Für neue Kunden:
Für bereits registrierte Kunden:
91 Seiten, Note: 4.00
LIST OF TABLES
Lists of Tables
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1 Background of the study
1.2 Statement of the problem
1.3 Objectives of the study
1.3.1 General objective
1.3.2 Specific objective
1.4 Hypotheses of the study
1.5. Significance of the study
1.6 Scope and limitation of the study
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Concept and definitions
2.1.1. Definition of terms
2.1.2 Understanding the concept of Resettlement
2.1.3. The concept of food security
2.1.4 Food Security Situation in Ethiopia
2.1.5 Debates on the Effectiveness of Resettlement Program to Food Security Attainment
2.2 Empirical Literature reviews
2.2.1. Studies on Resettlement
2.2.2. Studies on food security
3.1 Description of the Study Area
3.2 Data Source and Type
3.3 The Sampling Technique and Sample size Determination
3.4 Data Analysis
3.5. Variables and analytical methods
3.5.1. Measuring food self-sufficiency and food security
3.5.2. Inferential statistics
3.5.3 Estimation Procedure
3.6 Definition of Variables and Working Hypotheses
3.7 Ethical Clearance
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Measuring the Food Security Status of the Resettled Households
4.2 Analysis of socio economic characteristics of the sample resettled households
4.2.1 Age of the resettled Household Head
4.2.2 Educational Status of resettled Households
4.2.3 Family Size and Dependency Ratio
4.2.4 Summary of Explanatory Variables
4.3 Food expenditure and Total expenditure
4.4 Econometric Results
4.4.1 Determinants of Resettlement on Food Security
4.4.2 Application of logit model to identify factors that determine food security status of resettled households
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
First and for most I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to my advisor Professor Uma Devi Emadishetty for her genuine and constructive professional comments without which the quality of this paper would not have been like this. My genuine appreciation goes to my friends especially Ato Biratu W. (Msc) and Samuel M. (Msc) for their general comments, concern and encouragements during my research work.
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my family, relatives and real friends for their encouragement and inspiration, which made the study a success.
Above all, many thanks go to the Almighty God who is always behind every success in one‘s attempt.
ADLI Agricultural Development Led Industrialization
AE Adult Equivalent
CSA Central Statistical Agency
DPR Dependency ratio
FAMSIZ Family size
EPRDF Ethiopian People‘s Revolutionary Democratic
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FDRE Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
GFDRE Government of Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
Kcal Kilo calorie
Ls Land size
ODPPB Oromia Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Bureau
OFSB Oromia Food Security Bureau
TLU Tropical Livestock Unit
TRGBRD Tigray Regional Government Bureau of Rural Development
WTIO Woreda Trade and Industrial Office
Table 4.1: Distribution of sample resettled households by expenditure range per AE in 2015/16
Table 4.2:.Distribution of Household Head by Age groups
Table 4. 3 Distribution of education level of resettled households
Table 4.4: Age category of dependent population in Chewaka Resettlement scheme
Table4. 5: Distribution of Sample Household by Family Size
Table 4. 6: Number of Oxen by Sample households
Table 4. 7: Summary of Households scores on some Hypothesized Discrete Variables
Table 4. 8: Summary statistics of independent t-tests for continuous variables
Table 4. 9: One-sample t test with ha/hh and X=1.84 ha/hh
Table 4. 10: Paired t-test for food and total expenditure
Table 4. 11: Hosmer and Lemeshow test of goodness of fit
Table 4. 12: Variance inflation factors (VIF) of the continuous explanatory Variables
Table 4. 13: Contingency Coefficients for Discrete Explanatory Variables
Table 4. 14: logistic regression for food security using different variables
Figure 3.1: location map of chewaka resettlement scheme
Figure 4.1: Graphical Presentation of Food Security of Sample Settlers
Resettlement program is one of the development strategy designed and implemented by the existing government in Ethiopia. Chewaka woreda Illibabor Zone, one of the areas of Oromia regional state in which resettlement program was undertaken to improve the living conditions of the settlers. This study was undertaken to assess and analyze the impact of resettlement on food security status of resettled households in the study area ; assessing the determinants of household food security differentials ;assessing the determinants of the program on the food security ; and forwarding certain suggestions for ways of improving the program should the need arise. To this end, Descriptive statistics, and binary logit model were used. Both primary and secondary data were also employed in getting the necessary information for the analysis of the study. A total of 92 sample respondents were identified using proportional random sampling technique. As a result, taking food poverty line (2200 kcal) as a yardstick, it was found that around 83.67% of households in the study area are food secure while the remaining balance of 16.33% of the households are food insecure. Moreover, the result was also indicated by the fact that the resettled households are food secure at household level. The result of the logistic regression model revealed that among the fourteen variables considered in the model, four explanatory variables were found to be significant at 5% probability level. These significant variables include age of household, education level, fertilizer use and family size of household heads. Identifying and understanding factors that are responsible for household food security status and its determinants is important to combat food security problems at the household level. The study findings suggest that in selecting priority intervention areas, resettlement has positive impact on food security.
Key Words: food security, resettled households, resettlement program, determinant of the program.
Because of rapid economic growth, population pressure and the degradation of natural resources, the resettlement of people to new locations has become a dominant development discourse in many parts of the world. Economic and political transitions in countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Pacific have made migration a salient feature of life in developing countries (Gurmu et al, 2000 as cited in Blessing, 2006). Ethiopia is one of the countries in Africa with a relatively high level of internal migration and population redistribution (Adepoju, 1977).
Occurrence of recurrent drought caused enormous economic and human loss in Ethiopia. To alleviate this situation several measures has been taken. During the Military regime, resettlement was strengthened and was carried out in two phases. The first was in 1974-1983 in which some 46000 households were resettled in 88 sites in 11 administrative regions, while the second one was conducted after the 1984 famine in which over half a million people were taken from drought stricken north-eastern and central parts and resettled in the west and south western parts of the country (Pankhurst and Pinguet, 2004).
According to World Food Program (2005), the concept of food security relates to three dimensions: physical availability; economic and physicals access; and utilization. Food availability is the amount of food that is physically present in a locality through domestic production, commercial imports and food aid. The aspect of food access involves household’s ability to acquire adequate amounts of food through home production, purchase, barter, gift or borrowing. As for food utilization, it has two components - households’ use of food to which they have access; and individuals’ ability to absorb nutrients. It is the stability of these dimensions that attains sustainable food security (Maliwichi et al., 2012). The issue here is: to what extent have these dimensions been addressed especially in the current resettlement operations?
As background information, in Ethiopia, government initiated resettlement programs can be traced back to the Imperial Regime in the 1950’s. The aim was to improve the livelihood of households from overcrowded, environmentally degrade, and drought prone areas that as a result experienced food insecurity. The early programs were not successful as they were ill-planned, lacked stakeholders’ participation and poorly funded (Dessalegn, 2005; Gebre, 2005).
According to the government food security strategy, the objective of ensuring household food security could be achieved through the Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP), other food security interventions and resettlement (NCFSE 2003). Moreover, resettlement is considered as the cheapest and viable solution to the problems of food insecurity on the basis of (1) availability of land in receiving areas, (2) labor force of the resettled households, & (3) easing pressure of space for those remaining behind (Wolde-Selassie, 2003). The program is believed to be instrumental in ensuring food security, while easing overwhelming pressure on the fragile resource base in the highlands (GFDRE 2001).
Impact of a certain program or policy can be conveniently be measured through the average difference between outcomes with the program and outcomes without the program, the latter representing the counterfactual. But in non-randomized program placement, like resettlement, the counterfactual can be achieved through propensity score matching (PSM) and other methods (Jemal, 2011; Alemat, 2011).
However there are no adequate studies which establish adequate evidence on impact of these programs on food security. This study utilizes a case study approach on the impact of resettlement on food security in Chewaka resettlement scheme. Chewaka was selected for study mainly because it is the largest resettlement scheme in the Regional State of Western Oromia.
Resettlement entails migration controlled by the state, and hence, government policies. Those policies affect people‘s livelihoods in different ways too. The resettlement program is deemed to improve people‘s livelihoods particularly their level of food security by providing them with amongst other things, but most prominently, access to farmland. Migration is also increasingly seen in development theory as an important livelihood strategy for poor people and a strategy that should be encouraged (De Haan, 2002).
Resettlement program undertaken by different Ethiopian regimes have declared objective of improving the life of the rural people affected by drought induced famines, among others. However, failures of the relocation attempts of the past regimes have been experienced. The worst case recorded was the resettlement program during the Military Marxist-Leninist Government of Ethiopia from 1974 to 1991 (Clapham, 2002). Then as now, food insecurity is the backdrop of the program, the government claimed that its motive for resettling people was to alleviate people‘s sufferings caused by the well-documented famine in Ethiopia in the mid-eighties. This time the efficiency and sustainability of the current resettlement program is becoming debatable with respect to its impact on environment and development. Specifically, to mention some among others are sustainability of the program; the achievement of food security objective; if achievements outweigh the losses in environmental impact.
Despite these controversies, there are limited studies on impacts of the resettlement program. It is common for the available studies to have limitations related with the area covered or emphasized, timing of the study in relation to the maturity of the program, the data used, and the methods of analysis employed.
It is however generally agreed, both inside Ethiopia and internationally, that the program was a failure, and many people suffered because of it. Nevertheless, the Ethiopian past experience being as it is, recently disclosed literatures on the subject at issue indicate that if population resettlement is based on adequate studies, socially accepted, properly implemented, monitored, and evaluated, it would enable to bring rational utilization of resources. It could create favorable conditions for introducing and implementing improved agricultural methods and better resource utilization system. Otherwise, the short term gain in food security may overshadow the long term irreversible cost of natural resources degradation at the resettlement sites. It is with this backdrop that the paper provides a good opportunity to examine survey data from Chewaka woreda for evidence of whether the resettlement program during the last 13 years has been translated in to improved economic circumstances of voluntary resettled households, and its impact on food security in the settlement sites.
In a nut shell, resettlement programs are ultimately designed to improve socio-economic conditions (to bring about economically & socially stable people), food security, with proper management and utilization of resources in the settlement areas. Resettlement programs are also assumed to create the possible introduction of proper use of resources, create opportunities of engagement for some of the underemployed sector of the society, and create conducive situation for introducing and implementing improved agricultural methods and better resource utilization.
But, are these programs really working for which they are designed? Has this resettlement program ensured food security? Therefore, the aim of this study is to assess and investigate the determinants of resettlement program on food security.
The overall objective of the study is to assess the determinants of resettlement on the livelihood of resettled households in attaining food security: The case of Chewaka Woreda, Illibabor Zone.
- To analyze socio-economic conditions of resettled households.
- To examine the food security status of re-settlers at household level.
- To analyze change in food and total expenditure of the resettled households
- To asses determinants of household food security in the study area.
Based on the specific objectives of the study the following testable alternative hypotheses are formed.
Ho1: Resettled households are food secured and food self-sufficient.
Ho2: There is no significant difference between food secure and insecure re-settlers in
- Initial income
- Age of household heads
- Time travel to market
- Family size and dependency ratio
Ho3: There is no difference between average land holding size of the sample households and national average land holding size of households.
Ho4: There is no difference between food secure and insecure resettled households in terms of food expenditure and total expenditure.
Researchers try to indicate that the current resettlement program is narrowly focusing on shifting of people from the densely populated to sparsely populated areas of high potential agricultural land. That is, farmers continue to practice the unsustainable system of production in virgin lands, thus, presenting grave consequences by creating catastrophic environmental conditions.
The data for this study will serve as a base line to determine the actual effect of the program on food security so as to take appropriate measures by any concerned government body to enhance the living status of resettled households. Some researchers have also been carried out on socio-economic improvement disregarding the extent to which the resettled households show an improvement in their livelihood. Besides, many things are unclear about the issue, particularly on factors influencing food security at the household level, as the general survey may not be appropriate for bringing about possible solutions. On top of the above, the studies did not show how sustainable the programs are using different indicators as yardstick for development. Therefore, understanding the effects of resettlement on living conditions at the household level can aid government in designing sound policies related to the wide-ranging problem of poverty in Ethiopia.
This study gives due attention on empirical assessment of potential research gap of knowing the extent the livelihood strategies attain on food security; reduced poverty and how it is sustainable in ensuring development. To study a specific resettlement program, therefore, provides the opportunity to study aspects of resettlement in relation to people‘s livelihoods and food security in general. Finally evaluating the determinants of resettlement on food security of Chewaka resettlement scheme will serve as a base for future since no studies has been conducted in this area regarding determinants of resettlement on food security.
This study is limited to the determinants of resettlement on food security in Chewaka resettlement scheme on the information that obtained from resettled households of the Woreda in the year 2015/2016. Of the resettlements undertaken in different tabias1 of Chewaka Woreda, four Villages were selected. In selecting the tabias and resettlement sites, special attention is paid to impact of resettlement on food security and its determinants with respect to general socio-economic conditions at a household level. One of the limitations is the difficulty in getting proper responses from respondents regarding their status of food security because respondents are not willing to give true information on the amount of crop they produce annually. The availability and accuracy data can also affect the study. There are many terms, which involved the respondents estimating quantities. These estimates should be treated as having high error terms.
In this research work the researcher has used the following three CSA‘s (2005) standard definitions of terms;
Household: - It consists of a person or group of persons irrespective of whether related or not who normally live together in the same housing unit or group of housing units and who have common cooking arrangements (CSA, 2005 as Cited in Bahabelom, 2010).
Head of household: - It refers to a person who economically supports or manages the household or for reasons of age or respect is considered as “head of household” by members of the household or declares himself as head of a household. Here, head of a household could be male or female (Ibid).
Member of a household:- It refers to persons who lived and ate with the household for at least six months including those who were not within the household at the time of the survey and who are expected to be absent from the household for less than six months. It also includes:
1. All guests and visitors who ate and stayed with the household for six months and above. 2. Housemaids, guards, baby-sitters, etc. who lived and ate with the household even for less than six months (Ibid).
Calorie: - It is the energy required to heat one gram of water by one degree Celsius.
The researcher has also used the following four definitions employed by Yntiso (2004). Voluntary resettlement: - It refers to a situation where migrants are entitled to make informed and free relocation decisions and the willingness to leave their original place. Induced-voluntary movement: - It occurs when people leave their home place to settle elsewhere as a result of deliberate acts of inducements coming from outside agencies. Involuntary migration:- It takes place through the forcible uprooting of people from their original place of residence either by natural disasters and/or human agencies.
Compulsory - voluntary migration: - It occurs when people accept forced removal out of sheer desperation, and when these voluntarily resettled people are denied the right to leave the resettlement area.
Resettlement involves the movement of communities from one environment to the other , and changes or modifications of the physical and social environment in which resettled households find themselves in and adapt to (Woldeselassie, 2002). Resettlement may be distinguished from spontaneous migration, initiated and undertaken by people on their own, and also from the exodus of refugees fleeing from one state to another (Pankhurst, 1992). In recent times resettlement has been used to address problems induced by sudden natural or manmade disasters, such as famine, floods, hurricanes, chemical or nuclear accidents and warfare (Mathur, 1995; Woldeselassie, 2002).
Resettlement has also become a byproduct of large-scale development projects, including dams, factories and national parks. Resettlement refers to a variety of migration types (Woldeselassie, 2002). Historically, the term resettlement has been used mainly to convey the idea of people returning to an area they had, or supposed to have lived in previously (Pankhurst, 1992).
Resettlement could be spontaneous (self-initiated) or planned (organized). Spontaneous Resettlement is initiated by individuals without any central coordination, while the planned is organized by the government. The spontaneous resettlement may take place due to population pressure, land degradation (erosion, deforestation, overgrazing), land tenure system leading to fragmentation of holdings, evictions of tenants from mechanized estates and periodic incidence of famine. Spontaneous resettlement also takes place where there is a good land to work, attractive trade, and opportunities for wage labor.
There are, however, controversial views on planned resettlement. Many are opposing the planned resettlement because the cost for initiating and running is so high that it becomes a liability to both the international community and the country (Desalegn, 1988). Planned resettlement is also depicted as highly artificial, for it is devoid of autonomy and subject to the control by authorities (Pankhurst, 1992). Also, Scudder (1985) described planned settlement as a hot bed of conflict and antagonism among the settlers themselves on one hand and between settlers and the host population on the other, and also argues that they are often designed to promote hidden motives other than those openly stated.
Government-sponsored planned resettlements can be undertaken through voluntary or involuntary resettlement schemes (Desalegn, 1988; Mathur 1995). Voluntary resettlement occurs when the migrants have the power to make informed and free relocation decisions and are willing to leave their original place. Induced voluntary movement takes place when people leave their place due to deliberate acts of inducements perpetrated by outside agencies. Although the migrants may use to describe the exodus of Jews from Egypt to Judea. After World War I it was applied to returning demobilized servicemen. Since World War II it has frequently been applied to forced transfer of urban Black South African to their specific rural home lands (Woldeselassie, 2002).
Resettlement is characterized by a movement of population and an element of planning and control. The notion of movement may serve to differentiate resettlement from two other policies: villagization, where the basic element is movement, which may or may not involve moving significant distances, and sedentarization, which aims to settle pastoralists, a process which need not involve moving away from the area in which the people were living (Pankhurst, 1992).
Land settlement, colonization or transmigration, all refers to the same phenomenon of population relocation (Desalegn, 1988). In Ethiopian context, the term land settlement seems to be more appropriate as it suggests relocating people in areas other than their own. In Latin America, the term often employed is colonization, which implies opening up or reclaiming lands for utilization. Those writing on Asian experience like Indonesia, favor transmigration, which is meant to suggest cross-ocean or cross-island relocation.
Resettlement undertaken by individuals, groups or communities on their own is mainly aimed at capturing better opportunities in a new environment, whereas in the case of state sponsored moves the underlying reason could be a mix of attempts at realizing the public good or implementing priorities laid down by political regimes. Resettlement is the activity of population removal and the reconstruction of social and economic systems. As a noun a resettlement refers to the people or group summation of a displaced population (Kassahun, 1997).
Involuntary resettlement schemes lead to forced population displacement, and the causes of relocation are grouped into four broad categories, namely a) natural disasters, such as droughts, floods and earth quakes, b) war or political turmoil, c) ethnic or racial or religious persecution, and d) development programs causing major changes in land or water use. Involuntary resettlement is full of stress that could be categorized into three types: physiological, psychological and socio-cultural (Colson and Scudder cited in Woldeselassie, 2002).
Physiological stress is measured by increased morbidity and mortality rates, psychological stress is due to trauma, grieving for lost home and anxiety about the uncertain future; socio-cultural stress is associated with economic, political and other cultural effects of relocation. Moreover, socio-cultural stress also results from the way people react to the implementation of resettlement. Thus, the stress of resettlement reduces the resettled households’ capacity for innovation during the transition period.
Cereana (2000) identifies impoverishment as a main variable in the resettlement process and formulates eight important sub-processes in which resettlement makes for impoverishment risks. These impoverishing sub-processes are landlessness, joblessness, marginalization, increased morbidity and mortality (erosion of health status), food insecurity, loss of access to common property and services and social disarticulation. He argues that focusing on these sub-processes will enable planners and implementers to turn the impoverishing tendency into initiatives to transfer the resettlement experience from stress-based to potential reconstruction and development.
Oberai (1988) also tried to identify problems confronting resettlement programs in developing countries. Among the problems, those identified as more important ones: settlers abandonment of settlement schemes, lack of non-farm employment opportunities, second generation problems, social tension between settlers and indigenous population, and ecological problems.
Some of the resettlement schemes around the world failed, while some others were successful. Several authors have tried to assess the resettlement schemes and identified practical evidences on factors affecting success or failure of land settlement programs (Desalegn, 1988; Gebregzihabher, 2004).
The main factors behind success or failure of a resettlement project include proper planning, site selection, size of land allocated to settlers, land tenure and farming systems, management and administration. Gebregzihabher (2004) raised the question “Why do things so often go wrong in resettlement projects?” He visualized two broad approaches, namely the inadequate inputs and the inherent complexities of resettlement approaches. According to him resettlement goes wrong principally because of lack of proper inputs, lack of national legal framework and policies, and lack of political will, funding, pre-settlement survey, planning consultation, careful implementation and monitoring. The inherent complexity of resettlement includes cultural, social, environmental, economic, institutional and political issues, all of which are taking place in the context of imposed spatial change.
The last three governments of Ethiopia have all carried out resettlement projects with different objectives and with varying intensity but, broadly speaking, the premises on which each justified the need for resettlement were similar, at least in theory. In the 1960s and 1970s, under the Imperial regime, there were a few settlement schemes run by various government departments and non-governmental organizations. Nevertheless, these were invariably small in size, ad hoc in nature, and were mainly designed to achieve specific and limited objectives (Tegegne 1988:82 and Pankhurst 1997:540 as cited in Berhane 2003). At that time state-sponsored-resettlement was largely undertaken to promote two objectives. Firstly to rationalize land use on government “owned” land and thus raise state revenue.
Secondly to provide additional resources for the hard pressed northern peasantry by relocating them to the southern regions (where most government land was located) and which was mainly inhabited by ‘subordinate populations’ (Rahmato 2003). It was seen as a viable program because it was believed that it would expand the farmed area of the country and thereby increase gross agricultural production. It was also recommended as a means of creating employment and solving the problem of the growing excess labour force. The settlers comprised landless peasants, evicted tenants, pastoralists and shifting cultivators, urban unemployed and ex-servicemen (Pankhurst 1992).
Yet it is hard to claim it was successful, since it often failed to meet the intended objectives. In brief, settlement costs were high, the rate of success was low, and the viability of a number of schemes was under question. Some assessments noted specifically that the difficulties stemmed from the inadequate planning of programs, inappropriate settler selection, inadequate budgetary support, and inexperienced staff (IEG: 10-20 cited in Rahmato 2003)
Planned resettlement gained currency and gathered momentum vastly after the commencement of the revolutionary process in 1974 (Brehane 2003). The government believed that resettlement would provide a “lasting solution” for the ‘hard-pressed’ peasantry, and particularly for the population living in the drought prone areas. It was conceived as a primary measure to rehabilitate People belonging to the minority cultural groups who are commonly referred to as Nilotic or Nilo-Saharan, and many of whom live in western and southwestern Ethiopia (Rahmato 2003) Victims of famine. For instance, planned relocation, involving hundreds of thousands of afflicted people, took shape in the immediate aftermath of the 1984/85 famine and there were great hopes that it would provide a permanent solution for the victims of famine (Pankhurst 1992).
Resettlement under the Derge, however, encountered a series of setbacks and a host of problems. Rahmato (2004, p. 24) sums up this experience as follows: In the period 1984-86, the Derge resettled some 600,000 people mostly in the lowlands of western Ethiopia. In this same period, some 33,000 settlers lost their live due to disease, hunger, and exhaustion, and thousands of the families were broken up. It is estimated that close to half a Billion Birr was spent on emergency resettlement, but the cost of damage caused to the environment, of the loss of livestock and other property, or of the distress and suffering caused to numerous people and communities will never be known.
Following the ousting of the Marxist military regime, with the exception of a few isolated attempts to relocate people, it seemed that planned resettlement was indefinitely suspended for some years. Recently, however, the EPRDF government has shown itself to be in favor of launching planned resettlement schemes, primarily to tackle the chronic food insecurity problem in some parts of the country. According to official statements, voluntary resettlement is viewed as a major and essential component of endeavors aimed at addressing the paramount problem of food insecurity in Ethiopia (GFDRE 2001).
As under previous regimes, it is believed that the voluntary planned relocation of vulnerable individuals and households will be instrumental in ensuring food security, while at the same time easing overwhelming pressure on the fragile resource base in the highlands (ibid). The government considered resettlement the cheapest and most viable solution to the problem of food insecurity on the basis of (a) the availability of land in receiving areas, (b) the labour force of resettled households, and (c) easing pressure of space for those remaining behind (Abbute 2004).
It is only a short time since the recent resettlement program was embarked upon under the present government but some critics have started to claim that it is being hastily executed without thorough preparation. They urge all concerned to take the necessary precautions to avoid the negative humanitarian and ecological consequences so frequently associated with it (OCHA-IRIN 2005 and Rahmato 2003).
The USAID (1992) defines food security as: “when all people at all times have both physical and economic access to sufficient food to meet their dietary needs for productive and healthy life.” According to this definition, food security has three fundamental elements:
Food availability is achieved when sufficient quantities of food are consistently available to all individuals within a country. Such food can be supplied through household production, other domestic output, or commercial imports or food donation.
Food access is ensured when households and members of the household have adequate resources to obtain appropriate food for a nutritious diet. Access depends on income available to the household, on the distribution of income within the household, and on the price of food.
Food utilization is the proper biological use of food, requiring a diet proving sufficient energy and essential nutrients, potable water and adequate sanitation. This aspect thus focuses more on nutrition, and in this it differs from the normative definition by the World Bank (1986).
Traditionally, food security has been measured by aggregate food supplies consisting of availability, accessibility, and adequacy (FAO, 2003). This aggregate supply side of food security at the nation level was, however, found to be inadequate and was replaced by putting emphasis on the individual/household level. To this end, several approaches to measuring food security applying variables such as household and income, height to weight ratios and the like were designed and thought to correlate with food security (FAO, 2003). Nonetheless, there occurred dissatisfaction with these measures and thereby brought about the use of direct measures of food security such as household food consumption data (based on recalls) and qualitative measures based on subjective household survey questionnaires (Maxwell,1992) to address the issue in a more meaningful manner. A more refined definition was that given by FAO (2002) as a situation that exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets dietary needs and food preferences so as to allow one an active and healthy life .
The extent of hunger and food insecurity in a country is an important indicator of standard of living (Anand and Harris, 1990). The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO, 2003) estimates around 800 million people worldwide to be food insecure. Ethiopia, one of the most famine-prone countries in Africa, has a long history of famine and food shortages (Ramakrisha and Demeke, 2002). More than half of the Africa‘s food insecure populations live in Ethiopia and five other countries such as Chad, Zair, Uganda, Zambia and Somalia (Ramakrisha and Demeke, 2002). Most famine and food crises in Ethiopia have been geographically concentrated in two broad zones. The first zones consists of the central and northern highlands, stretching from northern Shewa through Wello and Tigray, and the second is made up of the crescent of low-lying agro-pastoral land ranging from Wello in the north , through former provinces of Hararghe and Bale to Sidamo and Gamo Gofa in the south (ibid, 2002).
Though food insecurity has been prevalent in both rural and urban areas of the country, the rural areas, where the overwhelming proportions of Ethiopians live are harder hit by the problem. (FDRE, 2001). Millions of households in rural areas of Ethiopia suffer from chronic food insecurity and receive food aid on an annual basis. This emergency appeals and others costs on average of $265 million from 1997-2002 to assist a population of greater than 5 million per year (FSCB, 2004). A combination of factors has resulted in serious and growing food insecurity problem in the country, affecting as much as 45% of the population. Adverse changes in climate combined with other factors such as policy- induced stagnation of agriculture and the internal conflict that took place in the country in the 1970s and 1980s are among the ones that expose lack of enough food to about four million people in rural areas in each year of past 35 or so years (FDRE, 2001).
Over the past decade, more than five million people on average have required food aid each year, even during years of seemingly normal weather and market conditions. Over the past fifteen years an average of 700,000 metric tons of food aid per annum have been imported to meet food needs (ibid, 2004). Ethiopia has, therefore, been one of the largest recipients of emergency food aid in Africa for the past decade (ibid, 2004).
This emergency appeals, however, have had limited effectiveness at protecting productive assets and mitigating drought shocks. As a result, the Government of Ethiopia has revised its strategy of distributing food aid within framework of economic policy of Ethiopia that aims at ensuring rapid and sustainable development through an agriculture-centered development strategy. This strategy is known as Agricultural Development Led Industrialization strategy (ADLI), and concentrates mainly on the linkages between agriculture and other sectors of the economy (FDRE, 2008).
Agriculture growth is seen as a guarantee against food insecurity in the country. The food security strategy in Ethiopia is based on three important aspects: a) increasing food and agricultural production, b) improving food entitlement and c) strengthening capacity to manage food crisis. In short, so as to realize the above mentioned objectives, two major food security strategies have been followed in 2003 and 2005. The main components of food security program (FSP) are: resettlement program, productive safety net program, and other food security program. This research work, however, concentrates on the Resettlement Program aspect of the country‘s Food Security Strategies though some mention is made of the other two components to fill a possible gap to achieving a food security program (FSCB, 2004).
The current Ethiopian government has also considered resettlement as one strategy to overcome or at least reduce the persistent problem of food insecurity and ease the pressure on land in the densely populated highlands. That is, the government considers it as the economical and most viable solution to the problem of food insecurity on basis of the availability of land in receiving area, the labor force of the resettlers, and easing pressure of space for those remaining behind. With such strategy, it was planned to resettle about 440,000 households (2.2 million people) inter-regionally in Tigray, Amhara, Oromiya and SNNP regional states over the period of 2002/03 to 2005/06 (CFS, 2003 cited in Feleke, 2004).
The study in Oromia was carried out at Chewaka and Haro Tatessa in Ilu-Ababor zone and Anger-Gute (Gidda-Ayana) in East Wollega zone. In 2003/04, a total of 9,345 households were moved from Sidama, Kembata-Tembaro, Welayita, Hadiya and Gedeo Zones, and Konso Special Woreda (District) and re-settled in Bench-Maji, Keffa, Dawro, Sheka and South Omo Zones, and Basketo Special Woreda. About 13,108 households were also planned to be resettled in the year 2004/05 (World Food Program resettlement map).
Since 2003, the FDRE Government resettled over 164732 households in the four regional states (FDRE, 2006). About 45,000 of these households have been resettled in the western lowlands of Tigray and Amhara regional states until 2005 (TRGBRD, 2003). According to the program, resettlement is based on voluntarism, availability of underutilized land, consultation with host communities, and proper preparation (the four pillars of resettlement program). It is also argue that the current resettlement is implemented in accordance to ethnic, language, and cultural similarities within the Regional States. Each settler household is guaranteed assistance of packages that include provision of up to 2 hectares of fertile land, seed, oxen, hand tools, utensils, and food ration for the first eight months. The settlers are also provided with access to essential social infrastructures (clean water, health, health post, feeder road) and logistics support (FDRE, 2006).
Resettlement in Ethiopia, especially the one that took place during the Derg regime, has been subject to condemnations for it has claimed the life and desertion of thousands of people. The current government resettlement initiative was also criticized for not implementing the promises made (material and financial support) to resettled households prior to their being relocated. The government has been involved in the construction of infrastructure facilities such as roads, schools, health posts and veterinary service for livestock.
Regarding the failure of achieving the planned objective in certain resettlement area, it is argued that the program is characterized by hasty planning and practice resulting in poor sites selection, poor targeting of potential settlers, other ambitious principles, poor consultation, poor preparation and poor regard for the host community and the physical environment in the site (Dessalegn, 2003 as cited in FFSS, 2005). Referrals (those were sent to visit the sites to settling) give positive testimonies which led to a great disappointment became a major factor for departure from the site when circumstance did not correspond to expectation. There was also lack of follow up of the progress of settlers.
A survey on comparison of residing in new area (resettlement area) and in old habitat showed that while new area has better service such as health service; illnesses are more frequent in new areas of settlement than in their home areas of origin. Majority of settlers also reported that access to food was better before resettlement. This shows that resettlement as a solution for food self-sufficiency and food security is questionable (FFSS, 2005). Some studies (for example, FFSS, 2005) suggest that the 2003 and 2004 resettlements increased impoverishment risks to locals and to the earlier settlers by increasing landlessness, tensions and conflict. Furthermore, it has been argued that though more than half a million people have been resettled since 2003 in four regions, little is known about key issues, such as site selection and preparation, selection of the settling families, the food security situation, adaptation of the resettled households with the local people, sustainability of the resettlement program and impact on the environment (FFSS, 2005). According to the study, neither did promise to provide the new-comer with 2 hectares of farmland materialized until the re-settlers had to clear their plots on their own, nor contrary to what has been set out in the Resettlement Implementation Manual (RIM), forest and wildlife resources were protected.
Assefa (2005) has reported that there were heavy losses of natural resource, particularly in the forest area which have been already under fragile conditions due to continuous clearing for firewood, charcoal, house construction etc. (Assefa, 2005 as cited in FFSS, 2005).
On the basis of past resettlement related research findings, the success of the program in terms of food security is viewed in a contentious or skeptical way. Authorities usually focus on food self reliance whereas for example, Pankhurst (2005) points out that the settlers mention not only the amount but also the quality and the type of food, and stress the need for cash for other basic necessities. Nevertheless, according to Pankhurst despite disputes in the successful households producing a wider range of crops; such as maize and sesame, the later being used for cash generation which enables farmers to purchase animal power, sheep, goats and poultry to improve their livelihoods.
Evaluation of the impact of an intervention or program directed at achieving certain results involves measuring the outcome of the treatment/intervention. Intervention can refer to training programs, changes in regulations, policy changes, introduction of new programs, and application of medicine, transfer payments, adoption of new technology, or others. The outcomes to be measured differ from intervention to intervention and include increased income/expenditure, improved student enrollment, reduction in incidence of disease, poverty reduction, or empowerment. Impact evaluation would thus involve measuring changes to the outcomes of interest as a result of the treatment under consideration. The major point of interest in impact evaluation is the need to establish the causal relationship of treatment and outcome (Cobb-Clark and Crossley, 2003; Cameron and Rrivedi, 2005, in Zaid, 2008).
Experimental methods construct the counterfactual by randomly assigning a group of project participants (the treatment group) and a group of non-participants (the control group). Due to the random assignment of project participation, the treatment group is, on average, identical to the control group, except with respect to participation in the project (in this case resettlement).
Randomization effectively eliminates all pre-existing differences between the treatment and control groups; therefore, the effect of the project is isolated. However, although randomization evaluations are considered as the golden standards of impact evaluation methods, they may not be applicable to all types of interventions. For example, it is difficult to randomize evaluations of large infrastructure projects or projects designed to benefit a large part of the population. The literature has long recognized that impact evaluation is essentially a problem of missing data. A group of non-participants may therefore be used as the control group and to represent the counterfactual (Gebrehawaria, 2008).
A study by Bahabelom (2010) in Kafta Humera Woreda of Tigray region using a logit model revealed that around 77.4% sample of resettled households in the study area were food secure. According to this study four out of fourteen explanatory variables found to be statistically significant as their influence on food security. The variables were age, irrigation use, land size and initial income.
Bisirat (2011) in his study of impact of resettlement on the livelihood of settler population in Ababo woreda of Gambela peoples regional state using by Bi-variate analysis showed that the demographic features and livelihood assets had relationship with respondents livelihood outcomes. More over large proportion or 64% of the respondents’ livelihood was worse.
Taye and Mberengwa (2013) utilized a case study approach to assess the performance of Chewaka resettlement scheme in attaining food security. Study results showed that beneficiaries of Chewaka resettlement scheme had relatively larger and productive land holdings than in their areas of origin. While access to food generally improved, some households still faced food shortages and suffered from food shortage related illnesses. The study concluded by noting that the resettlement program had the potential to improve the food security situation of settlers if only it were fully supported by all stakeholders.
A very recent study by Mandefrot (2015) on impact of voluntary villagization program on household food poverty has been studied using cross sectional data from Lare district of Gambella regional state revealed after computing food poverty line, about 47% (34% of the voluntary villagization program plus 60% of non-program) of the sample households used to survive below the food poverty line. Propensity score matching has resulted in 93 program households to be matched with 95 non-program households. This study found that the voluntary villagization has significantly raised calorie intake of participating households in the study area.
Food insecurity as experienced in other locations is likely to be somewhat different but will include similar components that go beyond availability and access. Generally speaking, in-depth understanding of food security is crucial for developing valid measures, for two reasons. First, for a measure to be valid, its construction must be well grounded in an understanding of the phenomenon. Second, in-depth understanding can be used as the basis for creating a definitive criterion against which a developed measure can be compared. Although its most extreme manifestations are often obvious, many other households facing constraints in their access to food are less indefinable. Because the interventions vary depending on the context, the appropriate way to capture their impact on the determinants (common set of indicators) of household food access is problematic. In addition to the challenges posed by the range of activities implemented, data for many indicators used to measure the determinants of household food access, such as income and expenditure, are expensive and technically demanding to collect and analyze.
1 Tabia is Amharic word which means Village.