming without asking the Abba Olla or Kebele
administration. However, recently, due to population pressure and high demand for cropland, the
process of acquiring land for crop farming is administered by the Abba Olla and Kebele
administrations. Land renting in most of the pastoral communities is not yet started. This is mainly
23
because the land is used for livestock grazing. This type of land use is basically communal type,
and no one claims it as a private property. On the other hand, crop production has a risk of failure
due to shortage of rainfall in the pastoral communities. Hence, receiving land on contract form for
crop production is not a feasible business. As a result, the land contracting policy of the regional
government seems not feasible in the pastoral areas of Oromia.
On the other hand, the pastoral communities do not have information on the land certification
policy of the regional government. However, according to the pastoral communities, land
certification of the cropland could be feasible whereas, the land certification of the rangeland is
not possible. This is because the rangeland belongs to the clan. The land certification will lead to
privatization of the land, which is not feasible in the pastoral communities. Privately owning the
land would restrict livestock mobility and creates pressure on the rangeland and hence affects the
pastoral livelihood system. As a result, the policy of landholding certification as it is applied in the
non-pastoral areas cannot be applied on the rangelands.
2.5 The concepts of livelihood
In many literatures the most widely quoted and accepted definition of livelihood is the one which
is forwarded by Chambers and Conway (1991): Livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets
(store, resources, claim and access) and activities required for a means of living: a livelihood is
sustainable which can cope with and recover from stress and shocks, maintain or enhance its
capabilities and assets and provide sustainable opportunities for the next generations and which
can contribute net benefit to other livelihoods at the local and global level and in the short run and
long run. The livelihood is 'sustainable if it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks,
maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining
the natural resource base, (Chambers and Conway, 1991; Hussein and Nelson, 1998).
A livelihood is therefore defined as the activities, the assets and the access that jointly determine
the living gained by an individual or household (Masefield, 2001). As it is outlined by Ellis and
Allison (2004), the term livelihood attempts to capture not just what people do to make a living,
but the resources that provide them with the capability to build a satisfactory living, the risk factors
that they must consider in managing their resources, and the institutional and policy context. that
either helps or hinders them in their pursuit of a viable or improving living. Similarly, Lipton and
Maxwell, (1992) cited in Ellis, (1998) states that a livelihood is more than just income, and it
encompasses income, both cash arid in kind, as well as the social institutions (kin, family,
24
compound, village and so on), gender relations, and property rights required to support and to
sustain a given standard of living (Ellis, 1998).

To get a deep insight of the food insecurity or poverty situation of the households or individuals,
analyzing their livelihood situation is accorded primacy. The concepts of livelihood are too broad,
and it captured many elements which are directly or indirectly depend on each other. According
to Ellis, (2000) a livelihood comprises the assets (natural, physical, human, financial and social
capital), the activities and the access to these (mediated by institution and social relation) that
together determine the living gained by the individual or households. Generally, when we say the
livelihood of the households, it should have to encompass all the components which were
explained above. It is worth to discuss each of the above components which constitute livelihood
one by one.
2.6 Pastoral Livelihood System
In addition to the definition given above, Swift and Umar, N (1991). Have explained pastoral
production systems as those “in which at least 50% of the gross incomes from households (i.e. the
value of market production and the projected value of existence production consumed by
households) it comes from pastoralist or its from related activities, or else, anywhere more than
15% of household's food energy ingesting involves the milk or dairy products they produce.
According to Morton (2010), Pastoralists are people who depend on livestock or the sale of
livestock products for most of their income and consumption, whose livestock is mainly grazed on
communally-managed or open-access pastures, and who show at least some propensity, as
households or individuals, to move seasonally with their livestock (Morton 2010). Pastoralist is
also can be defined by a high dependence on livestock as income for economic and social welfare
and the different types of strategic mobility is to get access water and pasture resources in areas of
high rainfall variability.
The Pastoralist system has three major supports: (1) the pastoral family and other wider social
institutions, (2) natural resources supporting the system and (3) the herd. Those characteristics are
the typical elements of the pastoralist system. Pastoralist has two principal differences: the first
one is Agropastoralist and second one is nomadism. The term agropastoralist refers to the co-
existence of agricultural and pastoral activities side by side at different scales. Agropastoralist are
sedentary farmers who produce crops and raise livestock. Livestock are used for draught, savings
25
and milk production (Alemayehu, 2004). Agropastoralist can be described as the established
pastoralists who cultivate enough areas to get feed to their families from their own crop production.
Agropastoralist grasp land rights and use their own or rented labor to cultivate land and grow clips.
While livestock is still valued assets the agropastoral, agropastoralist‟ peoples are naturally smaller
than those found in other pastoral systems. The term pastorals (nomadism) refer to people pursuing
on rearing animals mainly of camel, small ruminants and cattle. They use natural grazing through
extensive mobility in search of animal feed and water. (Tsegaye et al., 2013).
2.7 Livelihood Resources (Assets)
The ability to pursue different livelihood strategies is dependent on the basic material and social,
tangible and intangible assets that people have in their possession and livelihood resources (Assets)
may be seen as the 'capital' base from which different productive streams are derived from which
livelihoods are constructed (Scoones, 1998). Different literature categorizes the livelihood assets
in to five. For instance, DFID (1999), identified five core asset categories or
types of capital upon which livelihoods are built. These five categories of assets are: Natural
capital, Financial capital, Physical capital, Human capital and Social capital. Human Capital;
human capital represents the skills, knowledge, ability to labor and good health that together enable
people to pursue different livelihood strategies and achieve their livelihood objectives (Scoones,
1998: DFID, 1999).
Social Capital: the social resources (networks, social claims, social relations, affiliations,
associations) up on which people draw when pursuing different livelihood strategies (Scoones,
1998; Ashley, 2000). According to DFID (1999), the social capital is social resources such as
networks and connectedness, that increase people's trust and ability to work together and expand
their access to wider institutions, such as political or civic bodies; membership of more formalized
groups which often entails adherence to mutually-agreed or commonly accepted rules, norms and
sanctions; and relationships of trust, reciprocity etc, upon which people draw in pursuit of their
livelihood objectives.
Financial Capital: the capital base (cash, credit/debt, savmgs, and other economic assets, including
basic infrastructure and production equipment and technologies) which are essential for the pursuit
of any livelihood strategy (Scoones, 1998; DFID, 1999). Physical Capital: physical capital
comprises the basic infrastructures such as roads, rails and telecommunications, affordable
transport, secure shelter and buildings, adequate water supply and sanitation, clean affordable
26
energy, access to information (communications) and producer
goods needed to support livelihoods (DFID, 1999).
Natural Capital: the natural resource stocks (soil, water, air, genetic resources etc.) and
environmental services (hydrological cycle, pollution sinks etc) from which resource flows and
services useful for livelihoods are derived (Scoones, 1998)
3 Household livelihood strategies

The Oxford dictionary defines strategy as a “plan, method, or series of actions designed to achieve
a specific goal or effect”. The livelihood system is complex. It is developed through knowledge,
experience and belief. As mentioned earlier, to maintain and enhance their livelihoods, households
develop a livelihood resource. To implement this livelihood resource, households have their own
strategies, which are termed livelihood strategies. These strategies vary according to, season, and
situation. This research is intended to find why livelihood variation exists in different agroclimatic
region and varied resource endowment area.
Swift and Hamilton (2001: 86) suggested three types of livelihood strategies for the rural
household. These are:
❖ livelihood intensification, where per hectare land or animal production is increased through
more labor, capital or technology;
livelihood intensification, where production is increased by bringing more land or animals into the
production system keeping labor, capital or technology at the same level;
❖ livelihood diversification, where households diversify their economic activities through a
wider range of on-, non- and off-farm income opportunities;
❖ Migration, where people migrate temporarily or permanently to seek their livelihood.

Livelihood intensification is the most frequently used strategy by landowners, while poor people
who lack land depend on non-farm labor, activities and income sources Niehof (2004). Barrett et
al. (2001:322) noted that “diversification is widely understood as a form of self-insurance”. Ellis
defines livelihood diversification as “a process by which rural families construct a diverse portfolio
of activities and social support capabilities in order to survive and to improve their standard of
living” Ellis, (1998: 1). He concludes that diversification has an equalizing effect on rural
economies (income and wealth) (Ellis, 2000).

27
The possibility of livelihood diversification also depends on seasonal time Niehof (2004). Moser’s
study provides some answers to how people diversify the ability of households to avoid or reduce
vulnerability and to increase economic productivity depends not only on their initial assets, but
also on their ability to transform those assets into income, food, or other necessities effectively.
Assets can be transformed in two distinct ways: through the intensification of existing strategies
and through the development of new or diversified strategies. How – and how effectively – assets
are used and what strategies are adopted to cope with economic stress is determined by household,
intra-household and community factors. At the household level internal lifecycle events that affect
the structure and composition of households – birth, death, and marriage – can affect their ability
to respond to external changes. Within the household asymmetries of gender and age translate into
differences in the ability to cope with economic difficulties. Moser (1996: 2)
Household and individual livelihood strategies might also be thought of in terms of access to
different types of capital Scoones(1998); Bebbington(1999). Income, expenditure and the
experienced quality of life are all somehow implicit in the notion of livelihood. In their livelihood
strategies, people make certain choices regarding the substitution between the different dimensions
of poverty Bebbington (1999).
Rural households in Ethiopia follow different strategies to cope with food insecurity. These are
diversification of the farming system; exchange or borrowing of food from neighbors, and relatives
to overcome seasonal lean periods; inter-cropping of early maturing legumes or vegetables;
migration to cities or towns; participation in food-for-work programs; wage labor for the sending
of remittances; or polygamous marriage to expand landholdings and to increase household labor
Negash (2001).
3.1 Livelihood security
Security means stability and continuity. And livelihood security means security in the provision
of basic human needs such as food, clothing, shelter, education and health. Thus, household food
security be an integral part of livelihood security.
According to Frankenberger and McCaston (2001), the concept of livelihood security developed
through the evolution of concepts and issues related to food and nutrition security. When a
household’s livelihood is secure, it should be food-secure as well. But a food-secure household
might not be secure in terms of livelihood.

28
3.2 Vulnerability Context (Trends and Shocks)
The Vulnerability Context refers to seasonality, trends, and shocks that affect people's livelihoods
(DFID, 1999). It is the factor which is in most cases out of the control of the households, but which
have an impact on livelihood of the population. Livelihood activities are influenced by 'shocks'
and 'trends' that are in varying degrees exogenous to household and to local circumstances (Ellis,
2000 cited in Degefa, 2005).
The livelihood and survival of human individual, household, groups and communities are
vulnerable to stress (pressure which are continuous and cumulative, predictable and distressing,
such as seasonal shortage, rising population or declining resources) and shocks (such as wars,
persecution, civil violence, droughts, storms, floods epidemics and etc.) (Chambers and Conway,
1991: 10). According to Chambers and Conway (1991), reducing vulnerability has two
dimensions: the first is external through public action to reduce external stress and shocks through
flood prevention, disaster preparedness, off-season public works to provide employment,
prophylaxis against disease, and the like and the second is internal through private action, in which
a household adds to its portfolio of assets and repertoire of responses so that it can respond more
effectively and with less loss.
3.3 Mediating Process (Policy, Institution, and Process (PIP)
Before proceeding to further discussions, clarifications of the above three factors, i.e., institutions,
policies and processes is needed. A process, in the context of sustainable livelihood, refers to
processes of change in policies, institutions and organizations (DFID, 1999). According to Davies
(1997) cited in Scoones, (1998), "Institutions are the social cement which link stakeholders to
access to capital of different kinds to the means of exercising power and so define the gateways
through which they pass on the route to positive or negative livelihood adaptation". Since formal
and informal institutions (ranging from tenure regimes to labor sharing. systems to market
networks or credit arrangements) mediate access to livelihood resources and in turn affect the
composition of portfolios of livelihood strategies, hence, an understanding of institutions and
organizations is therefore key to designing interventions which improve sustainable livelihood
outcomes, (Scoones, 1998). Policies. institutions and processes determine, amongst other things:
poor people's access to various assets (such as land or labor), (DFID, 1999). In many developing
countries, policies and institutions discriminate against those with few assets and disadvantage
poor people. Such discriminatory policies and institutions undermine development efforts to

29
eradicate poverty (Scoones, 1998).

3.4 Activities and Livelihood Strategies

The livelihood strategies are a portfolio of different activities and tasks that households pursue to
have a viable outcome. While undertaking different livelihood strategies, the households perform
different activities. According to DFID, (1999) livelihood strategies are the range and combination
of activities and choices that people make/undertake to achieve their livelihood goals (including
productive activities, investment strategies, reproductive choices,
etc.). The livelihood strategies of rural households vary enormously, but a common strategy is for
household members to undertake a range of activities which each in some way contributes too he
or more of household needs (Ashley, 2000). Basically, there are three broad clusters of livelihood
strategies which are identified by Scoones, (1998), these are: agricultural intensification,
livelihood diversification and migration.
3.5 Livelihood Outcome
Livelihood Outcomes are the achievements or outputs of livelihood Strategies (DFID, 1999). It is
the product of the interplay between the context factor, mediating process, asset, livelihood
strategy and the policy, institution and process. The outcome might be either positive or negative.
Poverty and food insecurity are from among the negative livelihood outcome.
4 The Concepts of Livelihood Diversification
Livelihood diversification is defined as the process by which rural families construct a diverse
portfolio of activities and social support capabilities in their struggle for survival and in order to
improve their standards of living (Ellis, 1998). As it explained by Hussein and Nelson (1998),
livelihood diversification refers to attempts by individuals and households to find new ways to
raise incomes and reduce environmental risk. According to Start and Johnson (2004),
diversification can either refer to an increasing multiplicity of activities (regardless of the sector),
or it can refer to a shift away from traditional rural sectors such as agriculture to non-traditional
activities in either rural or urban space - i.e. sectoral change. Ellis, (1998) tried to differentiate the
difference between livelihood diversification and income diversification. He noted that, income
diversity refers to the composition of household incomes at a given instant in time whereas
diversification, on the other hand, is an active social process whereby households are observed to
engage in increasingly intricate portfolios of activities over time. Livelihood strategies should not

30
be assumed to be homogenous across households, or even among individuals within households.
Livelihood strategies and outcomes are sensitive to combinations of age and gender, as well as to
other socially constructed identities/institutions such as class, education, ethnicity, and religion
(Lautze et aI, 2003). The primary categories of livelihood diversification are farm, off-farm, and
non-farm income sources (Saith, 1992 cited in Ellis, 1998). Ellis (1998) explained the farm, off-
farm and non-farm diversification. According to Ellis, farm income includes livestock as well as
crop income and comprises both consumption-in-kind of own farm output and cash income from
output sold. Off- farm income typically refers to wage or exchange labour on other farms (i.e.
within agriculture). It also includes labor payments in kind, such as the harvest share systems and
other non-wage labor contracts that remain prevalent in many parts of the developing world. Non-
farm income refers to non-agricultural income sources. The same author further classifies non-
farm income in to five categories. These are
(i) non-farm rural wage employment,
(ii) non-farm rural self-employment,
(iii) property income (rents, etc.), (iv) urban-to-rural remittances arising from
within national boundaries, and (v) international remittances arising from ·oross-border and
overseas migration. Different literatures note the reason for livelihood diversification. Here it is
worth to mention Ellis, (2000) work. He categorizes the reason for livelihood diversification in to
two broad categories which are necessity or choice. He further elaborates Necessity as involuntary
and desperation reasons for diversifying (E.g., the dispossession of a tenant family from its access
to land, fragmentation of farm holdings on inheritance, environmental deterioration leading to
declining crop yields, natural or civil disasters such as drought, floods or civil war resulting in
dislocation and Aij and onment of previous assets, or loss of the ability to continue to undertake
strenuous agricultural activities due to accident or ill health). Choice on the other hand, refers to
voluntary and proactive reasons for diversification for instance, seeking out seasonal wage-earning
opportunities, travelling to find work in remote locations, educating children to improve their
prospects of obtaining non-farm jobs, saving money to invest in non-farm businesses such as
trading etc.
4.1 Determinants of Livelihood Diversification
Different literature has list and explain the various determinants of livelihood diversification in
different ways, though the gist of the concepts is interrelated. For instance, Barret and Reardon
31
(2000), list some of the determinant of livelihood diversification such as risk, diminishing or time-
varying returns to labor or land, market failures (e.g., for credit) or frictions (e.g., for mobility or
entry into high-return niches), and risk management, either ex-ante mitigation
through portfolio choice or ex-post coping through adaptation to shocks. On the other hand, Ellis
(1998), mentioned some of the main determinants of diversification such as seasonality,
differentiated labor markets, risk strategies, coping behavior, credit market imperfections, and inter
temporal savings and investment strategies.
Likewise, the study which was conducted by Smith et ai, 2000 in Uganda states a history, social
context and agro-ecology, and the influence of ongoing social change linked with external
interventions, such as infrastructural and service provision as the determinants factor for livelihood
diversification. From DFID evidence of research on Uganda, Tanzania, India, South America,
Armenia, Georgia and Romania, Junior R. Davis, (2003), list six factors which determine access
to rural diversification out of farming to non-farm, such as education and skills, social capital,
ethnicity and caste, gender dynamics, financial capital, and physical infrastructure and
information. Generally, the determinant of livelihood diversification is different from one area to
other even it is different between households and between individuals within households. Here
some of the common determinants of livelihood diversification which are raised by many
researchers are listed below.
4.2 Seasonality as Determinant Factor for Livelihood Diversification
Seasonality is one of the determinants of livelihood diversification in many rural areas. Since the
agriculture is seasonal in nature for those rural areas where there is no irrigation facility, it is natural
to observe household’s engagement in different activity such as casual labor in rural area,
migration to nearby city to search for work and like. This is particularly true during lean season.
The cyclical levels of activity implied by seasonality apply mostly to landless rural families that
depend on agricultural labor markets for survival, as for farm families (Ellis, 1998). when the
(seasonal) income from farming drops to levels not enough for survival in the off-season,
households are pushed into nonfarm activities to smooth income and consumption inter seasonally
(Reardon et ai, 2006).
4.3 Asset as a Determinant Factor
Asset is one of the determinant factors for livelihood diversification. Availability of key-assets
(such as savings, land, labor, education and/or access to market or employment opportunities,

32
access to common property natural resources and other public goods) is an evident requisite in
making rural households and individuals more or less capable to diversify (Dercon and Krishan
1996; Abdulai and Crole Rees 2000 cited in Warren, 2002). On the other hand, diversification
may also develop as a coping response to the loss of capital assets needed for undertaking
conventional on-farm production (Warren, 2002). According to Barret et al (2001), households
endowed with insufficient productive agrarian capital (land and livestock) to absorb their
household's full labor endowment are compelled to seek out off-farm or non-farm income sources
in the absence of complete and well-functioning markets in land and livestock. On the other hand,
those households with more assets tend to have a greater range of options and an ability to switch
between multiple strategies to secure their livelihoods (DFID, 1999).
4.4 Risk Management
The risky nature of agriculture helps to explain the high levels of diversification in rural areas
(Start, 2001). Distinct role of diversification is to cope ex post shocks to income and diversification
is a primary means by which many individuals reduce risk (Barret et al 200 I). Warren (2002),
pointed out that the previous experience of crop or market failure can provoke diversification as a
means of spreading perceived risk and reducing the impact of total or partial failure on household
consumption. On the other hand, Ellis (2000), stated that income diversification as a risk strategy
is often taken to imply a trade-off between a higher total income involving greater probability of
income failure, and a lower total income involving smaller probability of income failure. One of
the critical motives of livelihood diversification for risk reasons is the achievement of an income
portfolio with low covariate risk between its components. This means that the factors that create
risk for one income source (e.g. climate) are not the same as the factors that create risk for another
income source (e.g. urban job insecurity (Ellis, 2000).
4. 5 Labor Market
Labor markets also' offer nonfarm opportunities for income generation differentiated by other
considerations such as education, skills, location and gender. When the marginal return to labor
time in farming for any individual falls below the wage rate or the return to self-employment
attainable for that person off the farm, then, ignoring intra-household distributional issues, the
household as a unit is better off switching that individual into off-farm or nonfarm activities (Ellis,
2000).

33
4.6 Credit Market Failures
Missing credit markets can impede diversification into activities or assets characterized by
substantial barriers to entry (Barret et ai, 2001). On the other hand, if non-farm or off-farm options
can be accessed easily, but credit markets are thin or missing, non-farm earnings can be a crucial
means for overcoming working capital constraints to purchasing necessary variable inputs for
farming (e.g., fertilizer, seeds, equipment, labor) or to making capital improvements (e.g., bunds,
ridges, irrigation) to one's farm (Reardon et a!., 1994; Savadogo et a!., 1998; Reardon et a!., 1999
cited in Barret et ai, 2001). Credit or insurance market failure will drive households to self-insure
and self-fund input purchases (Reardon et ai, 2006). Weaknesses in rural factor markets likewise
tend to encourage household diversification. Where credit and insurance markets are missing, rural
nonfarm activity becomes a vehicle for self-insurance and for financing agricultural inputs and
assets via nonfarm earnings and weak land and labor markets may also encourage diversification
(Reardon et ai, 2006).
5 Food security
A variety of definition of food security is presented in different literature by different researchers
& scholars. Among these 0shaug (1985) cited in Ede teal (1985:45) define food security, as “basket
of food, nutritionally adequate culturally acceptable, procured in keeping with human dignity and
enduring over time.’’ World Bank (1986:13) also clarifies food security as “access to all people at
all times to enough food for an active, healthy life of the household members. Zipper (1987)
distinguished that food security as always having enough to eat. Maxwell and Franken barer (1992)
define food security as access by all people at all time to food needed for an active and healthy
life. if we substitute “all people’ ’by Household, then the definition of household food security
becomes, access by household at all times to enough food for an active and healthy life of
household members.
From above definitions we can easily conceptualized that, Availability, access and supply
are inspiring words in food security. However, in 2008 Ethiopian food grain price escalation, food
is available at the market level except few food grain items. As the same time there is continues
supply of food either form domestic or international market. Government also attempted to calm
down the market by importing wheat from abroad. The question here to be bear in mind is, is the
poor accessible to food? Though there is available food item in the market and there is continues
supply, all peoples are not accessible to buy food. Because market supply is available for these

34
who able to buy than for these who need it. This verify, with adequate supply of food most
population become powerless to access. Again, these manifest inequalities of income in the
distribution highly affect household access to food security.
By and large to attain food security, people need resources and assets, which poor people lack.
On top of this high concentration of poor people on degraded and fragile lands in risky
environments exacerbate their livelihood vulnerability. Such situation as Dietz (2000) argued
ultimately leads to chronic food insecurity. Therefore, access to food at all time for all member of
household is a prime concern for poor households and determines their production and investment
choices IFAD (2001).
There are two types of food insecurity: chronic and transitory. Chronic food insecurity is
continuous food inadequacy caused by the inability to acquire food (constant failure in access to
food). It affects households that lack the ability either to buy or produce enough food. Transitory
food insecurity is a temporary decline in household’s success to enough food. It is a temporary
phenomenon related to the cropping cycle or to a sudden short fall in food access or availability.
It is not one_ time event but it is cyclical this could be caused by instability in food production, a
fall in income, increase in food prices as result of disasters Maxwell (1992); Filmon (2001);
Detahun (2003) Deverux, et al. (2003).As Maxwee (1996) has pointed out, in reality it is difficult
to distinguish between chronic and transitory food insecurity. Household may face conditions food
insecurity with remarkable frequency, very possibly in the lean period before harvest, which turns
out to be chronic when the frequency and severity of scarcity of scarcity extends. If households
suffer two seasons, then they are forced to sell some or all of their assets to survive, it turns to be
chronic food insecurity.
5.1 Components of food security
Food security has three components. These are: access, availability and use/utilization
Dejene(2004); FA0 (1998);and Workeh (2006) cited in misganaw (2008).
ACCESS
One of the methods by which household meet their food needs is through earning a stable income
with which they can purchase or access the food they need. This lift up the purchasing power of
the household that support the household effectively to acquire food that is considered necessary.
Access refers to the stock of food in the market as well as the purchasing power created by saving

35
money or in the form of assets such as cattle and other possessions. The first one is asset ownership
(size and types of productive assets).
The second one is income (sources of income earning activities and employment). In most cases
employment generating schemes and off_ farm employment opportunities are considered as ways
of improving access to food in Ethiopia. The major attempt made so far to create access to food in
Ethiopia is through an increase production and productivity. Some of the major activities that
contribute to this component include credit and saving scheme, skill training, developing business
technologies, marketing products, infrastructure development, investment capital for enterprise
development, cash for work, and farm and nonfarm diversification FAO (1998).
AVAILABILITY
Availability refers to the availability of active family labor that is able to create incomes and assets.
In addition, availability also refers to own production and capacity to produce enough food .one
of the primary methods by which a rural household can meet its food needs is to produce food for
itself. On the supply side, cereal output is the key indicators as cereal provide about 60% of dietary
energy in developing countries.
In general, at the micro level availability could be taken as households’ capacity to produce food
they need. Some studies suggest that households cannot feed their members for more than six
months from their own production even in normal year Jenden (1994) cited in FAO (1998). Any
activity that contribute to improve agricultural production or food supply would be considered as
part of food availability enhancing strategy. Some of the activities are improved seed varieties,
fertilizer use, use of appropriate agronomic practices, irrigation and natural resource conservation.
Use /utilization
This aspect of the food security component relates to changes in household food consumption
pattern, which includes eating habits or creating strategic mix in feeding pattern to stabilize the
availability of food, food stock and income management Desalegn (1987) cited in FAO (1998).
Utilization of food will be improved through the expansion of safe water supply and sanitation
promotion of community health services and prevention FAO 1998). This study focused on the
access and availability aspect of food security.

5.2 Food security: indicators and measurement

Food Security Indicators

36
Food security indicators are classified in two main categories: process and outcome indicators.
The process indicators provide estimate of food supply and food access situations. The outcome
indicators serve as a proxy for food consumption Frankenberger (1992) process indicators are used
to measure the changing status of food security. They can also offer the type of information
necessary to plan and adjust development efforts. Process indicators are further disaggregated into
two groups: supply indicator and access indicators.
The most commonly used indicators of household food security are supply, food access and
outcome indicators. These indicators embrace, information on natural resource, agricultural
production data , marketing information ,food balance sheet ,sales of productive assets ,
diversification income source and household budget expenditure security
Frankenberger(1992).Accordingly, food balance sheet(i.e., sum of domestic food production ,net
import and stocks to the total population and considering nutritive value ), rainfall and marketing
data and anthropometric measurement revealing the stat of underweight , stunting and wasting )
are also used to measure food security .
Both process and outcome indicators of food security can be important when assessing food
security, but access indicators measure that food access become apparent when governments and
development agencies realize existence of household food insecurity and famine condition are
occurring d3espit the availability of food.
In recent years access indicators have been relatively more valuable in development planning,
implementation and monitoring of food security interventions. On the other hand, food access
indicators are relatively effective because they show various strategies used by the household to
get food from diversified source, i.e., from own farm production, non-farm income, remittance/gift
etc. Debebe (1995); Frankenberg (1992). However, there is no gold standard, single and
universally accepted indicator of food security. It is up to the researcher to select an indicator or
combination of indicators that suit the objectives of the study, the characteristics of households
and socioeconomic background of the study area, level of aggregation and specific circumstances
of the study. In this study, average annual income per household was used as the appropriate
indicator of food security.
5.3 Food security measurement
Because of divers in its nature it is somewhat challenging to measure food security. As a result,
there are no generally established homogeneous indicators that serve as a measuring tool. Different
37
indicators are used to measure food security but each of them may not be self-sufficient workneh
(2006). Nevertheless, different researchers used different types of food security measurements.
Accordingly, at national level, food security can be measured in terms of food demand
(requirement) and supply indicators; that is the quantity of available food versus need. The supply
of food at this stage may be from current production and stocks from previous production whereas
the needs can be determined based on biological or nutritional requirements of a given society for
certain period usually a year or a day. The recommended minimum nutritional requirements for
an adult person has been set at 2100kcalper person per day is usually used as a yardstick ENI
(1993); FNU/MoPED(1994); VonBraun et al.(1992).
At household level, food security is best measured by direct survey of income, expenditure and
consumption and compares that with the adequacy norm appropriate to the households. Measuring
of food security in terms of food consumption and anthropometric parameters is considered as the
direct measure while measuring food security through income, asset base and production is
suggested as indirect measure workneh (2006).
Likewise MoFED(2002) suggested that income and expenditure are the common types of poverty
measure in Ethiopia though the limitation to use income is the under estimation of the annual
income by respondents. Despite several methods employed to measure food security, there is no
method which has been accepted as “gold standard” for analysis of household food security
Maxwell (1996). This means there is no single and one best measure of food security. As a result,
a researcher can select indicator that suit the objectives of the study to measure household food
security.
In this study the average annual income per household was employed as the best indicator as well
as measurement of household food security. The basic aim of choosing household level analysis
is to identify those households that are food insecure and those whose food security is at risk, to
identify the factors that affect food security and attempt to quantify the underlying relationships
(Riely and Mock 1995). Even though, it is possible to examine relative level of food insecurity or
rank orders defined by specific indicators, it is sometimes important to define cut_ off point to
establish some understanding of absolute levels of food insecurity.
The starting idea to measure the household food security in this study is the concept of 255 kg
of cereal/ grain per AE per annum required to meet the minimum subsistence level. This bench

38
mark of 225 Kg of cereal grain is taken as approximately equivalent to the acceptable amount of
food Dejene (2004); ENI (1968).
In addition, minimum amount of money/ income required to cover cost of other food items, clothes,
health care, education and tax for land use was considered as an integral and essential component
for an adult person to be food secure (ANRS,2007; MOFED, 2002 and storck et.al, 1991).
Once the food security benchmark is established at AE level, the analysis and characterization of
the key variables and the contribution of livelihood strategies to household food security are made
at the household level as explained by dejene (2004) and Ellis (2000). Household are the appreciate
unit of analysis for analysis and understanding of the rural livelihood diversification and its
contribution to household. Similarly, the rural livelihood diversification is investigated and
measured best through household annual income derived from various sources Ellis, (1998 and
2000). In line with these two ideas, the average annual household income is found to be the most
important method to measure the contribution of rural livelihood strategies to household food
security.
In this study, the minimum level of income which should at least be met or required per adult
equivalent per annum is computed based on the amount of food required by an adult person, plus
minimum expenses needed for some basic social needs such as clothes, healthcare, education, and
social obligations, etc. The value of food required (225 kg of cereal pre-AE per year or 2100 kcal
per day per AE according to ENI (1968) and FNU/ MOPED (1994) plus the sum of estimated
minimum amount of money needed to cover the above-mentioned expenses per AE per annum is
used as a threshold (cut_ off point) to categorize households in to food secure or food insecure
households.
5.4 food security situation in Ethiopia
In Ethiopia, both chronic and transitory food insecurity is Sevier. Each year about five million
peoples in the country, particularly, in rural areas face food shortage. Food production in the last
three decades have not been enough to make rural population to be food secure. It was estimated
that domestic food production provided in the late 1980s was about 1620calories per person per
day while total availability including imports was about 1770 calories per person per day which is
16%below the minimum level (2100kcal per person per day, equivalent to 225 kg of grain per
person per year workneh (2006).

39
Ethiopia has been self-sufficient in staple food and was classified as a net exporter of food grain
till the late 1950. It was documented that the annual export of grain to the world market rose to the
extent 150,000 tons in 1947/48(Debebe, 1999 cited in Eshetu, 2000). However, starting the early
1960s country’s domestic food supply situation has been declining and failed to meet then food
requirements of the people. Except in the 1996, Ethiopia has long been a food deficit country. Even
under normal climatic condition, the country experience a shortfall in food production to the tune
of 25%of what the country’s people need and are therefore living below the absolute poverty line.
The emergency food aid import requirement for these food insecure populations may as much as
8,000 000 metric tons per year Temesgen(2001).
Between the period of 1980and 1994, the proportion of import volume to domestic production has
ranged between 6% and 24% that is per capita food import raised from 10kg relatively good years
to a level 30kg in bad years (Debebe, 1999 cited in Eshetu ,2000).
5.5 Determinants of household food security
Numbers of oxen, size of livestock, labor, and size of land holding are the most important factor /
determinant for the household food security status (yared, 1999). Better off/food secure households
are characterized by having better size of, a pair of oxen and above, better size of other animals
and better family labor. Whereas poor households are characterized by low size of landholding, no
ox or one ox only, nor small animals, lack of labor, low productivity grain shortage, minimal access
to cash/credit newly established, elderly female headed and disabled households. Workneh (2006)
has suggested that cultivated land size, number of oxen, size of other livestock and amount of non-
income has showed significant role in enhancing household food security.
5.6 Cause and constraints of food security in Ethiopia
Food security is multi- dimensional and complex in its nature. The cause and challenges are also
multi-faced and complex. Risk to individual or household of losing access to food arise from
different sources. These include variability in crop production and food supply, market and price
variability; loss of employment and wage earning, health problems and drop in the quantity or
quality of assets. These factors affect the ability to either produce food for consumption or to
generate or maintain assets that can be used to purchase adequate food Dejene (2004).
A study on food security constraints in Ethiopia by wolday Amha cited in Tilaye (2004), in
Northern Ethiopia indicate, land holding size is the main constraints (84%) for achieving food
security. There are also other important constraints such as high price of inputs, insufficient

40
rainfall, high population growth, pest and disease, land degradation limited access to credit are the
prominent to affect food security.
Recurrent drought , rapid population growth diminished land holding , low level agricultural
productivity , war and civil conflict have contributed for food insecurity in Ethiopia Mulat(2003)
.Backward agricultural technologies ,population pressure environmental and natural resource
degradation , poverty ,weak institutional capacity to uproot the causes of food insecurity,
inadequate infrastructure and social services and inappropriate polices are the major challenges of
food security in Ethiopia Getahun (2003).Of multiple reason that causes food insecurity in Ethiopia
includes insufficient farm land lack of cash income to purchase farm inputs poor quality of farm
land ,reliance on single harvest Degefa(1996).
5.7 Household Vulnerability
Vulnerability is almost synonymous with insecurity. Whenever livelihood is insecure, we say that
it is vulnerable. Vulnerability is strongly related to the concept of food insecurity, highlighting the
element of risk that households face in their production, income, and consumption activities.
Vulnerability can be defined as the likelihood that a specific population group will experience an
acute decline in their food access. In addition to the risks that household’s face, vulnerability
further implies that these groups are unable to sufficiently cope with those threats to effectively
protect their basic food access. Poor households are as a matter of course among the most
vulnerable while rich households may also be vulnerable due to certain shocks such as the death
or illness of the male household head.
Vulnerability implies the inability to cope with shock or misfortune. Therefore, vulnerability can
be defined as a high degree of exposure to risk, shocks and stress, and as proneness to food
insecurity Chambers (1989); Davies (1996). On other words, Vulnerability refers to people’s
exposure to contingencies and stress, and their difficulty in coping with them Chambers (1989).
Chambers also argues that vulnerability has two forms:
➢ Risks, shocks and stresses to which an individual or household is subjected; and
➢ The state of being defenselessness or the lack of means to cope with risks, shocks, stresses,
or demands.
Risk
Huq (2000) suggests that shocks may occur within households (e.g. accident, divorce or death of
household head, serious illness, etc.) causing long term changes in the family structure.
41
According Huq (2000) risks can be classified in to:
➢ Environmental risks (drought, famine, earthquakes, pests);
➢ Market risks (price fluctuations, wage variability, unemployment);
➢ Political risks (civil conflict or war);
➢ Social risks (reduction in community support or community network, divorce);
➢ Health risks (illness that prevents work, death of husband)
According to Glewwe and Hall (1998), households take the following strategies to reduce
economic shocks:
saving and selling physical assets,
Increased labor force participation,
Find new jobs that use existing skills,
Receipt of inter-household transfers,
Use of credit for consumption purpose,
Altering consumption patterns,
6 Analytical frameworks

Based on the theoretical insights from the literature, a livelihood and food security in rural
household’s framework was developed to guide the research and to answer the research questions.
The framework shows how different external factors like risk (environment and market) influence
the household livelihood asset and livelihood strategies through interaction. At the center of the
framework the household, where strategies are developed, and decisions taken to develop and
maintain livelihood by means of the livelihood diversification and institutional influence. Looking
at the framework from a systems perspective, inputs and outputs can be distinguished. Inputs are
resources and assets, including credit and saving, which are impacted by the external environment.
Outputs are food and livelihood security.
Recognizing the situation of livelihoods asset is fundamental for any analysis of factors such as
vulnerability, livelihood strategies, and livelihood outcome, identified in the frame work. These
all relate to processes of change to the conditions in which people’s livelihoods operate and the
response of livelihoods to these changes. The structure of people’s livelihoods (and in particular
the strength and diversity of their livelihood assets) varies greatly, as do the effects of external

42
influences upon them. The key objective of the framework is to provide a structure for
understanding these dynamics.
The choices made in livelihood strategy will in turn define the livelihood activities of the
household: which activities are undertaken by whom and when. Land, labor, material inputs, social
networks and all the other capital assets available are used in different combinations. These assets
enable to grow crops, raise livestock, gather common property resources, earn wages, make things,
that provide services and all the other different activities in which members of the household
engage in. These together are households’ livelihood; the things that people do on a day-to-day
basis to make a living. In some cases, there are one or two dominant activities, such as farming, or
making post, but for many households the pattern of livelihood activities is varied and no one
activity dominates. Whatever the relative importance of the set of activities, however, the basis for
understanding livelihoods is that all need to be included in the household demand.
Households thus earn 'income' (in cash, or kind), which becomes part of the household budget.
This income is in turn allocated through a second key set of decisions called the income strategy.
Income can be allocated to saving or investments, that enhance the value of the assets, to pay for
inputs (fertilizer, raw materials, labor) that go into production, or social payments (such as ’’idir’’
or ”iqub’’) finally, to consumption that is part of the outcome, that is, the total set of goods and
services that constitute the material fabric of people’s lives. Obviously, the greater the income, the
more that is left after other obligations are met (inputs and social payments) for either consumption
(meeting the needs of today) or investment (increasing the ability to meet needs tomorrow).
This core of the framework reflects the internal dynamics of the process of gaining a livelihood on
the part of individuals and the households to which they belong, but it is clear that this process
does not operate in isolation from a wide range of influences that condition the flows through the
livelihood, the choices available at any stage and the overall outcomes of the livelihood. The
institutional structures of local communities are locality specific but reflect differing combinations
of place (the locality or neighborhood) and people (kin, religious, ethnic, occupational grouping
or other social and economic characteristics) where an individual household lives

43
 Figure 2.1 Conceptual frameworks for livelihood and food security in pastoral households
N

P H H=Human Capital S=Social

Livelihood Capital
Household F Asset
S S N=Natural Capital F=
Vulnerability Financial Capital
P=Physical Capital

Market (food
grain) price
escalation
Institution
Household
activities
Credit
Saving
Environmental
risk
Livelihood Strategies
/activities
Diversification
Intensification Income from
Migration Farm, off farm,
non-farm,
Income migration
Strategies

Livelihood
Out come
-Food security
-Wellbeing of
Household

Source: Modified from Ellis, (2000); Niehof and Price, (2001)

44
 CHAPTER THREE
3.1 Background of the study area
3.1.1 Physical characteristics
The Borana zone is one of administrative zones found in Oromia Regional state, Ethiopia. It is
located in the Southern part of Oromia Regional state (between 3°36 – 6°38’North latitude and
3°43’- 39°30’ East longitude) and borders Kenya. Yabello is the capital town of the Borana zone
and lies 570 km south of Addis Ababa. The zone covers 48,360 km2 of which 75% consists of
lowland, the zone frequently is exposed to droughts. The zone consists of 13 districts covering
275 “Gendas” /kebeles (the lowest administrative unit). There are 19 urban centers, of which 10
have town administration. The zone is inhabited by almost 1 million people (CSA, 2008).
Therefore, wachile is one of the districts of Borena Zone. It is 230km from zonal capital. Before
2016, wachile is administered under Arero woreda. For administrative purpose in 2016 having 13
kebels wachile woreda is formed. It can be accessed by all-weather road on the way to meta
Gafersa (a part of Arero wereda) and on the way to Dubluk before reaching Mega town to left way
on the main Tarmac Haigh way run to Moyale. Wachile woreda in terms of its relative location, is
bordered by Areo woreda in the north, Dhas Woreda in south, Dubluk Woreda in the west, and
Solima regional state in the east. From 13 total kebeles in the Woreda, three sample kebeles namely
Kekelo, Reji and Web were selected for this study.

Figure 3.1 map of study area Developed by author using GIS

45
Topography
The Borana landscape, according to Coppock 1994, is mainly undulating plane with a few
scattered volcanic cones. Among these cone-shaped hills, Dallona, Ensi and Yadan, found at the
south west of Arero town, are few of them. The landscape slopes gently from the north-west to the
south-east, between altitudes of 1500 and 1000m above sea level. In Borana land, as elsewhere in
Ethiopia, altitude is an important modifier of climate and rainfall seem to be directly affected by
altitude (Helland 1983). Furthermore, the study area is characterized by the existence of some
escarpments. Generally, Borana lowland is characterized by an even slope with no much ups and
downs. Wachile has a semi-arid savannah landscape, marked by gently sloping lowlands and flood
plains vegetated predominantly with acacia and bush land. The geology is composed of a
crystalline basement with overlying sedimentary and volcanic deposits. People are predominantly
involved in small-scale subsistence agriculture production, artesian mining and mainly on
livestock husbandry.
3.1.2 Climatic Condition
Wachile is principally characterized by arid and semi-arid climatic conditions except some pocket
areas with relatively humid climatic condition.
According to the (2012) joint report of Oromia Agricultural Bureau and GTZ, the mean annual
temperature varies from 18-25 degree Celsius with slight seasonal variation depending on the
location of different meteorological stations Regarding the amount of rainfall, different sources
put different figures, and this is probably due to the variation in annual rainfall over space and
time. According to the 2012 report of Oromia Agricultural Bureau, for instance, Wachile receives
the total annual rainfall of 440-1100mm. Watson stated that Borana receives the total annual
rainfall ranging from 400-700mm (Watson 2003). Wachile receives bimodal rainfall distribution.
That is ganna (the “main” rainy season from March to May) and hagayya (small rainy season from
September to November) are the two important rainy seasons. More than half of the rainfall in
Wachile received in ganna. Wachile characterized by the spatiotemporal variation in annual
rainfall. Even sometimes the rain may absent at expected time or fall below average. In general,
rainfall in Wachile is very much unreliable both in amount, space and time of arrival as well here
are no perennial rivers and rainfall varies highly, both spatially and temporally.

46
Rural communities in Wachile district have insufficient access to clean drinking water. They are
largely dependent on open water sources of unreliable quality due to contamination from human
or animal excrement and in some places from agriculture. Furthermore, the water sources
experience high evaporation rates, frequently drying up early in the dry season. During the last
decade numerous wells have been installed by the government and NGOs to improve peoples’
access to drinking water. However, in largeareas of the Borana Zone, in wachile district
overexploitation led to dropping groundwater levels and wells running dry.
Land degradation is another serious problem in the study area. The main drivers of the exploitation
of natural resources is one of the main causes, in its turn driven by poverty, rapid population
growth, and increasing numbers of livestock (Census, 2007), livelihood dependency on natural
resources, and poor land use. Agriculture is rain-fed and has a low productivity due to sub-optimal
rainfall. Land degradation and deforestation result in a loss of agricultural productivity through
soil deterioration and erosion. Bush encroachment is another problem for many of the pasture lands
that are used for cattle. Due to the low water availability, low agricultural production, lack of
infrastructure and poverty in general, malnutrition is widespread in the study area.
3.1.3 Geology and soils
The area comprises two major litho-stratigraphic units ranging in age from Precambrian to
Quaternary. Precambrian strata consist of crystalline rocks and associated intrusive, and Tertiary
to Quaternary strata consists of volcano-sedimentary rocks, the superficial deposits are all
Quaternary.

47
Figure 3.2 Topographic map of study area developed by author using GIS
Precambrian crystalline rocks
The Precambrian crystalline rocks of the area comprise high-grade gneisses, schists, weakly to
moderately metamorphosed sedimentary-, basic volcanic- and mafic-ultramafic rocks. The
Precambrian crystalline rocks mostly occupy the western part of wachile district, particularly Web
village known for its precious color stone like Emerald, Green garnet and aquamarine, mica and
copper also categorized under industrial minerals. West of the line passing through web village
and western flank of hara jartee massif. Exposures are often extensive and continuous in the
mountain ranges, blocky and fragmental in the ridges and hills, and patchy and discontinuous in
the flat lying areas (Mab consult, 2009).
Banded gneiss and associated undifferentiated schists are the most widely spread crystalline
basement rocks in the area. Continuous and extensive outcrop is common in the horsts while in
the inselbergs outcrop is mainly discontinuous and patchy. Wide textural variation from massive
through weakly foliated to distinctly foliated and from medium grained to coarse-grained variety
is common on outcrop scale. Differential weathering gives the rock a typical saw-and-tooth
appearance, which is distinct from far distance, and ellipsoidal cavities up to 50 cm deep. In
general, the thickness and intensity of these mafic layers decrease towards est. The rock
unconformably underlies the Cenozoic volcanic rocks and has concealed contact with other
crystalline rocks due to soil cover. Closely spaced vertical and horizontal presumably tensional
joints gave the rock (especially the quartz feldspathic component) appear in Dogogo, Ana, Gota
and Karlon okola area in web village manifest the sign for emerald and green garnet. Moreover,
sporadic concordant and/or discordant late stage very coarse grained (≤1cm); pink pegmatite veins
ranging in thickness from few tens of milli meter to few meters intrude this unit (Mab consult,
2009).
Cenozoic volcanic rocks
Western part of the area, that is, west of a line passing through Web village, Dubuluk town, belongs
to the broadly rifted zone of south western Ethiopia and predominantly covered by Cenozoic
volcanic rocks. Volcanic rocks in the area are due to both central and fissural eruptions. The former
includes large number of volcanic cones and craters producing volcanic rocks mainly consisting
of pyroclastic fall deposit and vesicular to scoriaceous basalt, while the latter is represented by

48
widespread bimodal sheet flows. The craters/maars have variable sizes and shapes ranging from
few meters to tens of meters in diameter and nearly from circular to overlapping swarm of vents,
respectively. Similarly, the shape of the volcanic cones (i. e., cinder- and spatter cones) varies from
circular to elliptical despite the presence of both breached and intact variety. Commonly their
diameter is in the order of few tens of meters and convex- upward and downward varieties are
encountered. It is worth noting most of the volcanic vents are situated on and/or near the principal
boundary- or subsidiary normal faults.
The Cenozoic volcanic rocks are subdivided into two broad categories based on whether erupted
before or after rifting, namely pre-rift and post rift volcanic. The pre-rift succession is represented
by sub-horizontally piled up basaltic and Salic (trachyte and trachybasalt) rocks overlying fault
bounded tilted blocks. The post rift succession comprises widespread sheet of basaltic flows with
variable textural attribute and pyroclastic deposit.
3.1.4 Hydrology
The ephemeral drainage system of the wachile district is located within the Genale-Dawa River
basin. Groundwater levels are generally deep (<10m). To extract groundwater, the population of
wachile are using traditional deep wells whose water retention potential varies with rainfall, the
so-called ‘singing wells’. These deep wells of Borana have existed for over 600 years and today
they still serve as a crucial resource of the Borana pastoralist production system. Some reach to
depths of over 30m below ground level.
Providing water under pastoral circumstances is difficult, primarily because of low population
densities, nomadic culture and harsh environmental characteristics. Also, in providing new water
sources (boreholes, ponds and cisterns or birka) in these semi-arid areas, there is a risk of the
livestock population rising above the (variable) carrying capacity of rangeland, and a potential for
aggravating the impact of catastrophic events such as droughts.
In principle access to all traditional watering points is free, and all types of water resources in
Borana are the property of the local community. There are different types of water sources in
Borana. This existing water sources can be categorized into two main groups; the traditional types
which is widely available elsewhere and the modern types.
Traditional water sources
These types include water sources that are identified and developed by the local people using their
indigenous knowledge and experience, and include:
49
 i. Traditional Wells or Singing Wells
(“Tullas”);
ii. Spring Fed Ponds;
iii. Open Surface Ponds (“Harros”);
iv. Unprotected Perennial and Seasonal
Springs;
v. Scoop Wells on Sandy Rivers;
Shallow Wells (“Addadis”).
Geda system is the back bone of the traditional management system. Aba Geda is the figure head
of Geda Sytem and he rules only for 8 years and will be replaced by another one. General assembly
conducted at 4th year of his rule time (Gummi Gayo) There are 8 Council Members in which are
ruled by the Aba Geda. All existing traditional management systems are governed by the Geda
system.
Each water source has “Aba konfi” or “Aba Ella” this person has the ownership right over the
water sources. This person assigns mangers called “Aba Heregas” and “Aba Guyas” (2 to 3 in
number) for conducting the day to day water management activities. There are strict operation
rules and contribution systems which are done either in kind, labor or sometimes in cash. Rote
cycle for each user is determined by the managers which depend on the amount of available water
and the existing demand. New water users need permission from the water managers and “Aba
Konfi” or “Aba Ella”.
3.1.5 Socio-economical characteristics
3.1.6 Population
The total population of the Borana zona is approximately 1,1 million (Borana zone water
resources office, 20019), 84 percent living in rural areas and 16 percent living in urban areas
(BZDPPD, 2003). The major ethnic groups are Borana Oromos and Guji Oromos, the former is
living in the lowland areas and the latter in the highlands. The smaller ethnic groups in the zone
are Gebra, Burji, Geri and others. Most of the inhabitants are followers of “Wakefeta” religion.
The people have a dynamic and territorial palatal system called the Gada system. This system
regulates social, economic, and political conditions of the people. Households belonging to the
same clan or sub-clan are governed by their respective Hayu (headman) that operates under the
leadership of Aba Gada (father of Gada). Important issues are discussed during regular village
50
(olas) meetings. Traditionally the people are working in teams in for instance digging of wells,
pond construction, closing pastureland, etc. The people also help each other in times of
difficulties, like for instance during periods of drought and conflict. This contribution is called
“Busa Gonafa”.
3.1.6 Traditional Social Set up and the Geda System in Borana
In Borana the Geda system is the main social structure which is a complex, elaborate and all-
embracing social institution. This system generally deals with the relations within and between
the generations. And more fundamentally, it is about how the Borana should live their lives.
The use of existing grazing lands and water resources, and mobility of people and livestock in
normal or in periods of disaster is governed by the Geda system. It also plays a large role in
political affairs and conflict management and resolution. The old traditions of sharing in Borana
(“Buusa Gonofa”) have a profound impact in making poor households less vulnerable to
drought. “Buusa Gonofa” is a social security system whereby people of same clan member
contribute in various ways to those highly affected and vulnerable to natural calamities like
drought, conflict and disease. The contribution types and rates are determined voluntarily by
the contributors but sometimes also decided by the clan leaders or elders. The contribution can
consist of for instance animals or fodder. If anybody denies that decision, he will be penalized,
and the strong social sanction will be applied to him.
The head or the leader of the Geda system is locally known as “Aba Geda”. This leader heads all
the Borana people which are divided into two major groups, “Saboo” and “Goona”. Both are
administered by the same Abba Geda and everyone is answerable firstly to his clans and sub-
clans. In each of the two mentioned groups many clans locally named “Gossa” are included.
There are 17 named clans in total in both major groups (Fasil et al, 2001).
Each Geda has a life span of 8 years and an Aba Geda must hold a general assembly known as
“Gummi Gayo” once in his rule time. This meeting is usually held at the fourth year, i.e.
midterm, of his leadership period. The main purposes of the meeting are to (Fasil etal, 2001);
•
Evaluate the achievements of the Aba Geda and the Councilors. Resolve different disputes
and update existing local laws (“Seera”) and cultural things (“Adaa”). “Adaa, Seera and Safuu”
are the main traditional tools in the Geda system. “Adaa” is a form of social system by which
the Borana people explain various features of the society in terms of custom. It dictates the
giving and receiving of gifts of animals, livestock herding and husbandry practices, access to
51
 water and pasture, participation in public events and rituals among others. “Seera” deals with
the local traditional laws and “Safuu” deals with taboo and condemned habits.

Geda Council
( Aba Geda)

Meda
( Meda Leaders)
Reera or
Cluster ( Aba
Reera)
Olla or
Village
( Aba Olla)

House
Holds

Figure 3.3 Traditional Management Set Up in Borana

Under the Aba Geda there are “Hayyuu”s which include “Hayyuu Garbaa” (counselors on
rituals) and “Hayyuu Yuuba” (disputers on marriage and social security). Under the Geda
Council there are Meda leaders (Meda is equivalent to Peasant or Pastoralist Association (PA)
or Kebele), Aba Reera (cluster leaders), Aba Olla (village leaders) and then households. A
number of households, on average 25, that are living close to each other and within the same
big compound form an “Olla” or village. And a collection of villages form “Reera” or cluster
whose collection again forms Meda.
The Geda system governs the Boran’s use of natural resources and enables the various groups
to coordinate their use of important resources like water. The Abbaa Geda is seen as the
figurehead of the whole of Boran. As well as performing rituals, matters are referred to him and
his council when a decision cannot be reached at a lower level. If there is conflict between

52
ethnic groups, then he will be called upon to help restore peace. As the Abbaa Geda is
responsible for dealing with matters of concern to the Boran and as matters of concern are often
related to access to the resources (water, land and forests), the Abbaa Geda is the highest level
of institution of natural resources management in Borana. The findings of different studies
indicate that the Geda system in Borana still exists in principle although it is weakening in
practice due to the influences of different natural and human impacts.
3.2 Community and Livestock Mobility
Mobility of livestock is the main strategy used by the pastoral community for risk management
and efficient and communal utilization of the range resources. The mobility takes two forms in
which the first type includes the movement of the satellite herds and locally called “Godaanssa
Fooraa” and the second type is moving the herds to other regions, further away from the
homestead as “Godaanssa Warraguda”. The second migration takes place during dry years.
3.2.1 Regular Mobility (“Godaanssa Fooraa”)
The most common type of mobility is regular mobility, in which certain family members (adult
males, excluding the elderly) move with their livestock from their permanent settlement to other
neighboring communities in search of pasture and water. During the regular mobility, the
villagers send a team called “aburu” or scouts, consisting often of men to identify locations
suitable for mobility in terms of availability of pasture and water; the carrying capacity of the
rangeland with estimations for the duration of stay; absence of livestock diseases in the area;
the willingness of the hosting community to share the resources; etc. Based on the feedback of
the “aburu”, decisions are made by the local traditional leaders and elders based on the resources
(water and pasture) available around villages and the wider region on the direction of mobility
and what types of animals and who will move with them. It considers the capacity of the animals
to travel the anticipated distance, the available resource at homestead and the milk requirement
of the people who remain at the semi-permanent settlement areas. Accordingly milking animals
will be distributed between the two places based on the number of people who depend on them
and how many milking animals are available.

53
Figure 3.4 Mobility map of web Village. Source field survey from web village, 2019 and
developed by author
Most of the time this movement takes place during rainy season to lowland areas where there
are no permanent sources of water. During this period, the highlands have time to grow new
pasture. After exploiting the pasture and water in the new area, they either move to other places
or go back to permanent water sources. This shows that duration of stay at a given place depends
on the length of the rainy season.
3.2.2 Drought Year Mobility (“Godaansa Warraguda”)
The second form of mobility is the movement of the family and whole herds that is usually
done when there is acute drought when rains fail, or conflicts arise. This type of mobility is
locally known as “Godaansa Warraguda”. It is movement of people and their herds to
permanent water sources mainly to the nine traditional wells (“tulla saglan”) found in different
parts of the Borana area. “Tulla” areas are mostly protected from cultivation (not used for
agricultural production), and the pasture is said to be able to accommodate many herds for quite
sometimes without any irreversible environmental impacts, or degradation.
Herd mobility continues as water and grazing cannot be found at a certain place throughout a
year. Mobility reduces overgrazing and soil degradation. Another important reason is that

54
animals require changes of places to gain weight, conceive, and grow properly. Movement to
lowland areas is important for this purpose. During this mobility, the people accompanying the
herds use the same water as source of drinking water as well as water for the animals.
The first type of mobility (regular mobility) does not as such influence the school attendance
of children and participation of women in different socio-economic activities. This is because
in this type of mobility usually men, whose age exceeded school age, move with their cattle to
areas with good potential of pasture and water whereas women, children and elderly people
remain at homestead practicing their regular activities.
The second type of mobility (Drought Year Mobility) has significant influence on the school
enrolment of children and women’s participation in various activities. This type of mobility
enforces all the people irrespective of age and sex to move to new areas away from their original
villages. Hence children will move away from schools and women are usually obliged to quit
all the socio-economic activities which they used to take part.
The poor quality of drinking water results in serious health problems. Water-related diseases,
such as cholera and diarrhea, are among the major causes of child mortality and morbidity.
Child mortality rate for the Borana Zone is 142 per 1000 live births (compared to 18 per 1000
for Europe). Fetching water for household consumption is the responsibility of women and girls
wherever the water source is found. The distance to water sources during dry season varies from
one area to another in Borana but is usually within the range 10 to 20km and is travelled on
foot. The other main problem is the insufficient water yield of the sources during dry periods,
which makes the people to spend a long time around the water sources in addition to the long
distance they must travel.
Children in the Borana Zone have the lowest school enrolment rate in the country. Women and
children are burdened with many responsibilities, such as fetching water, constructing
traditional houses, gathering firewood, acquiring and preparing food, cleaning and child care.
With water and firewood growing increasingly scarce, journeys to collect these become longer.
Little time remains for additional activities which may produce some income and, importantly,
enable education.

55
 The enrolment of students in higher grades i.e. above grade 8 is small as compared to the
enrolment in lower grades. This might be an indication that either since recently more children
start to go to school or that the dropout rate of students at higher grades is very high.
3.3 Economic situation
The urban population is involved in private business, government employment or farming The
agricultural sector is very important in the rural areas of the Borona zone. In the highlands people
predominantly grow (cash) crops with some livestock for additional income. The people in the
lowlands keep livestock as major economic activity, based on traditional pastoralist systems.
The pastoralist grows some crops for own use in the valleys. These activities are stressed by
factors like drought, pests, diseases, access to improved crops and livestock varieties, market
access, etc. (BZDPPD, 2003). The Borana pastoral production was considered as one of the few
remaining productive pastoral systems in East Africa until the early 1980s. Since then there has
been evidence that the system is experiencing a decline in productivity, associated with periodic
losses in cattle populations. Changes in land use and suppression of fire, which has been
restricted since the 1980s by national policy, have resulted in the proliferation of bush
encroachment and a general decline in fodder production. The creation of regional
administrative boundaries has greatly reduced access to communal resources (Angassa and Oba,
2008).
The rural people are very vulnerable to droughts, such as the events in 2000 and spring 2008 show.
During the drought of 2000 80% of livestock died and in 2008 a relief programme was executed
supplying water and fodder to the communities. (BZDPPD, 2003). In Ethiopia there is a correlation
between GDP growth and the amount of rain that falls in a year. Figure 4.1 shows a graph of IRI
illustrating this. Crop production is intermittent in a sense that it is rain fed one and consequently
the people abandon their farm if the problem of rainfall shortage occurs. As a result, the potential
of agriculture on a regular basis is limited and is confined to some pocket areas. Arid and semi-
arid nature of the Borana rangeland makes the people choice of economic system subject to
“environmental determinism.” Borana people have less experience in urban based economic
activities including commercial activities. This is probably due to the low rate of urbanization and
poor infrastructure development. Borana depends on various means of livelihood such as animal
product (mainly milk) and food grain though purchase, food relief or from farm if condition allow
them. But the
56
total reliance on milk is currently changed and the people began to seek for additional means of
livelihood subsistence as milk yield decreases with decrease in range land productivity.
The people of study area earn their income from different sources. In the past they depended on
the sale of livestock and livestock products like milk and butter as a main means of income
earning. But recently, there are various additional sources from which people earn income. These
are:
❖ Some of them get money from the sale of forest products such as charcoal, firewood, gum
and others. This is the main source of income for those who are relatively lower in
economic status or lead a destitute life.
Artesian mining of precious, semi-precious color stone and industrial minerals like copper and
Mica in Web particularly in Dogogo, Delcha Meta Kora, Gota, Nana, Funkuftu, and Kar lon
Okola area of Wachile Woreda is also another source of income. Starting long time ago, People
engage artesian mining of this precious and semi-precious color stone mining like Emerald and
Green Garnet. However, according to WGM, 2017 annual report, starting from 2015 Web
Gemstone Mining PLC a group of Gemfields, start large scale commercial exploration of Emerald.
Web Gemstone Mining Plc Ethiopia is a branch of Gemfields, Ethiopian project. Gemfields is
world's leading coloured gemstone producers with major assets in Mozambique and Zambia.
Headquarter is in London, UK. Gemfields also own the well-known luxury brand, Faberge.
Therefore, Web Gemstone Mining is a subsidiary of Gemfields working in Ethiopia.
Gemfields Mining acquired 75% of Web Gemstone Mining PLC in February 2015. The company
holds an emerald exploration licence with a total concession area of 200km2 that covers 27km
strike length of potential emerald mineralisation, contained within a geological lineament that
stretches for over 45 kilometres. As it was mentioned above, Borana are less commercially
oriented and as a result, the cash income per household is relatively low. The establishment of such
(WGM) large-scale commercial Mining increase household income and change socio economic
mindset of the pastoralist. Even if they have several animals, they never sell them except in a
critical condition. It is therefore, easy to understand that lower cash income does not mean that a
given household is poor. It is not cash income that serves as an indicator of people’s economic
status but instead the number of animals a given person possesses is the measure of his or her
wealth

57
 CHAPTER FOUR

4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.1 Study Design
This study was conducted through survey study design. As this design gives an opportunity for
researchers to depict the existing situation in its natural settings, it is relatively simple, cheap and
easy to undertake and analyze studies. While this research is conducted, the researcher is an
employee of Web Gemstone Mining. This enables the researcher to attain the overall picture of
the study that stands at the time of field study.
4.2 Research Approach
Livelihood and food security are multi- dimensional in their nature. Therefore, both qualitative
and quantitative approaches were employed to capture the in- depth and wider data and information
for a thorough analysis and understanding of the pastoralist livelihood diversification and its role
to household food security. For that reason, in this study, combinations of quantitative and
qualitative research methods were employed to collect the required data at the individual and
household levels. Qualitative approach has involved participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) methods
and tools such as FGDs, KII, and direct observation while the quantitative method included
household survey.
4.3 Sampling Technique
One rationale of collection of data in surveys is aimed in making some generalization and
estimation of certain parameters of the study. To make sound generalization about the finding of
the study, selection of representative sample size and following robust procedure were given due
attention. The sampling technique of this study involved a multi- stage stratified data selection
method. Both probability and non- probability sampling methods were employed in the sampling
and selection process. Simple random sampling was used as a typical method of probability
sampling technique while purposive sampling method was used as a key non- probability sampling
tool in selecting units/ elements in the study area.
The first stage was the selection of the study woreda. The second stage involves identification of
Pastoralist and agropastoral village from the district. The third stage is purposive selection of
household. The fourth stage is stratification of Pastoralist and agropastoral household head. On
fifth stage more, attention was given in determination of sample size for each stratum. Lastly,

58
random selection of sample households head was selected using systematic random sampling
method. The multi- stage sampling and selection process explained as follow.
4.3.1 Selection of the Woreda
Initially the study woreda was selected purposively for different reasons. The main reasons for the
purposive selection of Wachile Woreda was, as the study area were: the researcher was very much
familiar to and as he was employee of Web Gemstone mining, which stationed at web village, this
enables him, to get detail information at reasonable cost and lack of research work specific to the
study area in relation to pastoral livelihood strategies sustaining household food security.
4.3.2 Stratification of the study area
The study area was stratified in to Pastoralist and agropastoral, these areas were selected
purposively for two main reasons. First, most of the people settle in Pastoralist and agropastoral
areas where the main livelihood activities were predominantly as livelihood strategies vary
differently in Pastoralist and agropastoral. Second, both selected Pastoralist and agropastoral study
villages were easily accessible to get the required data and information, by the researcher.
4.3.3 Selection of Kebelles
Among 13 rural kebele peasant Administrative units found in Wachilee wereda, three sample
kebele peasant Administrative namely, Web and Kekelo kebelles from agropastoral area, and Reji
from pastoral area were selected based on the available information and its accessibility.

4.3.4 Selection of Villages/ Gots

Within selected kebelles , Olas/ Rera ( small group of households or tukuls live together ) were
selected randomly through simple random sampling method. Olas were selected proportional to
the total number of Olas in the selected kebelles. The number of Olas in each selected kebelle is
the same. As a result, accessible olas were selected from three kebelles through simple random
selection method using the lottery technique. Table 3.1 shows that A'nna , Korme , Gada Erjersa
,N'anna ,Biqiltu Gota ,Soma Gurati Arbora Gota ,Teso Kalo Dida ,
Web Village / Kebele, Teso Kalo Goda Kako ,Garse , Kayo Olas were selected for the household
survey of this study.
4.3.5 Selection of Sample Households
The selection process of sample households has followed different steps. It was conducted thought
the is following procedures:
Step 1: Establish Sampling Frame
59
Before conducting the selection of sample households in selected Olas, sampling frame was
established by taking the complete list of household heads from record available from the kebelle
administration office. Therefore, from sample frame agropastoral and pastoral households were
purposively selected. The actual and complete list of sampling units was further checked by kebelle
leaders and key informants who know the household heads.
Step2. Sample Size Determination
After the total number of households found in the selected Olas is known, the total sample size
was determined based on the established sampling frame of the three selected Kebele. In this study,
42% of the total households (329) living in the selected three kebele were taken as the sample size
of study. As a result, the total sample size was 140 households. The sample size of each selected
Kebeles was made in proportional to the total size of households found in that Kebele. As can be
seen from table 3.1 the total sample size was again distributed into the sample Olas proportional
to the total size of households. Therefore, to select the sample size for each households the
following formula is utilized.
nh=(Nh/N) *n
where nh is the sample size for each stratum h
Nh is the population size for stratum h
N is the total population size and n is total sample size
Step3. Selection of Sample Households
Following the establishing of sampling frame and determination of total sample size of the study,
the next important step was selection of sample respondents for household survey. As indicated in
table 3.1, a total of 140 sample households were selected through simple random sampling method
using the systematic probability sampling technique. Households were the unit of analysis for this
study. In general, as shown in table 3.1, 140 sample respondents were selected randomly through
simple random sampling method from three kebelles and 13 Olas in Wachile wereda

60
Table 4.1 Distribution of sample households by kebeles and villages
Kebele Stratification Pop. Size per Sample
Selected as Characteristics of population Strata size per
Sample of Kebele per Livelihood strata
1 Web agropastoral PHHHs 38 16
area AGPHHHs 75 32
2 Kekelo agropastoral PHHHs 45 19
area AGPHHHs 54 23
3 Reji pastoral area PHHHs 35 15
AGPHHHs 82 35
Total 329 140
PHHHs= Pastoral house hold heads
AGPHHHs =Agropastoral house hold heads1
Source: Computed from each Pastoral kebele administrative office (May 2019)
4.4 Method of Data Collection
4.4.1Types of Data
Quantitative and qualitative data were collected from different sources through various methods.
Likewise, primary as well as secondary types of data were gathered for the analysis of the study.
The importance of collecting and considering of primary and secondary as well as qualitative and
quantitative data, was to triangulate, harmonize and supplement the diverse data generated from
different sources which in turn is used to make the data and the result of the research reliable.
4.4.2 Data Sources
Research data can be collected from various sources depending on the objective of the study and
type of data to be analyzed. As this study has involved primary and secondary as well as qualitative
and quantitative data, both primary and secondary sources of data were employed to generate the
required type of information. Primary sources have provided first had information and secondary
sources have provided the second-hand data.
Sample households, key informants and focus group discussion were the main sources of primary
data while the published and unpublished documents such as office records, reports, journals, and
books were the key secondary sources for this study.
4.4.2.1 Primary Data Collection
Primary data are first hand data collected from primary sources. In this study, primary data were
collected from field like ground point (using Garmin GPS reading), sample households, focuses

61
groups and key informants. The primary data can be either quantitative or qualitative. The major
types of primary data collected were;
• Household demographic characteristics: the main demographic profile such as age,
household size, household headship, and educational background of sample households.
• Livelihood Assets: the types, access to and ownership of the major livelihood resources
such as natural, physical, human, financial and social capitals upon which households
depend on for their living in the study area. The cultivated land, ownership of oxen, size of
other livestock/animals, labor sources, and access to social institution
• Livelihood strategies: it includes the diverse livelihood strategies and activities which are
used to earn income. The multiple sources of income include: farm, off farm, non- farm
and migration income sources.
• Income: the total annual income of sample households generated from diverse income
sources.
• Household expenditure: Annual expenditure of household for education, health and land
tax, stimulant food like coffee, oil, and clothing.
• Food Security Constraints: The major constraints of household food security such as
drought, lack of cultivated land, land degradation; wild animals like monkey, baboons, wild
boar and porcupine
The specific sources of primary data for this study were sample household head, elders, kebelle
leaders, development agents, experts, administrators, officers and heads found at the kebelle and
woreda levels. The researcher and enumerators have collected the primary data at the time of field
survey. Household survey, FGDs, KII, and direct observation were the most important methods
used to collect the primary data.
4.4.2.2 Household Survey
Household survey is a typical method to collect primary data from the sample households. It was
administered to a total of 140 respondents. A structured questionnaire that has involved close and
open- ended questions were constructed and employed to generate data from the respondents.
Initially, the questionnaire was prepared in English, but it was translated into Afan oromo, it is
local language of the area which is simple, clear and understandable to respondents and
enumerators. Household survey was conducted through face to face interview between the

62
respondent and the enumerators. Both PHH and AGPHH were considered as the appropriate
respondent for the questionnaire designed for the household survey.
Household survey was facilitated by well- trained enumerators under the close supervision of the
researcher. Before the actual household data collection, half day training was organized to
enumerators on how to manage the whole household survey task, interview and fill the
questionnaire. Enumerators were selected from selected kebels agricultural development agents.
Pre- test was conducted prior to the household survey. This has helped the researcher to see
whether there were any difficulties in relation to the questionnaires and to modify based on the
feedback obtained.
3.4.2.3 Focus Group Discussion
FGD is one of the most important PRA tools used to collect qualitative data. In this study, primary
data were collected from two types of focus groups. FGD was put in to practice at the Ola level.
In two kebelles, FGD was undertaken from two groups. The two groups were PHH and AGPHH.
The group members were the PHH and AGPHH who have lived for longer time in the kebelle.
This composition has helped to take in to account the idea of the key community groups. Group
members were selected purposively. The criteria to select these members were their better
understanding and experience about the rural livelihood condition of community in their respective
locality. With respect to the size of the group members, about 6-10 members were participated in
a group. (See appendix ----) A checklist was prepared to guide the open- ended discussion with
the identified FGD members. The data collected from the focus groups were qualitative and
general which reflects the general perception and experience of Pastoral and agropastoral
livelihood strategies, assets, income sources, and major challenges of food and livelihood security.
The researcher has facilitated the FGD in each Pastoral and agropastoral kebele. It was the
consensus made by the group taken and recorded as FGD data and information.
3.4.2.4 Key Informant Interview
Key informant interview is one of the PRA methods to collect primary data. It was used to collect
in- depth information about the livelihood and food security situation of the Pastoral and
agropastoral in the study area. The information gathered through KII was used to triangulate and
supplement the data collected from household survey through structured questionnaire and other
sources too. Individuals with better knowledge and experience about Pastoral and agropastoral

63
livelihood strategies and food security status of the study sites were selected and contacted to
obtain the relevant data. Therefore, informants were selected purposively.
In this study, the key informants were kebele leader, elder women and men, development agents,
and representatives of kebele women association. Totally, there were 8 key informants, of which
1 was at the woreda office level and 7 were from the kebelle and village level. These key
informants were the main sources of information. Major livelihood assets, strategies, activities and
the food security condition were the major types of data and information collected from the key
informants. The researcher facilitated the key informant interview activity. Open- ended discussion
was undertaken to gather the required information from the informants. Checklists were developed
and used to guide the interview.
3.4.2.5 Direct Observation
Direct observation is one of the important PRA methods of primary data collection. In this study,
it was carried out through systematic watching, listening and recoding of the livelihood resources
such as farm system, selling activity from nearby ‘web’ village market, livestock situation at field,
, natural resources situation and different Ela found at the study area.
The researcher has performed the task of direct observation using motor bicycle raiding. This
method of primary data collection was used to complement and triangulate the data collected
through other methods.
3.4.2.6 Secondary Data Collection
The main sources of secondary data and information for this study were published and unpublished
documents such as plans, proposals, Office annual reports, publications and records obtained from
various government offices at zonal level, woreda and national level. The secondary data can be
either qualitative or quantitative. The main types of secondary data collected under this category
were relative location, area size, population, metrological data, economic activities, natural
resources, infrastructures, major livelihood assets, strategies/ activities, measurement of food
security, food security situation and its constraints. The secondary data were used to complement
or supplement the primary data gathered through different techniques.
4.5 Method of Data Analysis
Quantitative data generated from the household survey through structured questionnaire were
analyzed using the statistical package for social science (SPSS) version 15.0 software Programme.
Statistical test such as mean, frequencies and percentages, standard deviation, coefficient of

64
variation and correlation were used in reporting and explaining the results. Multivariate regression
techniques were also utilized. This section tries to examine the cumulative effect of independent
variables (household income, household size, ox ownership, crop diversity and land size) on
Dependent variables (household food security) at micro level (household level) in the study area.
The results of the processed data were presented in table and figures. Qualitative data obtained
through interview and focus, and group discussions were analyzed by describing or narrating and
interpreting the situation in detail.
4.6 Method to Measure the Contribution of Livelihood Strategies to Household Food Security
4.6 .1 Establishing the Food Security Benchmark/ Cut Off Point
Evaluate the input of the diversify livelihood strategies to the household food security was
meaningful to establish the food security benchmark. Likewise, the food security status of sample
household was evaluated based on the cutoff point. Setting of the cut- off point involved several
steps and long process. Defining and quantifying/ estimating the minimum amount of money/
income per AE needed to purchase the food amount equivalent to 225 kg of cereal; computing of
the minimum amount of money required to purchase other food items and minimum amount/
income of money to meet the expenses required for clothes, medical service, education and tax for
land use were the main steps considered in the establishing process of the food security line. In
establishing the cutoff point the consumption/ food and non- consumption requirements were
considered. The minimum level of income required per AE was computed based on the amount of
food required by an adult person (a calorie requirement of 21000 kcal per day or 225 kg of cereal
per AE per year and minimum expenses needed for clothes, health care, education.
The dietary consumption need included the minimum amount of food required for subsistence
living. The food amount of 225kg of cereal per AE per year considered as the minimum amount
of food required to meet the subsistence level of living. Besides, the other food items were taken
into account in estimating the food/ consumption items. As the contribution of the livelihood
diversification is measured in terms of the annual income per AE the food amount of 225 kg of
cereal per AE was converted into cash/income using the average prices of cereal in the local market
(Web Kebele) collected in 2018 production year. The average price of cereal in the local market
was Birr 5.17kg of cereal. The corresponding value of 225kg of cereal at the average price of Birr
5.17kg of cereal was Birr 1163.25 (Birr 5.17x225kg).

65
As far as estimation of non- food items was concerned, the minimum amount of money required
to cover the minimum cost of clothes, health service, education and tax for land use was included.
Estimation of the minimum amount of money/ expenses required to purchase other food items, the
clothes, medical service, education service and tax for land use was collected through household
survey data.
For this study, the total minimum amount of money/ income required purchasing other food item
or non- food/ consumption was estimated to be Birr 272 per AE. Summing up, the value required
for stable food ( 225kg per AE per year), minimum amount of money required for clothes, medical
care, education and land use tax gives the total annual income per AE per year. This value was
considered as the adequacy norm/ food security benchmark used to evaluate the contribution of
the different variables to household food security by comparing with the total annual income of
the household per AE. Table 3.2 shows that the total minimum amount of money/ income required
per AE per annum to meet the subsistence requirement was Birr 1435.25 AE per year ( Birr
1163.25+272). Therefore, the food security benchmark/ cut off point for this study was Birr
1435.25 per AE per year.
4.6 .2 Estimation of the Total Annual Household Income
To compare and evaluate the contribution of the rural livelihood diversification to household food
security it was important to estimate the total income of a household per AE per year. In this study,
the total annual income of a household is the aggregate annual income of a household generated
from the different income sources by the household members in 2019. It was estimated by taking
the gross annual household income earned from crop production, sale of animals, income from off
farm activities, and income from non-farm source and income from migration. It was assumed that
the entire crop output would be consumed as the rural people use most of their crop production for
consumption. In view of this, the crop output was converted into cash income based on the prices
of cereals in the local market in 2019. The income from sale of livestock, off- farm activities,
non-farm activities and migration was taken directly as reported by respondents. The income
obtained from these different sources was summed up and then it was divided by the AE of each
household member. The result was household annual income per AE. This was compared to the
food security benchmark/ cut- off point to evaluate whether he household is food secure or not. If,
the annual income per AE per year of a household is beyond the set threshold level / food security
benchmark it is considered as food secure and otherwise.
66
 4.6 .3 Categorization of Households
Once the cut- off point was established the next step was classification of sample households into
food secure or food insecure households. As shown in table 3.3 sample households were classified
as food secure and food insecure based on the set threshold level. As a result, households whose
annual income per AE is beyond Birr 1435.25 were considered as food secure while those whose
annual income per AE is below Birr 1435.25 were classified as food insecure. Once the cut- off
point is made, characterization and discussion of variables in relation to their contribution to
household food security was made at the household level.
Table 4.2 Estimation of the Minimum Income Required Per AE per
Year of the study
Items Income per AE Source of Information
(Birr)
staple food (cereals 1163.25 computed based on minimum subsistence income
requirement to meet the minimum calorie
requirement (2100 Kcal)
coffee, oil, pulses, 42 2019, household survey data
stimulants, etc
clothing 98 2019, household survey data
Education 64 2019, household survey data
Health care 55 2019, household survey data
Taxes (land Use) 13 2019, household survey data
Total 1435.25
Source: computed based on minimum subsistence requirement (225Kg) requirement and
Household Survey, 2019

67
 CHAPTER FIVE
5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Descriptions of Livelihood Assets
In the pursuit of their livelihoods, the options that people have depend upon their ownership and
access to resources. Livelihood resources are the building blocks of activities, strategies, diverse
income sources and living in general (Ellis and Freeman, 2004).
To achieve their food security and livelihood condition pastoral households have access and
ownership to different livelihood resources. This section briefly describes access to and ownership
of the major livelihood assets up on which the pastoral and agropastoral community rely for their
living in the study area.
5.1 Livelihood Assets
Human Resource
Available human resources in a household in terms of quantity and quality are among the
determinant factors in shaping livelihood situations. Elements that come under human capital
components are like skill, knowledge, active labor, health and like highly influence the ability of
households to acquire more income through designing various livelihood strategies and
concomitantly to with stand shocks. In view of this the following features are identified in the
surveyed households.
5.1.2 Demographic and Household Characteristics
Age of the Household Head

Table 5:1 indicate that about 53% of sample of AGPHHH were found in 31 to 40 age categories
under food secure households. Likewise, many of PHHHs which account for 67% were found
under the same age categories and were food secure households.
Table5.1 Age Structure of Sample household head
Food Secure Food Insecure Total
AGPHHH PHHHS AGPHHH PHHHS AGPHHH PHHHS
(n=19) (n=30) (n=51) (n=40) (n=70 (n=70)

Age of Household No % No % no % no % No % no %
Head
< or =20 1 2 1 1
21-30 3 16 4 13 3 6 6 15 6 9 10 14
31-40 10 53 20 67 21 41 6 15 31 44 26 37
41-50 4 21 2 7 4 10 4 6 6 9
68
>51 2 10 4 13 26 51 24 60 28 40 28 40
Total 19 100 30 100 51 100 40 100 70 100 70 100
Source: Household Survey, 2019
About 41% and 15% of food insecure AGPHHH and PHHHS respectively were found in the age
categories of 31-40 years. Comparing the situation in the two households heads the percentage of
food in secured situation increase with age for both groups. However, PHHHS have relatively a
better off labor energy who can capable of producing household food demand. Accordingly,
during FGD, respondent replied that lack of good market; feed and medical access influences their
cattle population productivity. Elder also reported that due to their weak physical performance and
capital- and labor-intensive nature of different livelihood options the likelihood of their
participation in it is lower as compared to the young generation. It is also believed that aged farmers
are expected to have good experience about livestock production problems and their mitigating
practices by using their indigenous knowledge techniques. So, their participation level on nonfarm
and off farm activity is less visible. Thus, the interview indicated that age of farmers can affect
farmers’ decisions choice of different livelihood practices significantly (Own interview, 2019).
140%

120%

100%
73%
80%

60% 27%
40%
57%
20% 43%

0%
Food Secured Food in secured

PHHH AGPHHH

Figure5.1 Food security status of AGPHHH and PHHHS

Source: Household survey
Similarly, among 70 sampled AGPHHH only 19 (27%) household were become food secure and
51(73%) households were become food insecure. However, with the same sample size sampled
PHHHS 30(43%) were food secured and 40(57%) were food insecure. This shows that, pastoral
households have better in maintaining household food security. This is adult’s pastoral household
perform better to support their family. In such circumstance, Agropastoral household does little to
69
handle all the indoor and outdoor activities as a result greater percentage of sampled household
fall under food in security.
5.1.3 Household Size
The relationship between household size and household food security is very significant. It is
shown on table 5.2 that the risks of food in security increase with household size.
Table5.2 household Size sampled household
Food Secure Food insecure Total
AGPHHH PHHHS AGPHHH PHHHS AGPHHH PHHHS
(n=19 (n=30 (n=51 (n=40 (n=70 (n=70
Household Size no % no % no % no % no % no %
1-3 10 52 11 22 2 5 21 30 2 3
4-6 6 32 16 53 17 33 4 10 23 33 20 29
7-9 3 16 12 40 23 45 14 35 26 37 26 37
>10 2 7 20 50 22 31
Total 19 100 30 100 51 100 100 70 100 70 100
Source: Household Survey, 2019
As indicated in the above table the largest portion of sample food secure AGPHHH 52% had
household size ranged from 1-3. Household with 4-6 members account for 32%.This households
the same groups seems less likely to become food secured compared to the former household size.
Similarly, households with 7-9 members that accounted for 16% were less likely to become food
secured than the other. On the contrary, the degree of households of AGPHHH those were food
insecure were lower accounting 22% with 1-3 members of household. However, the percentage or
magnitude of household’s food insecurity increased from 33% to 45% with household size of 4-6
and 7-6 respectively.
Similar pattern was reflected in the case of PHHHS. About 53% of the households of food secured
had 4-6 household size. In the same categories household food security become less likely
maintained with increasing household members i.e. 40% to household members ranged from 7-9.
What is more, food security status of household becomes at greatest risk 7% to household members
greater than 10 people in the household. Likewise, the probability of PHHHS being food insecure
is less likely to happen (5%) to 1-3 household size. However, vulnerability of household food
security increases by 50% to household members greater than 10 members for PHHHS. Generally,
at household level food insecurity is aggravated by large family sizes in the study communities.

70
The above pattern demonstrates, the effect of high fertility on food security was an explicitly of a
vicious circle, which the parents consider their children as means of social security during old age.
The issue here indicates that the opportunity costs needed in bringing up their off springs is not
vibrantly analyzed. Furthermore, household and mothering responsibilities also prevent rural
women from participating in income generating schemes. The interrelated problems of large
family size of food insecure household were a cause for dependency syndrome and often lead to
feeding many mouths.
5.1.4 Dependency Ratio
As far as dependency ratio was concerned, individual age which range from 15-64 years is
considered as the productive age group. On the contrary, households under the young age and old
age groups were considered as non- working age group. In the food secure AGPHHH the majority
of household 48(57%) were found in the age category of 15-64 years, followed by the young age
group 35% and old age group 8%. Likewise, food insecure AGPHHH about 56%, 37% and 7%
were shared by working age, young age and old age where as PHHHS 58%, 38% and 4% for
working age, young age and old age groups.
Table5.3 Dependency ratio of sampled household
Food Secure Food Insecure Total
AGPHHH PHHHS AGPHHH PHHHS AGPHHH PHHHS
(n=19) (n=30) (n=51) (n=40) (n=70) (n=70)
Household age no % no % no % no % no % no %
structure
<14 29 35 100 36 85 37 88 38 114 36 188 37
15-64 48 57 170 61 130 56 136 58 178 56 306 60
>65 7 8 8 3 17 7 10 4 24 8 18 3
Total 84 100 278 100 232 100 234 100 316 100 512 100
Dependency
ratio
Dependency 75 64 78 72 76 67
Ratio of
Household (%)
Young 61 59 65 65 64 62
Dependency
Ratio (%)
Old Age 14 5 13 7 13 6
Dependency
Ratio (%)
Source: Household Survey, 2019
71
The above table demonstrates as there was difference between food secure and food insecure
household’s in terms of household structure. In terms of dependence ratio, food secure AGPHHH
and PHHHS accounted for 75% and 64% respectively. This means 75 and 64 economically
dependent people for every 100 working or productive people for their food clothing and shelter.
Correspondingly 78% and 72% was the dependency ratio of food insecure AGPHHH and PHHHS
respectively. Similarly, the young dependency ratio of food secure AGPHHH and PHHHS was
61% and 59% respectively. In the same fashion, the young dependency ratio of food insecure
AGPHHH and PHHHS was 65% and 65% respectively. Generally, the proportions of young and
old dependency ratios of food secure households were relatively lower than that of food insecure
households. This reveals that lower dependency ratio has positive impact on the household food
security status of households.
5.1.5 Educational Status
As clearly illustrated in table5.4 about 68% sample AGPHHH who have no formal education
background attained food security while at the same time about 78% of the same household group
found food insecure. Accordingly, sample PHHHS 40% of them with no education and attendant
of Quran education maintain household food security and 50% with no education them were food
insecure.
The trend of food security is decreasing comparing to household educated up to 8 grade level.
Most households in the surveyed area were unable to read and write. This may be the spread of
primary education in the past twenty or thirty-five years was not as such satisfactory to involve the
surveyed household heads.
Table5.4 Educational Status of Sampled household
Food Secure Food Insecure Total
AGPHHH PHHHS AGPHHH PHHHS AGPHHH PHHHS
(n=19) (n=30) (n=51) (n=40) (n=70) (n=70)
Educational level no % no % no % no % No % no %
No education 13 68 12 40 40 78 20 50 53 76 32 45
Church education 12 40 2 4 6 15 2 3 18 26
Adult education 2 11 6 20 5 10 12 30 7 10 18 26
Grade1-8 4 21 4 8 2 5 8 11 2 3
Total 19 100 36 100 51 100 40 100 70 100 70 100
Source: Household Survey, 2019

72
In principles, household who are literate should be in better position to ensure household food
security. This is because educated household are willing to accept and adopt various technologies
and improved working system to increase productivities. However, most Ethiopian farmers did
not have exposure to formal education other than read and write. On the other hand, through life
experience they are good enough in their agricultural practices. Nonetheless, financial problems
restricted them from using different agricultural inputs and improved land use technologies.
5.1.6 Religion
Religious institution and beliefs influence livelihoods in a variety of ways, including work patterns
through the number of religious holidays. These days were along with every Saturday and Sunday
and other religious festivals. When strictly compiled with household members, this amount of non-
working days can have a significant impact on productivity, especially during intensive stage of
agricultural production cycle.
Table 5.5 Religion of Sampled household
Food Secure Food Insecure Total
AGPHHH PHHHS AGPHHH PHHHS AGPHHH PHHHS
(n=19) (n=30) (n=51) (n=40) (n=70) (n=70)
Religion no % no % no % no % no % no %
Muslim 15 79 22 73 40 78 26 65 55 79 48 68
Waqefata 4 21 8 27 9 18 10 25 13 18 18 26
protestant 2 4 4 10 2 3 4 6
Total 19 100 30 100 51 100 40 100 70 100 70 100
Source: Household Survey, 2019
Accordingly, it is evident from table 5.5 that the largest portion of sample AGPHHH who follow
Muslim constitute 79% and Waqefata cover the remaining 21%. In the same way, food insecure
group which account for 78% of AGPHHH were Muslim and followed by Waqefata of 18%.
Protestant cover only about 4%.
Among PHHHS 73% and 65% were Muslim in food secure and insecure households respectively.
Waqefata covered about 27% and 25% of food secure and insecure categories respectively.
Whereas, protestant covers only about 10% in food in secured categories. Therefore, based on
survey data and numbers of Mosques found in the study woreda the researcher estimate majority
of Wachile dwellers are followers of Muslim followed by Waqefata, at last protestant constitute
the remaining portion. However, it is difficult to generalized the follower of Muslims are more or
less food secured or insecure than other religion adherent .
73
5.1.7 Natural Resource/ Assets
In most part of rural areas natural resource, like land, was given due attention considering the
provision of consumption goods. Land is one of the most important natural resource for the
livelihood of rural farmers in the highland Ethiopia, in contrary to this livestock is for pastoral
community rather than land. Moreover, numbers of livestock are the bases of the pastoral
livelihood as well as the key factor to secure household food security. Most of the time economic
activities and earning of the pastoral and agropastoral community depend on land. Access to and
ownership of livestock determines the food and livelihood security of households in the study area.
Table 5.6 Land size of sampled household

Village Total
Head of web kekelo /Reji anaa
household N
N0 % No % No % No % %
o
AGPHHH Land no land 0 0 1 4 2 13 3 4
size <1 0 0 1 4 0 1 2
1-3 7 58 8 42 15 66 14 87 44 63
4-6
5 42 11 58 6 26 0 22 31
Total 12 100 19 100 23 100 16 100 70 100
PHHHS Land no land 0 0 2 17 6 30 8 11
size < 1 0 0 0 2 10 2 3
1-3 8 40 0 6 50 12 60 26 37
4-6
12 60 18 100 4 33 0 34 49
Total 20 100 18 12 100 20 100 70 100
Source: Household Survey, 2019
58% of AGPHHH who are living in Web Village do have 1-3ha. of farm land. Farm land size
becomes a bit larger to Kekelo that is 58% of AGPHHH have farm land ranging from 4-6 ha.
Again, the household survey data revealed that, the size of farm land decrease to Reji that is 66%
of them have 1-3ha per household.87% of AGPHHH who were living in Anaa have a farm land
ranging from1-3ha.
The pastoral households who own large size of livestock require larger area of pasture. On the
other hand, the agropastoral households require plots of land for crop production. The later started
crop production on wet lands where such plots are conducive both for livestock and crop
production. There is negative relationship between the two classes on land use system in the rural

74
pastoral area. It was also found out that people residing near towns are putting larger areas under
cultivation and these people were often not pastoralists.
Cropland is expanding in the studied pastoral communities like web village. It was recognized that
the community members perceive cropland as a resource under the disposal of the head of the
pastoral household, often men. Expansion of cropland by intruding into pasture areas has been
considered as threat to livestock production. Apparently, it is the productive land, which is put
under cultivation reducing pasture production. Yet, due to the opportunities crop production
provides to the households in terms of employment, income generation, food supply, etc., several
pastoralists have started tilling land. the controversial view on expansion of cropland is a matter
of equity. The rich who have large herd size wishes to have larger rangeland size to feed the
livestock. On the other hand, the poor who in most cases lost their animals due to drought would
like to increase their income portfolio by expanding cropland. Some other members provide
economic and ecological reasons of refuting the expansion of crop farming in the pastoral areas.
They argue that crop production is a risky undertaking in the pastoral area due to recurrent rainfall.
Compared to livestock production, crop production is more vulnerable to environmental risk.
According to the Focus group Discussion participants, the probability of good crop harvest is two
to three times in eight years whereas livestock may suffer from drought once in eight years. With
proper management of the animals, a cow can produce 4-5 calves during this period.
Cultivation of cropland is a means used to put land under private holding as far as the individual
tiller belongs to the same community. When he leaves the community, it becomes communal
property. Another critical issue in this regard is an attempt to expand boundaries by fencing the
plot beyond the cropland to hold pasture reserves privately. Some communities have already
started acting to limit such an expansion and protect common interest of the communities.
It was indicated that cropland ownership could be certified to the household tilling the plot.
Moreover, there was a consensus to follow appropriate land use planning for each community so
that crop farming can be delineated from pastureland. This approach would reduce the
contradiction between crop and livestock production and minimize the danger of ecological hazard
since the pastoral areas are already environmentally
5.2 Physical Resource Livestock
Physical capital enables people to achieve their livelihood. In this study Livestock’s were
categorized as one of the main physical assets used to pursue livelihood. It can be liquidated into
75
 cash at any required time. Therefore, livestock can for example be a way of keeping money in the
household.
Table 5.7 indicates, the main type of livestock reared in the sampled village. It includes cow, heifer,
bull, sheep, goat, mule, horse, donkey, poultry and beehives. FGD revealed that livestock were sold
in time of emergency financial need of household. As a result, livestock are considered as a shock
absorber of financial deficit. In accordance with explanation, the size of different livestock varies from
household to household and from place to place. As a result, the types as well as the size of animals
owned by household have temporal and spatial characteristics. Livestock are essential livelihood
resource and they have many contributions to the household food security. The main contribution of
livestock to household food security were explained as their role as a source of food, income and
transportation goods. They were also used as hedging or insurance in time of food shortage. Thus,
livestock are important contributor to household food security of pastoral and agropastoral households
in Wachile woreda.
Table5. 7 Livestock ownership
Food Secure Food Insecure Total
AGPHHH PHHHS AGPHHH PHHHS AGPHHH PHHHS
(n=19) (n=30) (n=51) (n=40) (n=70) (n=70)
Type of no % no no % No no % no %
Livestock % %
Cow 22 23 28 20 9 14 19 20 31 19 47 20
Heifer 11 11 15 11 6 9 10 11 17 11 25 11
Bull 15 11 5 5 20 9
Sheep 15 16 12 9 11 17 14 15 26 16 26 11
Goat 9 9 10 7 7 11 13 14 16 10 23 10
Mule/Donkey 12 9 10 11 22 10
Horse 3 2 1 1 4 2
Donkey/Camel 10 10 12 9 8 13 9 9 18 11 21 9
Poultry 23 24 12 9 20 31 9 9 43 26 21 9
Beehives 7 7 18 13 2 3 5 5 9 7 23 10
Total 97 100 137 100 63 100 95 100 160 100 232 100
Source: Household Survey, 2019
The above table reveals that in AGPHHH poultry and cow did more commonly owned livestock, with
24% and 31% and 23% and 14% own at least one in food secure and insecure households respectively.
Goat rearing and bee keeping was not widely practiced by AGPHHH and the cover the lowest
percentage for each group. Cow, Heifer and bee keeping become the main type of livestock owned by

76
PHHHS, the highest percentage in food secure and insecure households. Horse and mule rearing is the
least reported type of livestock. None of the AGPHHH reported as they were participated in the
activities.
Herd mobility is the main strategy used by pastoralists to manage risk and use the range resources
communally and efficiently. Mobility takes two forms in the pastoral system. The first one is mobility
of the satellite herds called Godaansa Fooraa and the other type is called Godaansa Warraguda. The
movement of camel away from the semi-permanent residential is done by young boys. In fact, camel
herd are more mobile than the cattle or shots.
5.2.2 Regular Mobility (Godaansa Fooraa)
Regular mobility is the most common type of mobility in which certain family members move
with their livestock from their permanent place to other neighboring communities or Woreda to
search for pasture and water. In areas where traditional wells are available, shortage of pasture is
more critical reason for the regular mobility. During the regular mobility, the Ollas send a team
called aburu, often men, to identify locations suitable for mobility in terms of availability of
pasture and water, the carrying capacity of the rangeland- including estimated duration of stay if
the livestock is moved to the place, absence of livestock diseases in the area, the willingness of the
hosting community, etc.
Based on the feedback of the aburu, decisions are taken on the direction of mobility, what types
of animals and who will move with the animals. The division of the animals will be based on the
indigenous knowledge of the community. It considers the capacity of the animals to travel the
anticipated distance, the available resource at homestead, the animals more importantly needed at
the semi-permanent settlement either for their power or to provide milk for the people. Accordingly
milking animals will be distributed between the two places based on the number of people who
depend on them and how many milking animals are available. Most of the time forra movement
takes place during rainy season to lowland areas where there are no permanent sources of water.
After exploiting the pasture and floodwater in the new area, they either change the place to other
places or go back to permanent water sources. This shows that duration of stay at a given place
depends on the length of rainy season, particularly in areas like Borana where the place they
use as fallback areas are devoid of any permanent water sources. Opportunistic
grazing is the strategy they use. There is division of labor among the people who move with the
animals.
77
The young boys go for herding, while the adult men work on construction of kraals, watering the
animals and other labo intensive work related to herding. The elders, who usually commute
between semi-permanent homestead and forra will take care of the health of the animal, negotiate
with the host community to settle down herders and the animals. Women construct huts, cook food
and undertake all the household activities. Children, women and aged persons remain behind.
Among the agropastoral groups there is a new development that considers labor allocation for both
herding and farming.
Those people who do not have enough labor will depend on others. Someone who remains at home
will take care of the farming activities for both households, while the other person will take care
of the herding activities at forra. According to Borana elders, mobility of herd and the whole family
is compatible with a pure pastoral production system. However, some Borana started cultivation.
At the same time, they started enrolling their children in the few schools available. Furthermore,
there are few social services such as human and livestock clinics that are not mobile.
The solution for this was movement of part of the herds with few family members as discussed
above. The participants of group discussions disclosed that herd mobility is declining through time.
They have given different reasons for the decline in the distance satellite herds' move from the
semi-permanent settlement in search of pasture. These include land annexation, population growth
and settlement, ethnic conflict, cultivation, absence of water in the remote forra areas, and the
declining trend of Borana customary laws that forces the excess herds to move. With the above
constraints on the mobility, and absence of a viable alternative production system that can fit to
the ecology of pastoral system, the crises that might affect the system could be serious.
5.2.3 Drought Year Mobility (Godaansa Warraguda)
The second form of mobility is the movement of the family and whole herds that occurs when
there is acute drought or conflict. This type of mobility is called Godaansa Warraguda. This type
of mobility follows rainfall or movement to permanent water sources, the nine Tulla (tulla salgan)
in Borana area. According to people who participated in the SSI, Tulla areas are protected from
cultivation, and the pasture can accommodate many herds for quite sometimes without any
irreversible environmental change. The pastoralists were asked to give their views on the general
prospect of herd mobility. They unanimously agree that in any case herd mobility continues as
water and grazing cannot be found at a given place throughout a year. Mobility reduces
overgrazing and degradation. Other important reason is that animals require changes of places to
78
gain weight, conceive, and grow properly. Movement to lowland areas is important for this
purpose.
5.2.4 Effects of Mobility
The major purpose of mobility of the pastoral communities with their livestock is to save lives of
the livestock from death that could have occurred due to drought. In most of the cases, the pastoral
communities get success in achieving this objective. However, negative effects could also occur
because of mobility. These are:
➢ Mobility of the community and their livestock to the hosting community creates
➢ great pressure on resources such as grazing areas and water. Host communities are affected
negatively due to the competition over resources.
➢ Environmental degradation could occur when there is over population of livestock in one
place.
➢ Diseases such as Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) could be transmitted from the mobile
livestock to the host community livestock or vice versa.
➢ Mobility could also lead to abandoning of farmland. This happens when one stays away
for three to four months from the semi-permanent place, his farmland could be abandoned.
This could bring shortage of food for the family.
➢ Mobility has expenses in preparation of food in two places for mobile family member and
for those staying at home.
➢ High livestock death during mobility could occur.
➢ Ethnic conflict occurs usually between the Borana and Guji, and Somali (The Gerre are
Somali-affiliated groups who live in the Somali region of Ethiopia.), people over resources
that often claimed several lives.
➢ Nutritional imbalance as milking cows move away due to shortage of pasture.
This often negatively affects the children and women who remain in the semi-permanent area. As
discussed above mobility of livestock also have effect on the host communities. The survey result
in Borana also confirms that conflict over resources, competition for resources, and hence natural
resources degradation as well as disease transmission between animals are the major consequences
of mobility

79
 5.3 Financial Capital: Access to Credit
Access to credit sources is one of the typical features of financial capital of households used to pursue
diverse rural livelihood strategies. Access to credit enhance agricultural production at the household
level through the application of fertilizer, pesticides improved seed, improved varieties and imputes
in general. Credit is also useful to engage with non -farm activities such as trading of grain, trading of
animals, petty trading, and other activities. In short, credit is considered as the main sources of money
to achieve household food security.
In Wachile wereda people have had access to credit and saving to different types of formal and in
formal institution. Busa Gonofa, NGOs were the main formal sources of credit for rural people.
Moreover, relatives and traditional money lenders were informal sources of credit in the study area.
Table 5.8 Access to Credit
Food Secure Food Insecure Total
AGPHHH PHHHS AGPHHH PHHHS AGPHHH PHHHS
(n=19) (n=30) (n=51) (n=40) (n=70) (n=70)
Source of Credit no % no % no % no % no % no %
Cooperatives 9 47 17 57 7 14 6 15 16 23 23 33
NGO 3 16 4 13 6 11 7 18 9 13 11 16
Relatives 2 11 3 10 23 45 14 35 25 35 17 24
Local money lenders 1 5 1 3 10 20 9 22 11 16 10 14
Busa Gonofa 4 21 5 17 5 10 4 10 9 13 9 13
Total 19 100 30 100 51 100 40 100 70 100 70 100
Source: Household Survey, 2019
Table 5.8 illustrates that47% of AGPHHH and 57% PHHHS of the sample households obtained credit
from cooperatives for food secure households. Relatively many of food insecure AGPHHH and
PHHHS obtained their credit from relatives and local money lenders constitute 45% and 35%
respectively.
This clearly shows that there was difference between food secure and food insecure household in terms
of access to formal source of credit. The proportion of food secure AGPHHH that obtained credit from
the formal institutions were relatively higher than that of food insecure households. FGD participants
have also reported that cooperatives were the main source of credit for most pastoral people. This
vividly shows that food secure households had better access to credit than food insecure AGPHHH
and PHHHS in area. This implies that access to credit sources as a finical asset had contributed a lot
for food security of smallholder households in the study community.

80
 5.3.1 Social Capital: Social Institution like mutual support systems
Social capital refers to the participation of households in different traditional social institution.
Local institutions and support systems are untapped resources that could aid development efforts.
Pastoral societies have social security networks rooted in a system of gifts and loans, and these
institutions are more resilient in the face of ramified challenges (Fratkin, 1991; Helland, 1996;
Oba, 2001). The increasingly worsening condition of food security in pastoral areas is due partly
to the government’s lack of a clear understanding of local coping strategies (Getachew, 2001; Oba,
2001). Moreover, the government has no coherent policies on droughts, which frustrates
development efforts. Oba (2001) suggests that understanding local coping mechanisms is useful
for several reasons:
1. To preserve traditional coping strategies that are being lost
2. To understand why a system that worked in the past is suffering ecological and economic
pressures
3. To integrate traditional coping strategies into drought-management planning
4. To strengthen local food security based on local coping strategies, which are more sustainable
5. To forecast the impending crises in the face of weakening local coping strategies
One of the best-known Borana social security systems is the institution of the buusa gonofaa, which
operates among the Borana on the principle that members have collective claims to clan property. This
right, however, seems to be contingent on individuals’ viable pastoral economy. Individuals below a
certain level of poverty lose their entitlement to claim support from their clans. Under conditions of
perpetually declining household assets and increasing poverty, the capacity of buusa gonofaa to
accommodate the needs of poor pastoralists has been questioned. The fact that an increasing number
of poor households drop out of the institution and the pastoral system in general “casts doubt on the
capacity of the institution effectively to combat chronic, rather than merely transient, poverty” (Tache
and Sjaastad, 2008: 30). However, in programs and policies aimed at preventing household asset loss
and the poverty trap, the institution can continue to play a crucial role in building household assets.
5.4 Correlation Result
Correlation and Multiple regressions were used to analyze the association between five variables. The
techniques in this section permit the researcher to predict effect of two or more variables (independent
variables) on food security. This enables the researcher to see the relationship of each independent

81
variable and to ascertain the total effect independent variables in terms of importance of their direct
effect on dependent variables.
The variables considered to be measure impacts on household food security were household income,
household size, land size, crop diversity, and ownership of livestock. Since the researcher does not
predict the impact of independent variable on household food security 2- tailed Pearson correlation
was used.
Table 5.9 Correlation of independent variables

income of Household Land income livestock

Variables household size size diversity ownership
income of 1 -.012 .484(**) .408(**) .412(**)
household
.884 .000 .000 .000
Household size -.012 1 .137 .161 .328(**)
.884 .107 .057 .000
Land size .484(**) .137 1 .589(**) .374(**)
.000 .107 .000 .000
income .408(**) .161 .589(**) 1 .388(**)
diversity
.000 .057 .000 .000
Livestock .412(**) .328(**) .374(**) .388(**) 1
ownership
.000 .000 .000 .000
food insecurity -
-.827(**) -.043 -.389(**) -.325(**)
.436(**)
.000 .615 .000 .000 .000
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Source: Household Survey, 2019
There was a significant negative correlation between household income and household food insecurity,
(sig. = 000 and r =-.827) respectively. This implies that with increasing household income the
probability of household vulnerable to food insecurity will decrease. However, the correlation between
household income and landholding size, income diversity and livestock ownership were positive, and
it was statistically significant. Relatively the correlation of household income with landholding size
was relatively strong (r=.482). This was evident with increasing land size large volume of output will
be obtained. The product might be sold to cover other household expense/increase income or stored
for period of stress. On the other hand, the contribution of household income for increasing or

82
decreasing land size, income diversity and livestock ownership is significant than for increasing or
decreasing household size.
The relationship of household size with household income and food insecurity was negative (r= -.012
and r= -.043). This means with increasing household size, less likely the household become food
secure and decreasing household income. On top of this, the relationship of household size and
livestock ownership was statistically significant and positive relationship (r=.328). Value of
landholding size was significantly correlated with income of household (p< .001, r=.484), income
diversity (p<.001, r=.589), livestock ownership (p<.001, r=.374) and food security (p<001, r=-.436).
The overall correlation results show that the influence of land size on the abovementioned household
food security indicators have significant relationship. It means increasing or decreasing of land size
strongly influence income of household, income diversity, livestock ownership and food insecurity
status of the household. Comparing correlation strength, the relationship of land size and income
diversity is strong (r=.589) suggesting that extended land size enables to cultivate multiple system of
income. The correlation of land size and food insecurity is negatively correlated (r=-.436) implies that
decreasing land size increase household food insecurity status and vice versa.
livestock ownership was significantly and positively correlated with all four variables but negatively
correlated with household food insecurity. The relationship was strong with household income
(r=.412). This suggested that the amount of livestock found in the household determine the amount of
household income in one way or another. Likewise, livestock ownership was negatively correlated
with household food insecurity(r=-.325). This revel increasing numbers of livestock means less likely
the household become food insecure.
5.5 Vulnerability of Household to Food Insecurity
Table 5.10 Determination of risk
household N Mean Std. Coefficient
Variables Deviation of variation
Household AGPHHH 70 1.84 .73 40%
size PHHHS 70 2.51 .70 28%

income AGPHHH 70 1.70 .46 27%

diversity PHHHS 70 1.74 .44 25%

livestock AGPHHH 70 1.71 .80 47%

ownership PHHHS 70 2.34 .99 42%

83
 Source: Household Survey, 2019
Under this category to see whether AGPHHH or PHHHS was more susceptible to household food insecurity
standard deviation and coefficient of variation was computed. The standard deviation of the independent
variable of both household type (AGPHHH and PHHHS) was measured to see household food security
vulnerability. Statistically, the smaller standard deviation, lower is risk of household for food insecurity.
However, this way of expression is appropriate when unit of measurement is the same for each independent
variable. Since the researcher used different unit of measurements for independent variables coefficient of
variation was employed considering superior measure of risk. This enabled the researcher to see under what
circumstances AGPHHH were more vulnerable to household food insecurity than PHHHS.
Coefficient variation for AGPHHH in terms of livestock ownership, income diversity, and household size
fluctuated more than PHHHS to maintain household food security. The smaller the standard of deviation of
PHHHS for income crop diversity and household size indicate that the likely occurrence of risk i.e. less likely
become food insecure than AGPHHH.

Table5.11 the cumulative effect of independent variables on dependent variables

Mode Sum of Mean
l Squares Df Square F Sig. R Square
1 Regressio
22.060 5 4.412 60.391 .000(a) .693
n
Residual 9.790 134 .073
Total 31.850 139

a Predictors: (Constant), livestock ownership, Household size, Land size, income of household,
income diversity
b Dependent Variable: food security status
Source: Household Survey, 2019
The above ANOVA output table shows that the cumulative effect of independent variables influences
22.060 (69%) to food security and this result is statistically significance with (sig.000). On top of this
to understand which independent variable is more significant for household food security Beta value
was computed.
Table 5.12 separate effect of independent variables on dependent variable

Std.
Variables Beta B Error
income of
-.821 -13.995 .000
household
84
 Household size -.062 -1.195 .234
Land size -.021 -.329 .743
income diversity -.057 -.923 .358
livestock
.063 1.089 .278
ownership
(Constant) 20.260 .000
a Dependent Variable: food security status
Source: Household Survey, 2019
Therefore, Beta value indicates food security increase when livestock ownership increases (.063) and
decrease with income diversity, household income, household size, land size, decrease.
From the above Beta computation, household food security was more affected by household income
82%, household size and livestock ownership 6% dive income diversity 5% and land size 2%. The
status of food security increase as livestock ownership increase, decrease as income diversity, land
size and household income decease.
5.6 Livelihood Strategies
The result of the survey suggested that AGPHHH and PHHHS participated in diverse livelihood
strategies to earn their living. As indicated in table 5.16 farm, off- farm, nonfarm and Remittance were
the major pastoral livelihood diversifications practiced by many households in the study area. The
result showed that the proportion food secure AGPHHH engaged in crop production, off- farm and
nonfarm and Remittance livelihood diversification source were 100%, 84%, 79% and 64%
respectively. Similarly, for food insecure household’s farm off- farm, nonfarm and Remittance were
identified as the major source and components livelihood strategies. About 100%, 78%, 68% and 58%
of food insecure households derive their income from farm, off- farm, nonfarm and Remittance income
source correspondingly.
Table5.13Types of livelihood strategies
Food Secure Food Insecure Total
AGPHH PHHHS AGPHH PHHHS AGPHH PHHHS
H (n=30) H (n=40) H (n=70)
(n=19) (n=51) (n=70)
Livelihood no % no % No % no no % No %
strategies %
Farm 19 100 30 100 51 100 40 100 70 32 70 35
activities
Off-farm 16 84 25 83 40 78 32 80 56 26 57 28
Non- farm 15 79 27 90 35 68 31 78 50 23 58 29
Remittance 12 64 10 33 30 58 6 15 42 19 16 8
Total 62 100 92 100 156 100 109 100 218 100 201 100
85
 Source: Household Survey, 2019
Likewise, the proportion of food secure PHHHS benefited from farm, off- farm, non- farm and
Remittance were 100%, 83%, 90% and 33% respectively. For food insecure PHHHS farm, off- farm,
nonfarm and Remittance constitute about 100%, 80%, 78% and 15% respectively.
For both household groups farming was found to be the most important livelihood strategies. The
largest proportions of food secure and insecure households have engaged in it. From the above
description it may be possible to generalize that of food secure households which engaged in farm,
off- farm, nonfarm and Remittance source of income were higher than that of food insecure
households. This shows that, the engagement in adverse portfolios of livelihood strategies contribute
a lot to meet the household’s food security by deriving higher level of income used to achieve food
requirement.
5.6.1Farming Activity
In Wachile woreda, crop production, was found to be the most important livelihood strategy of
agropastoral community. It was the main source of food and house hold income for the most of
agropastoral community. For agropastoral community farming include both crop and livestock
production. Besides, sale of livestock products was found to be one of the essential activities
undertaken by many households to obtain income. According to household survey and focus group
discussion, annual crop constitutes the largest component of crop production in aerial coverage than
perennial crops. The main reason behind annual crops to be cultivated in wide aerial coverage was
grow fast and their return was quick. Besides this it had multiple purposes to household food security
like source of food, and income.
Table5.14 Farm Activities
Food Secure Food Insecure Total
AGPHHH PHHHS AGPHH PHHHS AGPHHH PHHHS
(n=19) (n=30) H (n=40) (n=70) (n=70)
(n=51)
Farm no % no no % no % no % no %
activities %
Crop 19 100 30 100 51 100 40 100 70 46 70 41
production
Livestock 15 78 27 90 34 66 28 70 49 32 55 32
rearing
Livestock 13 68 21 70 21 41 26 65 34 22 47 27
product sell
86
 Total 47 100 78 100 106 100 94 100 153 100 172 100
Source: Household Survey, 2019
Table 5.14 reveals that 100% of both AGPHHH and PHHHS participated in crop production activities.
About the food secure AGPHHH, the proportion of households engaged in crop production, livestock
rearing, and sale of livestock products accounted for 100%, 78% and 68% respectively. Likewise, the
proportion of PHHHS of food secure group engaged in the same activities accounted for 100%, 90%
and 70% respectively.
This shows that the largest proportion of food secure households practice crop production as the main
livelihood strategy followed by livestock rearing and selling of animal product. For food insecure
AGPHHH and PHHHS the proportion of households which performed crop production, livestock
rearing, and sale of animal product were 100%, 66% and 41% and 100%, 70% and 65% respectively
For both food insecure household group’s crop production was identified as the predominant farm
activity in the area. As show in the table, the proportions of food secure households who engaged in
livestock and selling of livestock product was relatively higher than that of food insecure household.
On top of this, Land put under cultivation has been considerably increasing over the last ten years.
The major cause of to shift from pastoralist to agropastoral is increased poverty due to death of
animals. Those who could not generate enough income from livestock production opted for -007-
++0000000000000.
farming. Gaining experience from them, fellow community members started farming, leading into
increased dependence on crop farming for food supply and income generation.
The practice of crop production is a reaction to climatic hazard as a coping strategy. The rainfall period
is short, and the soil is fragile. Intruding cropland into pastoral area is also jeopardizing livestock
production. Crop production is expanding on plain areas with higher moisture content and more of
fertile soils. In deed this is the most productive rangeland for the livestock production. This is the
major cause for strong competition between livestock and crop production. Crop production is getting
momentum as a means of income diversification. Besides, pastoral communities are involving in
trading of live animals, “fattening” animals for sale, brokerage, and petty trading. These practices have
increased over the last ten years. Apparently, depending just on livestock production is no more the
sole means of livelihood for the pastoral community. Women’s participation in this type of business
activities is increasing, in area where settled agropastoralist existed like Web village. The income
earned in this practice improved decision-making power of women. Income is also raised by involving
87
in urban businesses such as running small business including retailing and renting houses for different
purposes
5.6.2 Off- Farm Activity
In many developing countries, currently off- farm activities have been becoming significant source of
income and food for couples of rural households (Ellis 1998 and 2000) cited in Misiganaw, 2008). In
line with this idea, many people in the study area were engaged in different types of off- farm activities
to generate income to secure household food security
Table5.15 Off-farm activities of sampled household
Food Secure Food Insecure Total
AGPHH PHHHS AGPHH PHHHS AGPHH PHHHS
H (n=30) H (n=40) H (n=70)
(n=19) (n=51) (n=70)
Off-farm no % no no % no % no % no %
activities %
Wage to 16 82 25 83 40 78 32 80 56 80 57 81
WGM
Wood 12 63 19 63 27 53 19 48 39 56 38 54
selling
Charcoal 9 47 16 53 23 45 15 38 32 46 31 44
selling
Total 19 100 30 100 51 100 40 100 70 100 70 100
Source: Household Survey, 2019
The above table shows wage for local farm activities such as plough, wage, sale of fuel wood and
charcoal, were the major types of off- farm income source of sample households in the area.
About 82% and 83 % of food secured AGPHHH and PHHHS benefited from wage. About 63%, 47%
and 63%, 53% of AGPHHH and PHHHS, that sustained household food security, participated in wood
selling and charcoal selling activities respectively. About 78% and 80% of AGPHHH and PHHHS
which could not maintain household food security spent their wage to get the reciprocal benefit from
being employed to WGM. And 53%, 45%, and 48% and 38% of the household head participated in
wood selling and charcoal selling.
To sum up, the participation of food secure households in off- farm activities was higher than that of
food insecure households. If both household’s involvement of off- farm activities in each type were
examined, the largest portion of food secure and food insecure have participate in wage activities.
Agropastoralist from Web village benefited two-fold.

88
 5.6.3 Non-Farm Activities
Another component of livelihood strategy that support the sustenance of household income was non-
farm activity.
As table 5.16 indicates, petty trading, wood selling, local drink selling, grain trading and charcoal
selling were the main non- farm activities that the household derive their income for their livelihood
in the context of study area.
Table 5.16 None farm activities
Food Secure Food Insecure Total
AGPHHH PHHHS AGPHHH PHHHS AGPHHH PHHHS
(n=19) (n=30) (n=51) (n=40) (n=70) (n=70)
Non- farm activities no % no no % no no % no %
% %
Petty trading 12 63 20 67 12 17 20 29
Local drink sale 15 79 25 83 30 59 23 58 45 64 48 69
Chat selling 13 68 22 73 13 19 22 31
Gain trading 10 53 19 63 10 14 19 27
Livestock selling 9 47 9 30 35 69 29 73 44 63 38 54
Total 19 30 51 40 70 70
Source: Household Survey, 2019
The majority of food secure sample AGPHHH and PHHHS constituting 79% and 83% engaged in
selling drink Followed by chat selling 68% and 73% for both food secure AGPHHH and PHHHS
respectively. In the case of food insecure households about 69% and 73% of AGPHHH and PHHHS
respectively were engaged in livestock selling.
The above discussion demonstrates that food secure households were found more engaged in diverse
portfolios of non- farm activities that generate household income. Contrary to the case noted before,
food insecure households engaged in limited number and type of non-farm income sources. Therefore,
engagement in diverse portfolios of non -farm activities contributed more to attain household food
security. Though there is diversification activities between AGPHHH tend to diversify activities in
order to survive from crisis as opposed to PHHHS families which diversify to accumulate assets.
The number of available workers in a household will have an impact on the potential for diversification
but the quality of labor will also play a crucial role in the success of diversification strategies. Swift
(1998) pointed out that high population density, good road networks and incoming migrants all
increase the potential for economic diversification, but the range of off farm activities that were
employed determined diversification moreover, access to credit and savings, household size and
89
composition and level of education increase rate of household economy. Ellis, (2000) also added
geographical location, household characteristics, market opportunities, the relationship between farm
and off- farm activities and the influence of formal and informal institutions as factors that will
influence the choice of livelihood diversification strategy undertaken.
5.6.4 Remittance
Like that of farm activities and diversification, Remittance was also an important component of
pastoral community as livelihood strategies. Some of the pastoral households have relatives who
migrated to Kenya for labor work. The migrants send remittance to their families. On the other hand,
though limited, some of the family members of the pastoral communities also move to towns to work
and generate income. This system of supporting families is a continuous process. The contribution of
remittance to the annual income of the pastoral and agropastoral households is as high. It is the second
largest source of income next to crop production.
Table5.17 Types of Remittance
Food Secure Food Insecure Total
AGPHH PHHHS AGPHH PHHHS AGPHH PHHHS
H (n=30) H (n=40) H (n=70)
(n=19) (n=51) (n=70)
Remittance n % no no % no % no % no %
Type o %
Seasonal 15 79 5 17 51 100 11 27 66 94 16 23
Remittance
Cyclical 4 21 25 83 29 73 4 6 54 77
Remittance
Total 19 100 30 100 51 100 40 100 70 100 70 100
Source: Household Survey, 2019
Table5.17 demonstrates that about 79% and 17% of food secure AGPHHH and PHHHS
respectively participated in seasonal Remittance. About 21% and 83% food secure AGPHHH and
PHHHS respectively engaged in cyclical Remittance. All of Food insecure AGPHHH (100%) gain
source of income from seasonal Remittance. About 11% of food insecure PHHHS obtain
household income from seasonal Remittance and 73% participate on cyclical Remittance.
5.7 The Contribution of Diverse Source of Income to Household Food Security
Livelihood diversification is investigated through household income obtained from various source of
income annual basis Ellis (1998 and 2000). Accordingly, in this study, the contribution of livelihood

90
diversification to household food security was discussed in terms of the average annual household
income obtained from farm income, off farm income, non-farm income and income from Remittance.
Household can earn income from one or more sources depending on the types of income sources or
household member gains in a year. According to the data obtained from household survey, FGD and
KII the main sources of income in the area according to their decreasing importance were farm, off-
farm, nonfarm and Remittance. And hence the contribution of diverse source of income to household
food security was explained in terms of its share to the total average annual income of the household
to achieve food need
Table5.18 Diversified source of income
Food Secure Food Insecure Total
AGPHH PHHHS AGPHHH PHHHS AGPHHH PHHHS
H (n=30) (n=51) (n=40) (n=70) (n=70)
(n=19)
Household Birr % Birr % Birr % Birr % Birr % Birr %
income
Farm 1523 76 3716 82 426 75 752 73 1949 76 4468 80
income
Off-farm 172 8 508 11 38 7 218 21 210 8 726 13
income
Non-farm in 140 7 307 7 65 11 65 6 205 8 372 7
come
Remittance 173 9 41 7 214 8
Total Birr 2008 10 4531 10 570 10 1035 10 2578 100 5566 10
0 0 0 0 0
Source: Household Survey, 2019
As shown in Table 5.18 the average annual income of food secure AGPHHH and PHHHS was birr
2008 and 4531 respectively. Likewise birr 570 and 1035 was the average annual income of food
insecure AGPHHH and PHHHS respectively.
The average annual income of overall samples AGPHHH and PHHHs was 2578 and 5566 Birr
respectively. The contribution of each livelihood strategies to the total average income was highest to
food secure PHHHS than AGPHHH.
Therefore, the contribution of each livelihood strategies to the total average income of food secure and
food insecure PHHHs was greater than their counter part AGPHHH. 1523 (76%), 172(8%), 140(7%)
and 173(9%) were diverse source of income for food secure. AGPHHH generated from farm, off-
farm, non- farm and income from Remittance respectively. PHHHS generated income for household’s
91
food security obtained from byproduct of milk 3716(82%), off- farm 508(11%) and non- farm
307(7%). This reveals that high level of income obtained from the diversified livelihood components
(farm, off farm, nonfarm, and Remittance) has a greater contribution to attain household food security
in the study area.
5.7.1 Farm Income
Crop production and livestock rearing were identified as the main component of farm income source
to the case under discussion. The share of average annual crop and livestock income to the total
average farm income was considered to evaluate the contribution of crop and livestock income to
household food security.
Table5.19 Farm income
Food Secure Food Insecure Total
AGPHH PHHHS AGPHH PHHHS AGPHH PHHHS
H (n=30) H (n=40) H (n=70)
(n=19) (n=51) (n=70)
Farm Birr % Birr % Birr % Birr % Birr % Birr %
income
Crop 986 65 3036 82 320 75 599 79 1306
production
Livestock 487 32 598 16 65 15 87 12
rearing
Livestock 50 3 82 2 41 10 66 9
products
Total Birr 152310 3716 10 426 10 752 10 10 10
0 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Household Survey, 2019
As indicated in Table 5.19, 986(65%), 487(32%) 50(3%) and 3036(82%), 598(16%) and 82(2%) were
the average annual income of crop production, income from livestock and livestock product for
AGPHHH and PHHHS respectively. Likewise, 320(75%), 65(15%) and, 41(10%) and 599(79%)
87(12%) and 66(9%) were the average annual income of crop production, income from livestock and
livestock product for food insecure AGPHHH and PHHHS respectively. This show there was
significant differences between food secure and food insecure AGPHHH and PHHHS. In general
speaking animal selling was found to be the main source of income followed by crop production for
Agropastoral households.

92
 5.7.2 Off Farm Income
It was noted that in section 5.8.2 that off farm activities are one of household strategies in the area.
Many pastoralists engage in off- farm activities by involving their labor to get income or return
services. From this regard, off- farm activities were considered as one of essential income portfolio
for agropastoralist households to attain household food security. In Web kebele, wage, Trade and
Commission Service, sale of fuel wood and making charcoal were identified as the main sources of
off- farm income for the sample households.
Table 5.20 off- farm income
Food Secure Food Insecure Total
AGPHH PHHHS AGPHH PHHHS AGPHH PHHHS
H (n=30) H (n=40) H (n=70)
(n=19) (n=51) (n=70)
Off-farm income Birr % Birr % Birr % Birr % Birr % Birr %
Income from 22 13 28 6 27 71 29 13 49 23 57 8
Commission Service
Wood selling 50 29 90 17 11 29 69 32 61 29 159 22
Charcoal selling 100 58 390 77 120 55 100 48 510 70
Total Birr 172 10 508 10 38 10 218 10 210 10 726 10
0 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Household Survey, 2019
Table 5.20 shows the average annual incomes of AGPHHH of food secure and food insecure were
Birr 172 and 38 respectively. And similarly, the average annual income of PHHHS of food secure and
food insecure households were Birr 508 and 218 respectively. It was noted that off farm food secure
AGPHHHs were obtaining its greater income 58% of their income from charcoal making. And 71%
of AGPHHH food insecure got larger household annual income from Commission Service. Likewise,
food secure PHHHS get larger household income from charcoal making was three times greater than
AGPHHH 390 (77%) forms this explanation, the average annual income of food secure and food
insecure PHHHS is relatively higher than AGPHHH.
5.7.3 Non-Farm Income
Nonfarm income was also one aspect of livelihood diversification for sustaining household food
security. As indicated in table 5.24 petty trading, chat selling, selling local drink, grain trading and
animal selling were identified in the context of study area. The number of income source of food
secure PHHHS was higher than that of AGPHHH. The total annual incomes of food secure AGPHHH
and PHHHS accounted for Birr 140 and 307. Accordingly, total annual income of food insecure
93
AGPHHH and PHHHS accounts for Birr 65each. The average annual income of the overall sample
AGPHHH and PHHHS was Birr 205 and 372. This shows that the average annual income of PHHHS
was higher than AGPHHH. These reveal PHHHS benefited a lot from nonfarm activities that enables
to sustain household food security.
Table 5.21 Non-farm income
Food Secure Food Insecure Total
AGPHH PHHHS AGPHHH PHHHS AGPHH PHHHS
H (n=30) (n=51) (n=40) H (n=70)
(n=19) (n=70)
Non-farm Birr % Birr % Birr % Birr % Birr % Birr %
income
Petty trading 41 29 97 32 41 20 97 26
Local drink 36 26 107 35 40 62 48 74 76 37 155 42
selling
Chat selling 7 5 20 6 7 4 20 5
Grain trading 23 16 47 15 23 11 47 13
Animal selling 33 24 36 12 25 38 17 26 58 28 53 14
Total Birr 140 10 307 10 65 100 65 10 205 10 372 10
0 0 0 0 0
Source: Household Survey, 2019
5.7.4 Remittance
Remittance was one of the important income sources for pastoral households. Seasonal Remittance
and cyclical Remittance were the main sources of income in the area.
As Table 5.22 indicates the average annual income earned by food secure AGPHHH was Birr 173
while the average annual income for food insecure AGPHHH was Birr 41. The average annual
income of the overall sample households was Birr 214. The average annual income of food secure
household was relatively greater than that of food insecure households. This shows that the
contribution of Remittance to food secure is predominant by providing higher level of income to
food secure households. For food secure AGPHHH seasonal Remittance for neighboring farm
activities and cyclical Remittance for nonfarm activities were the main income activities despite
the share of seasonal Remittance for neighboring activities (69%) was relatively higher than the
income obtained from the cyclical Remittance (31%). According to household survey PHHHS
was not as such generate income from Remittance like that of AGPHHH.

94
 Table5.22 Types of Remittance
Food Secure Food Insecure Total
AGPHHH PHHHS AGPHHH PHHHS AGPHHH PHHHS
(n=19) (n=30) (n=51) (n=40) (n=70) (n=70)
Type of Birr % Birr % Birr %
Remittance
Seasonal 120 69 41 100 161 75
Remittance
Cyclical 53 31 53 25
Remittance
Total 173 10 41 100 214 10
0 0

Source: Household Survey, 2019

5.8 Household Expenditure
In the earlier part this discussion, the researcher attempted to explain households attempt to
generate income from farm, off-farm, non-farm and Remittance. This section explains average
household annual expenditure for nonfood items or the minimum amount of money required to
cover the cost of stimulant, clothes, health services, education and Gifts (buusa gonofa & sons
titling) was assessed. Table 5.26 shows average minimum amount of money required to purchase
nonfood items was Birr 272 per household. This average minimum cost was summed with Birr
1163.2(minimum amount of money/ income per AE needed to purchase the food amount
equivalent to 225 kg of cereal) and gives the cut-off or bench mark of food security for this study
i.e. 1435.25
Table: 5.23 average minimum annual expenditure of households for nonfood items per annum
annual expenditure Average minimum annual
expenditure of household of
both groups in (Birr).
Stimulant e.g. coffee 42 per household
Clothes 98 per individual
Education 64 per individual
Health 55 per individual
Gifts (buusa gonofa & sons 13 per individual
titling)
Total 270
Source: Household Survey, 2019
As indicated in table 5.23 the largest portion 63% food secure AGPHHH spent an expense of above
average annual expenditure to nonfood items. Similarly, within the same group 37% of AGPHHH
95
 were spent below average. On the contrary, the proportion of food insecure AGPHHH that spent
below average were 84%. About 75% of food insecure PHHHS spent below the average.
Comparing the AGPHHH to PHHHS, PHHHS spent more amount of money than AGPHHH. This
indicates that PHHHS have better access to obtain income generating source.
The economic statuses of households determine the role of women in the household expenditure.
Women in food secure household do have different level of contribution in the household
expenditure than food insecure household women. Comparing with AGPHHH with women in
PHHHS; wives in PHHHS have better advantage than AGPHHH with the same categories. First,
they receive more money from their husbands. Second, the wives themselves generate better
income from petty trade by selling milk byproduct because they have more money than AGPHHH
do. As a result, they involve themselves in more income generating and less tiresome activities.
Table 5.24 Household income in relation to average annual expenditure
Food Secure Food Insecure Total
AGPHHH PHHHS AGPHHH PHHHS AGPHH PHHHS
(n=19) (n=30) (n=51) (n=40) H (n=70)
(n=70)
Household no % No % no % no % no % No %
income
Below 7 37 6 20 43 84 30 75 50 71 36 52
average
Above 12 63 24 80 8 16 10 25 20 29 34 48
average
Total Birr 19 100 30 100 51 100 40 100 70 100 70 100
Source: Household Survey, 2019
In contrast AGPHHH shoulder more responsibilities in household expenditure. They cover
considerable portion of household expense because the money they get from agriculture or diverse
source of income was relatively smaller as compared with PHHHS. As amount of income they
generate decline their contribution for covering cost of Gifts (buusa gonofa & sons titling) and
forced to be involved hired labor.
5.9 Major Challenges to the Pastoral Livelihood
According to the information obtained from key informants and focus group discussion, there are
some constraints that hamper the livelihood of pastoralist life. The participant of Key informants
and focus group discussants have explained that constraints of household food security vary from
place to place and household to household. Accordingly, the following points are summarized

96
5.9.1 Increase in Population
There is population influx in the pastoral areas compared to the last ten years. One of the reasons
for population increase in Borana area is due to the Geri-Somali and Borana border conflict. The
Borana claim that the Geri-Somali took large part of their rangeland and traditional water wells.
Due to this some pastoral households moved to the neighboring Oromo communities and created
over population. The increase in population can be signified by the increase in the number of Ollas
from 10 to 58.
5.9.2 Cross Border Trade Restriction
Informal cross border trade is also banned negatively affecting the income of the pastoral
communities. As there is limited employment opportunity other than livestock production, low
price of the livestock in the domestic market reduces the income of the pastoral community.
5.9.3 Decline in Mutual Support
Another negative change in Borana is the declining trend of mutual aid among the clan members
i.e buusas gonofa. Two types of community support systems stand out. The first one could occur
by simple understanding of problems of individuals or relatives and provision of assistances. In
this case, the rich may give one or more animals as a donation to the poor. He may also authorize
the use of milk from a lactating animal without giving out the cow as such. The second type of
support is when a member of the community appeals to his clan group for social support.
Traditionally, the clan leaders assess the situations of the applicant and decide on the case. If the
individual lost his livestock due to situations beyond his control, the leaders may decide that some
cattle are given from the herd of one of the clan members. This tradition is getting weak due to
increased number of poor people for whom such assistances are needed. There is a tendency that
the clan members cannot accommodate such an increasing demand. Hence, the community
members are relying more on the first type of social support. However, such positive practices are
diminishing over the recent years as some clan members started refusing the directives of the clan
leaders and appealing to Kebele social courts. The kebele social courts reverse the decisions of the
clan leaders and affected the mutual support system.
5.9.4 Decline in Range Productivity
Reduction in rangeland productivity is the most important negative change the community
members recognize. Due to increased bush encroachment, reduced rainfall, termite infestation, and
expansion of cropland, pasture production is getting smaller and smaller over years. This resulted

97
in continued Fora. The impact of reduced rangeland productivity on livestock productivity is
obvious. It has direct implication on the household food security. As it affects the supply of milk
and other livestock products, the product to which women and girls have access and control,
reduced rangeland productivity has direct implication on gender-based empowerment.
5.9.5 Decline in Livestock Productivity
On the other hand, due to frequent drought in the pastoral communities, livestock productivity
declined in the past decade. Milk and meat production and productivity reduced due to the decline
in rangeland productivity. Unwanted bushes invaded the pasture land which led to decrease in
rangeland productivity. The 1999/2000 drought also highly affected the livelihood of the
pastoralists. Large numbers of livestock died. For instance, there were certain households who lost
a thousand of livestock due to the drought. It was reported in the FGD discussion that some
pastoralist committed suicide, because of such a disaster. Because of the loss of livestock,
household income declined drastically, and they became vulnerable to food insecurity. This led
the vulnerable households to cutting trees as an alternative source of income affecting also the
environment.
5.9.6 Decline in Food Security
Changes in the food security situations and household incomes were perceived differently by
different communities and social groups. The survey result from study kebeles indicates that 79%
of the respondents said that their income reduced during the last ten years. The income
diversification considered as a positive change is also in response to this decline in income level.
There is, however, variation among community members and across the communities. It has been
argued in the web kebels community that the nominal income of the households increased due to
increased price of livestock and livestock products. During the last ten years, rangeland
productivity declined and as a result the milk yield declined. In PHHs, for instance, the daily milk
yield declined form about four liters to 0.75 liters per cow. The decline in milk yield is apparently
severe in that many of the pastoral communities do not get milk for consumption during dry
seasons and some cows do not even produce milk enough for calves. Increased incidence of
mastitis is also responsible for the reduced milk production. This has also forced changes in feeding
habit of the pastoral communities. The communities rely on grain consumption and drinking black
tea compared to the situation before 10 years.

98
Because of the decline in livestock productivity and crop yield, the community feels that their food
security declined. On the other hand, expenses for living drastically increased over the last 10
years. It was indicated that Birr 500 before 10 years would worth Birr 5,000 today. This means
that the utility obtained by expending two cattle before 10 years would require 6 cattle today. Thus,
because of increased living expenses and increased population, and reduced income, the
community has perceived that they are less food secure than they were before 10 years.
5.9.7 Decline of Pure Borana Breed
The communities also relate feeding and physiological development. For instance, the ribs of well-
fed animals grow outwards and make broadened bow whereas ribs of poorly fed animals would
grow more straight downwards, bending at smaller angle. The discussion reveals that the former
shape existed before 10 years and the later one refers to the current phenomenon. Moreover, the
pastoralists also recognize that the livestock is physically smaller today than it used to be. This
could partially be attributed to change in genetic resources since the Boran breeds suffered from
the effect of drought and pastoralists introduced small sized and more tolerant breeds from the
neighboring communities. On the other hand, it would also be the effect of continued decline in
rangeland productivity, which somehow reduced the carrying capacity of the land.
5.9.8 Decline in Crop Productivity
Productivity of cropland declined over the last ten years despite the increased area under
cultivation. For instance, maize yield declined from about 20 qt per ha before 10 years to 7qt per
ha to day owing to erratic and inadequate rainfall. Hence, the income from livestock and crop
production declined over the last ten years. This also contributed to household food insecurity.
5.9.9 Increased Consumption of Items Having Addictive Nature
There are also changes in consumption of items of less nutritional value, expensive and addictive
nature. The number of community members i.e. men and women, who consume Chat and smoke
or use tobacco has considerably increased. It appears that it is socially accepted. Moreover,
beverages are increasingly consumed both in the community and in the towns by the pastoral
communities. Despite the reduced income of the households and increased food insecurity, the
increased use of these addictive’s is perceived as negative developments.
5.9.10 Other Negative Changes
Although the situations are not worsening, lack of improvement in the following issues was
recorded. It was appreciated by the pastoral communities that the workload of women is still high.

99
In all the communities of the study, women should either travel very long distance to access
flourmill or they must manually grind. This costs women the time they could have used for some
other important matters. Moreover, women’s control over resources and benefits has been meager.
Changes in traditional practices that affect the rights of women is not to the expected degree.
Hence, women are highly vulnerable to the risk of HIV/AIDS. Moreover, awareness on alternative
use of the livestock wealth has not been created by the largest proportion of the pastoral
communities. Alternative uses of such wealth based on business principle would help to diversify
livelihood portfolio of the pastoral
community, create risk management mechanisms, and adjust livestock populations to rangeland
and water resources carrying capacities. Limited provision of livestock and public health services
near the pastoral communities is observed over the last ten years. Overall, livestock drugs and
medicines are not available. Lack of training appropriate for pastoral community development
staff, supply of appropriate crop, livestock and natural resources management technologies could
be considered as negative.

100
 CHAPTER SIX
6. SUMMERY, FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION
6.1 SUMMERY
Trends of pastoral livelihood diversification have been noted among the Borana pastoralists are
combining livestock production with a variety of non-pastoral activities including Crop
production, wage labor and petty trade. The unreliability of pastoral livelihoods because of
recurrent drought and conflict is likely to ensure the continuing influx of pastoralists in to urban
and peri-urban spaces. There is thus an urgent need to examine the livelihoods of those pastoralists
in urban and peri-urban spaces who constitute some of the poorest and most vulnerable groups in
Ethiopia’s pastoral areas. Thus, this paper outlined the different livelihood options sustaining
household food security in the pastoral and agropastoral community in wachile Woreda, Borena
Zone, Oromia region, Ethiopia.
According to household survey, households under study participated in four major types of
pastoral and agropastoral livelihood diversification: Farm, off- farm, Non- farm and Migration. In
addition, people have engaged in a total of 13 livelihood activities to earn income. Both food secure
and food insecure households participate in diverse livelihood strategies and activities. In this
study, food secure households have participated in 4 major aspects of pastoral and agropastoral
livelihood diversification/ strategies and 13 livelihood activities while food insecure households
have engaged in 4 livelihood strategies and 6 livelihood activities.
Crop production, livestock rearing, and sales of livestock products such as milk, egg, butter, honey,
and skin and hides are the key farm income sources. With respect to the income sources of off-
farm wage from Remittance and sale of fuel- wood and charcoal, are the main components of off-
farm income. Petty trading, Grain trading, sale of drink were the main non- farm income sources.
Livelihood resources are the main building blocks for the rule livelihood diversification. In
Wachile woreda, there are natural, Physical, human, financial and social livelihood assets up on
which the pastoral and agropastoral community rely on for living. The main types of assets
identified are land (Crop land), numbers of livestock, size of other livestock access to credit service
and agricultural inputs, access to social institution like Busa Gonofa. Nevertheless, the access to
and ownership of these livelihood assets differ from AGPHHS and PHHHS and from time as
livelihood resources are dynamic in nature due to vulnerability context. The variation of livelihood
101
resources among AGPHHS and PHHHS makes a difference in the food security status of
households as food secure and food insecure. Put it differently, the status of livelihood resources
determines the food security status of households. PHHHS was relatively better and higher level
of access to and ownership of livelihood resources. As a result, they can generate high average
annual income as compared to AGPHHS who have obtained less amount of average annual
household income. Households who have better access to and ownership of livelihood resources
are found be food secure while households who lacks the livelihood assets are food insecure in the
study area. Besides, households with higher level of income derived from diverse sources of
income are food secure where as those households who have lower levels of income are food
insecure.
6.2 FINDINGS
The result of the study showed that pastoral households’, Interims of ownership have large size
of livestock and annual expenditure, PHHHS showed better status. PHHHS have relatively higher
size of livestock, access to inputs and income, social network than that of AGPHHS. This intern
makes PHHHS to employ diverse income sources and then derive better amount of income to
satisfy their food need. Again, this implies that, diverse livelihood resources lead to diverse
livelihood strategies and activates (income sources) Which in turn leads to high income required
to meet the food requirement of the household as all time for active and healthy life.
The basic constraint in AGPHHS was found to be Increase in Population, Cross Border Trade
Restriction, Decline in Mutual Support, Decline in Range Productivity and Decline in Livestock
Productivity. This arrangement along with the drought situation made those households food
insecure for over long time. To overcome existing household problem both households participate
in diversification activity like off farm, non-farm and receiving of income migrated labor. when
PHHHS were compared with AGPHHS, the latter were found to be the most vulnerable to
household food insecurity. The purpose and outcomes of livelihood diversification would differ
between AGPHHS and PHHHS. Comparing coefficient variation of the two households AGPHHS
was the most vulnerable household to food insecurity than PHHHS.
Therefore, AGPHHS would diversify to survive. However, food secure PHHHS would do it to
accumulate asset. AGPHHS could never earn enough from diversification of their activities to
accumulate assets, where households from food secure PHHHS families, being under less pressure

102
to contribute to the central purse, could pocket the income from their various subsidiary activities
themselves.
About the income of households, food secure PHHHS earn higher amount of average annual
income from all types of diversification than that of AGPHHS. The contribution of pastoral
livelihood diversification (farm, off- farm, non- farm and migration) to household food security is
so immense. The total annual income of food secure, food insecure and overall sample AGPHHS
and PHHHS is Birr 2008, 4531,570, 1035, 2578 and 5566 respectively. Average annual income
from farm is Birr 1523, 3716 and 426,752 for food secure and food insecure AGPHHS and PHHHS
sample households correspondingly. Similarly, the average annual income from off- farm is Birr
172, 508, and 38, 218 for food secure, food insecure AGPHHS and PHHHS sample households.
The average annual income from non- farm income is Birr140, 307,65and 65 correspondingly.
Likewise, the average annual income from migration is Birr 173, 9 and 41, 7 for food secure and
insecure sample AGPHHS and PHHHS households respectively. For food secure, food insecure
and overall sample households the contribution of livestock income takes the lions share followed
by off- farm income, non-farm income and income from migration. This clearly shows that still
livestock is the most source of livelihood for the pastoral people as it accounts for more than 79%
of the total average annual income for each group.
Despite the food secure and food insecure AGPHHS and PHHHS engage in similar livelihood
strategies and activities the amount of average annual income generated the different income
sources is different. Therefore, the variation in mean annual income between the food secure and
food insecure AGPHHS and PHHHS might be due to the variation in the access to and ownership
of livelihood resources. To sum up, the finding of this study has indicated that pastoral and
agropastoral households were engaged in diverse livelihood strategies for their living. Pastoral
livelihood diversification practiced through crop production, off- farm, on- farm and migration
livelihood strategies. There is variation between food secure and food insecure AGPHHS and
PHHHS in terms of access to and ownership of livestock resources and income amount /level
6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
➢ In Borena zone, a lot of NGOs are involved in humanitarian activities, there for, these
NGOs should organize pastoral households in general and agropastoral households in
particular in cooperatives and facilitate access to credit which is vital to household food
security.
103
➢ Crop production and participation in income diversification activities such as petty trading
is expanding in response to declining means of indigenous livelihood system as well as
sedentralization. In all the regions, the crop production in the fragile ecologies of the
pastoral systems is not supported with appropriate technology and extension system. Crop
farming in Borana area has been source of conflict between the poor who lost his livestock
due to drought and those having large herd size. Appropriate land use policy and improving
the rangeland productivity in a participatory approach is an important action to be made by
the region and train the pastoralist to use low land crops resistance to drought and give
production within short period like kekeba wheat. improved selected seeds technical
assistance and training should be given by agricultural agents
➢ Participate pastoral households and agropastoral households in environmentally friendly
and economically viable different form of farm, off farm and none farm income generating
activities such as fattening of livestock, modern bee keeping, poultry production, diary
production, and trading business that suit to the existing situation of environment.
➢ The land tenure system under the umbrella of specific clan that distinguishes the rangeland
and cropland has important policy implication for the regional governments. Conflict
between crop producers and large livestock owners is best managed through appropriate
land use policy that is designed through participation of all stakeholders.
➢ Mobility of livestock is a necessity in the pastoral areas for the best economic use of range
resources coping with the ecosystem variability. This should be understood by the federal
and regional governments.
➢ Partial sedentrization is emerging due to increased risk of drought. Provision of public
facilities such as construction of roads and infrastructure in the pastoral areas for easy
transportation and operation can solve some of the problems of pastoral risks such as lack
of market for cattle, and information sharing problems. School, health and water supply
issues are growing concerns, which could be used as means of encouraging more
sedentrized mode of life. Yet, the pastoral settings are different and similar policies of
providing these services as it is the case in the highly populated highland areas cannot be
applied.

104
 Annexes
Questionnaire

This questionnaire is administered by a post graduate student of Master’s in International

Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid, KALU Institute - Humanitarian Aid Studies Centre. The purpose
of the questionnaire is to collect data on a research topic Livelihood Strategies Sustaining
Household Food Security: The comparative studies on pastoral and agropastoral Communities in
Wachile Wereda, Borena Zone, Ethiopia
The data is needed purely for educational purpose. Your response to the questions will be kept
confidential. The reliability of your response affects the quality of the research and hence be honest
in giving the responses.
Thank you for your Cooperation in advance.

INSTRUCTIONS
-Don't write your name.
- Put /X/mark where it is necessary.
-Attempting all questions has great significance for analysis of the problem.

I Personal Information
1. Name of the kebele______________ and Ola/Reara----------------
2. Age of household head
1, < or =20
2, 21-30
3, 31-40
4, 41-50
5,>50
3. household size
1, 1-3
2, 4-6
3, 7-9
4,>10
4. educational level
1/ no education
2/ Church school
3/ Adult education
4/ Grade 1-8
5/ above grade 8
5. Age structure of household members (put their size in number)
1/ <14------- 2/15-64 ------- 3/>65---------

105
6 Religion of household head
1/Orthodox
2/Protestant
3/Muslim
4/others-------- (specify) -----------------
Part I Access to And Ownership Of Livelihood Resources/ Assets
A. Access to Animals
8 Did you have access to livestock other than ox? 1. Yes 2. No
9. If yes, please indicate the type and number of animals
Types of livestock Number
1. cow
2.heifer
3. Bull
4. Goat
5. Sheep
6. Donkey
7. Horse
8. Mule
9. Poultry
10. Bee- hives
other specify)
B. Access to Land
3. Do you have land you plough?
1. Yes
2 No
4. If Yes,
How many timads did you have one timad/sanga/mide is equivalent with 0.25ha
Land size Put /X/mark where it is
necessary
No land
<0.25ha
0.26-0.75ha
>1ha

5. How many timads did you cultivate in the last agricultural season?
crop type Size in production in
Timad quintal
Teff
106
 wheat
Barely
Sorghum
Pea
Bean
Chickpea
Lentil
Leen sed

7. Do you plough the farm that you have for yourselves? 1/Yes 2/No
If no, answer the following questions
Crop type plot size in yield uintal reasons to share/ rent out
grown timad/sanga/ land
midee

1. lack of land
2. low productivity
3. availability of labor
4. availability of ox/en
4. availability of finance/
credit
5. other ( specify)

E. Access to credit / Finance

Did any member of your household borrow any money in the past 12 months? 1. Yes 2. No
If yes from which source did you get credit?

Source of Credit Amount borrowed ( Purpose to use the money

birr)
1. family relatives 1234567
2. local money lender 1234567
3. OMF 1234567
4. NGO 1234567
5. cooperatives 1234567
6.Other (specify) 1234567
Codes:
1. buy food
2. buy farming inputs

107
 3. buy oxen
4. capital for trading
5. taxes and fees
6. education
7. health

F. Access to Social Institutions and Support networks

In which of the following social institutions or activities did your household participate during
the last 12 months?
type of social participation If you didn’t participate in any If you participate
institution local social institutions, why? what benefits did
Yes No
names you obtain?
Idir 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6
equb 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6
mahber 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6
Busa Gonofa 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6
other (specify) Codes
1. too expensive
2. doesn’t exist here
3. don’t need it
4. do not have time
5. not open to me to join
6. other (specify)

Part III Household Livelihood Diversification (Strategies and Activities)

2. What types of livelihood activities did the member of the household perform to earn food or
income in the last 12 months?
Activity (food and income sources) Yes No
FARM ACTIVITIES 1 2
crop production 1 2
108
 livestock rearing / fattening 1 2
poultry rearing (chicken and egg) 1 2
Beekeeping 1 2
Fruit production 1 2
Vegetable production 1 2
OFF- FARM ACTIVITIES 1 2
Income from chat selling 1 2
Sale of wood l 1 2
Sale of charcoal 1 2
NON- FARM ACTIVITIES 1 2
Petty trading in grains and pulses 1 2
Local drink production & sell
Grain trading 1 2
trading of other commodities 1 2
Renting out pack animals 1 2
MIGRATION 1 2
Migration for agricultural labor 1 2
Migration for nonagricultural labor 1 2
other activities (specify) 1 2

VI. Constraints of Food Security

What are the major constraints for food security in order of importance?
reasons/ causes 1. Yes 2. No Rank in order of importance of the top five
Lack of land 1 2
Lack of ox/en 1 2
Lack of livestock 1 2
Lack of labor 1 2
Lack of the household 1 2
Age of the household 1 2
Lack 1 2
money/finance/credit/income
Lack failure due to disasters 1 2
shortage of rains 1 2
109
 level crop productivity 1 2
degradation 1 2

Indicate the amount of income you earned from livestock product activities in the last 12 months?
Livestock products Annual income in birr
Meat
Milk
Egg
butter
Skin
Hides
Butter
Total

Indicate the amount of income you earned from off- farm activities in the last 12 months?
Off- farm Activities Annual income in birr
wage for local agricultural/ farm activities
Sale of fuel wood
Sale of charcoal
other specify
Total

Indicate amount of income that you earn from non- farm activities in the last 12 months
Non- Farm Activities Annual income in birr
petty trading (trading of goods/ commodities)
Drinks sale
Chat selling (a type of green leaf used as mild stimulant)
Weaving/ spinning
Renting out pack/ transport animals
Other specify
Total
110
 Income from Remittance
What amount of income did you earn from migrant members of household member in the last 12
months?
Migration Annual income in birr
Seasonal Remittance
Cyclical Remittance
other (specify)

Food and Income from Livelihood Diversification Activities

Income from agricultural farm diversification (strategies/ activities
What was the total annual production from crops in the last agricultural season?
Annual income in birr
Livestock products Number of Animals sold
1. Oxen
2. Cow
3. Heifer
4. Bull
5. Calf
6. Goat
7. Sheep
8. Donkey
9. Horse
10. mule
11. Bee- hives
12. other specify
Total
Indicate the amount of money you spent for the following items in the year
Annual expenditure for nonfood items Annual expenditure in Birr
Nonfood items like coffee
Education
health
cloth
Land use tax

Check Lists for Focus Group Discussion (FGD) and key Informant Interview (KII)
General
1. What are the major types of livelihood strategies and activities in the kebele/ola/Rera?
111
 2. Which livelihood strategies are the important sources of food security in order of
importance?
3. What are the major agricultural activities?
4 Major constraints for livelihood Diversification
5 What are the major constraints for crop production?
6 What are the major constraints for livestock rearing?
7 What are the major constraints/ reasons in performing off- farm income generating
activates?
8 What are the major constraints for nonfarm?
9 What are the major constraints for migration?
Crop production
1. What are the main crops types grown widely in the area?
2. What are the main constraints of livelihood and food security
Livestock production
1. what are the livestock types being reared in the area?
2. Which type of livestock is most important for ploughing?
3. Which type of livestock is most important for source of income to purchase food in order
of importance?
Inputs
1. Which types of agricultural inputs are widely used in the area?
2. Sources of inputs?
3. Purposes of inputs?
Credit
1. Sources of credit?
2. Purposes of credit?
Off- farm activities
1. What is the major types of off- farm activities in the area?
2. why off- farm activities needed and undertaken/
3. What is the contribution of off- farm activities to food security?
4. Which type of off- farm activity is the most important source of income in order of
importance?
Non – farm Activities
1. What are the main types of non- farm activities in the area??
2. Why are non- farm activities needed in the area?
3. What is the main role of non – farm activities to food security?
Migration
1. Why peoples migrated from there place of residence?
2. Where do people migrate?
3. Which members of the household migrate?
4. How long is the duration of the movement??
5. When do people migrate?
6. What is the income/ earn from migration??
Food Security
1. How you can express food insecurity?
2. What are the main causes of food insecurity?

112
 3. What are the constraints for food security in order of importance?
4. Which community groups are food insecure in order of importance
5. What are the mechanisms to cover the food shortage?
Which types of livelihood strategies are important for household food security in order of
importance?
Checklists for Woreda Experts
A. Physical Environment
1. Location/ distance
2. Area size of the woreda
3. Agro- ecology of the woreda
4. Land use system of the woreda
5. Natural resources (forests/ vegetation, soil, water)
6. Rain condition and seasons
7. Boundary of the worda including map
8. Total number of kebelles (rural and urban)
9. Map of the woreda, kebelle
B. Population and Culture
1. The total population size of the woreda
2. Ethnic composition
3. Religion, language and other culture of the people in the woreda
C. Economic Condition
1. Major livelihoods of the rural people
2. Crop production (major crop types, their contribution to household
food security and problems)
3. Livestock rearing (major types of animals, their contribution to
household food security and problem).
4. Extension service
5. Credit and input provision
6. Non- farm activities (trading of grains, animals, food, drinks,
carpentry, handicrafts, hairdressing, woodwork, metal work)
7. Off- farm activates (sale of fuel wood, stone, grass, trees)
8. Migration situation
9. Contribution of livelihood activities to household food security
10. Challenges/ constraints of crop, livestock production, off farm, non
farm and migration for food security
D. Food Security/ Insecurity Condition
1. Food security situation of the woreda
2. Causes of food insecurity in the woreda
3. Types of food insecurity reflected in the woreda
4. Institutions (formal and informal) and their role/ contributions for food security
5. Government policies, strategies and plans for food security
6 Constraints for food security.

Tank you in advance again

113
List of Acronyms
AGPHHH- Agropastoral Households Heads
PHHH- pastoral House hold Heads
CSA – Central statics Agency

Glossary

❖ Gendas” /kebeles (the lowest administrative unit

❖ . “Buusa Gonofa” is a social security system whereby people of same clan member
contribute in various ways to those highly affected and vulnerable to natural calamities

❖ Ekub- is purely informal saving institution.

❖ Idir- is indigenous arrangements utilized mainly for assisting victims in

bereavement and executing funeral-related activities

Reference
Barret C. B, T. Readon and P.Weeb,(2000).Non-Farm Income
Diversification and Household Strategies in Rural Africa;
Concepts, Dynamics and Policy of Implementation in Food. Vol.
26, No 4, 325-345.
Bebbington, A. (1999). Capitals and capabilities: A framework for
analyzing peasant viability, rural livelihoods and poverty. World
Development 27(12): 2021-2044
Brydon, L., and Chant, S. (1993). Women in the third world: Gender
issues in rural and urban areas, Second edition. New Brunswick
and New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
Bryceson, D.H. 1980. The polarization of women in Tanzania. Review of
African Political Economy 17: 4-27.
Boyd, C., and Slaymaker, T. 2000. Re-examining the ‘more people less
erosion’ hypothesis: Special case or wider trend? Natural Resource
Perspectives 63(11): 1-6.
Carney, D. (1998). Implementing the Sustainable Rural Livelihood
Approach Russell Press Ltd, Nottingham.
Chambers, R., and Conway, R. (1992). Sustainable rural livelihoods:
Practical concepts forthe 21st century. IDS Discussions
Paper 296. Sussex: Institute of Development Studies.
Chambers, R. (1989). Vulnerability, Coping and Policy. IDS Bulletin
20(2): 1-7.
CSA, (2007). Statistical Report on population size and characteristics of
Ethiopia Result at country level, Population and House
Census, Central Statistical Office,Addis Ababa.
Davies, S. (1996). Adaptable livelihoods: Coping with food insecurity in the
114
 Malian Sahel. London: Macmillan Press.
Debebe Habtewold, (1995) Food security: a brief Review of Concepts and
Indicators, Addis Ababa.
Degefa Tolossa, (1996) Belg Crop production as strategy of Households
Food security. A comparative study of Belg Grower and Non-
belg Grower Farmer, Munissa wereda, Arsi Region, Msc
Thesis (Unpublished) presented toCollage of Development
Studies, Addis Ababa University.
Dejene Aredo,(2004). Contribution of NGO to Household Food security;
The case of World Vision Ethiopia ANRS, Addis Ababa
Ethiopia.
Devereux et al., (2001) Food security in sub –Sahara Africa, Intermediate
Technology Development Group. London.
DFID, (2001). Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheet
Websites: Retrieved on May.21, 2019 from http://www.dfid.gov.uk/mdg/
Retrieved on May.21, 2019 from http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dpu/pui/index.htm
Dietz, T. (2000). Poverty and land degradation. Paper for the conference
on World poverty: A challenge for the private sector. October
3-4, 2000, Amsterdam.
Ellis, F. (1998). Household livelihood strategies and rural livelihood
diversification. Journal of Development Studies, 35(1): 1-38.
Ellis, F. (2000). Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries.
Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Eshetu Bekele (2000) The underlying causes of household food insecurity
and copping Strategies, the case of Lagmbo Wereda ,Msc Thesis [Un
published] Studies (RLDS), Addis Ababa University
Ethiopian nutritional Institute (ENI), (1993), Report on 1990E.C. Nutrition Survey, Addis
Ababa.
Ethiopian nutritional Institute (ENI),(1968). Food composition Table for
use in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa .
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). (1988). Requirements of vitamin
A, iron, folate, and vitamin B12. Report
of a joint FAO/WHO expert consultation. Rome: Food
and Agriculture Organization

Filmon Hadaro,(2001). Female household heads, Food security and

coping strategies in Konso Wereda of south Ethiopia RLDS
MSC Thesis (unpublished) presented School of Graduate
Studies Addis Ababa university.
Firebraugh, F.M. (1994). Female-headed households: Survival strategies
and food security. In: C. De Hoog and J. van Ophem (eds),
Changes in daily life. Wageningen, Netherlands: Wageningen
University
Frankenberger, T.R (1992).Indicators and Data Collection methods for
assessing Household food security, Rome.

115
Getahun Bikora (2003).Challenges and prospect of food security in
Ethiopia, proceeding of food security conference Addis Ababa .

Getaneh Mehari (2004) The role of women in the household Economy;

The case of Dorze of Gamo highland Presented to school
of Graduate studies(department of sociology and social
Anthropology), Ababa University.
Glewwe, P., and Hall, G. (1998). Are some groups more vulnerable to
macroeconomic shocks than others? Hypothesis tests based on
panel data from Peru. Journal of Development Economics 56: 181-206.
Hallman, K. (2000). Mother-father resource control, marriage payments, and girl-boy
health in rural Bangladesh. FCND Discussion Paper No. 93. Washington
DC: International Food Policy Research Institute
Huq, H. (2000). People’s Perception: Exploring contestation, counter-development, and
rural livelihoods ....cases from Muktinagar, Bangladesh. PhD dissertation.
Wageningen,The Netherlands: Wageningen University

IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development). (1993). Rural poverty

alleviation and nutrition: IFAD’s evolving experiences. Technical
paper. Technical Advisory Division, Project Management
document. Rome: International Fund for Agricultural Development
Maxwel, D.G. (1996) Measuring food security food security;-The frequencies and
severity of coping strategies food policy vol.21, No.3 Washington D.C.
Maxwell, S. and Frankenberger,, T.R. (1992) Household Food security ;Concepts ,
indicators, Measurement; A technical Review ,UNICEF, New York
and IFAD,Rome.
Mesay Mulugeta, (2000). Rural household food security: The case of Kuyyu
wereda, oromia regional state MA Thesis Addis Ababa University.
Misganaw Asnakew,(2004).Rural Livelihood Diversification and its Contribution to
Household Food security, the case of Meket Wereda MA Thesis
Moser, C.O.N. (1993) Gender planning and development: Theory,
practice and training. London and New York: Routledge.
Moser, C.O.N. (1996). Confronting crisis: A comparative study of household responses
to poverty and vulnerability in four poor urban communities.
Washington
Mulat Demeke, (2003). Agricultural Development in Ethiopia. The challenges of
overcoming Famine, Addis Ababa.
Naila ,(1999). Women, household Food security and coping strategies:paper presented in
institute of development studies, Brighton UK.
Naila, (2006). Monitoring poverty as if Gender mattered: A methodology for Rural
Bangladesh IDS discussion paper p. 255,
Negash,(2001). Diversity and conservation of Enset (Ensete ventricosum) and its
relation to household food and livelihood security in South-western
Ethiopia. PhD Dissertation Wageningen,The Netherlands,
WageningenUniversity.

116
 Niehof, A. (2004). The significance of diversification for rural livelihood
for rural livelihood systems: Food policy vol. 24 pp.321-338.
Niehof, A. (1999). The gendered nature of household food security. In: A. Niehof and
P.Terpstra (eds), Household in an interdisciplinary perspective. Liber
Amicorum for Antine Hardon-Baars, H & C Publication Series 2.
Wageningen: Household and Consumer Studies,Wageningen Agricultural
University, pp. 105-119.
Niehof, A., and Price, L. (2001). Rural livelihood systems: a conceptual framework.
Wageningen-UPWARD Series on Rural Livelihoods No. 1.
Wageningen:WU- UPWARD.
Pennartz, P., and Niehof, A. (1999). The domestic domain: Chances, choices and
strategies of family households. Aldershot, Brookfield, USA,
Singapore and Sydney: Ashgate Publishing Ltd

Quisumbing, etal. (2003). Resource allocation and empowerment of women in rural

Bangladesh. The John Hopkins University Press for the
Lloyd, C.B., and Blanc, A.K. (1996). Children’s schooling in sub-Saharan Africa: The
role of fathers, mothers and others. Population and Development
Review 22(2): 265-298.
Reardon, T. and Taylor, J.E. (1996) Agro climatic shock, income inequality,
and poverty: Evidence from Burkina Faso. World Development 16:
1065-74
Rennie, J.k and Singh, (1996). Participatory Research for sustainable
livelihoods: international institute for sustainable
Development Winnipeg.
Rudie, I. (1995) The significance of ‘eating’: Co-operation, support and reputation in
Kelantan Malay households. In: W. J. Karim (ed), 'Male' and 'Female' in
Developing Southeast Asia, Oxford: Berg Publishers, pp. 227-247.
Sara Work, (2007). Livelihood strategies of rural women with emphasis on income
diversification and Demographic adjustment: The case of wolonkomi,
oromia region: MA Thesis Addis Ababa University.
Scoones ,(1998). sustainable Livelihood ; Framework for Analysis, ID working paper
Scoones, (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. ID Working
Paper No. 72, Brighton: IDS, University of Sussex.
Swift, J. (1998). Factors influencing the dynamics of livelihood diversification and rural
non-farm employment in space and time. Rural Employment Project,
Mimeo report. Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute
WWAO, (2019).wachile wereda Agriculture and development Office Annual Report .
Unpublished, waachile
Temesgen Aklilu (2001). The Role of Rural Community Training in Agricultural
production and household food security, The
experience of Agri-Service Ethiopia , MSC Thesis presented to
School of Graduate Studies of Addis Ababa University.
Tilaye Teklewold, (2004). Food Security, Determinant and Household
coping Mechanism in Gerakeya Woreda Amhara Region MA

117
 Thesis Presented to school of graduate studies (RLDS) of Addis
Ababa University.
TsegayeTeganu,(2006).Evaluation of The Operation and Performance of Ethnic
Decentralization System in Ethiopia, A Case Study of the Guraghe People,
1992- 2000, Addis Ababa University Press Addis Ababa
Whatmore, S. 1997. Theoretical achievements and challenges in European rural gender
studies. Rural Society 3(4). Internet site:
(http://www.csu.edu.au/research/crsr/f_journal.html). (Accessed on
05.05.19) World Bank. (2000). World development report 2000/2001:
Attacking poverty. New York: Oxford University Press for the World
Bank.
Workneh Negash, (2006) .Determinants of Small Farm Household Food
Security. Evidence from south wello, Ethiopian Journal
Of Development Research (IDR) Vol.28, No.1, AAU. .
Yared Amare (1999) Household Resources, Strategies and Food Security
in Wogda , North Shewa, Addis Ababa

Declaration by author
This work is composed of my original work, and contains no material previously published or
written by another person except where due reference has been made in the text. I have clearly
stated the contribution by others to my document, including statistical assistance, survey design,
data analysis, significant technical procedures, and any other original research work used or
reported.
The content of my work is the result of effort I have carried out and does not include a substantial
part of work that has been submitted to qualify for the award of any other degree or diploma in
any students’ center, neither has been developed for my daily work. I have clearly stated which
parts of my work, if any, have been submitted to qualify for another award.
I acknowledge that I have worked under a Creative Commons License and an electronic copy of
my work can be uploaded on the Institute's webpage
Mesfin Getachew Zegeye
22, June2019

118
119
120
121