2.b ATW Livelihood Profile 2017.pdf

Abay-Tekeze Watershed Livelihood Profile 1

The Abay-Tekeze Watershed Livelihood Zone1 is found in central Amhara, and includes parts or all of Delanta, Wadla, Dawunt, Meket, East Esite, West Esite, Simada and Tach Gayint, Farta woredas. The area is mainly woina dega, but includes some kola and dega agro-ecology, traversing a diverse landscape of undulating plains, flat expanses, hills, valleys and mountains. The vegetation consists of scattered trees, bushes and shrubs, including acacia species, dodenia, dedeho (local name), Olia africana, Croton macrostacheous, embach

(local name) and eucalyptus plantations. There are no major towns in this livelihood zone, but small woreda towns include Wegel Tena, Kone, Kurba, Felaket, Mekaneyseus and Andabet. A major asphalt road connects Weldiya to Bahir Dar and a gravel road connects Sekota to Gashena vial Lalibela. The main year-round rivers found in the livelihood zone are the Beshilo, Zita and Enchika. Bordering the livelihood zone are the Tekeze, Abay (Blue Nile) and Teleyaeyen rivers. Historical sites, including a number of old and important churches, along with a breathtaking topography, provide a draw for tourists. This is a densely populated area.

Temperatures are cool in the highlands and warmer in lowland parts of the zone. Annual precipitation ranges from

800 – 1500 mm, falling during the kremt season, from mid-June to mid-September. Erratic rains are the norm, with unreliable amounts and an uneven distribution occurring most years. The soils are moderately fertile, varying from clays to sandy clays and sandy loams. Some woredas, like East Estie, West Estie , Dawunt and parts of Wadla are

1 Fieldwork for the current profile was undertaken in May of 2017. The information presented in this profile refers to the reference year, which was the consumption year that covered the period September 2014 to August 2015, which corresponds to 2007-2008 in the Ethiopian calendar. Provided there are no fundamental and rapid shifts in the economy, the information in this profile is expected to remain valid for approximately five to ten years (i.e. until 2021-2026). All prices referred to in the document are for the reference year.

Ethiopia Livelihood Baseline: Amhara Region

Abay-Tekeze Watershed Livelihood Zone (ATW)

Summary: This livelihood zone has a long history of food assistance and suffers from chronic food insecurity due to erratic rains, small (and diminishing) land holdings, crop diseases/pests and livestock diseases. Households grow a wide variety of crops, including wheat, teff, barley, maize, Irish potatoes, sorghum, lentils, and other pulses. In an average year, own crops cover around six months of the consumption needs for poorer households, and last throughout the year for better off households.

Eucalyptus trees are also cultivated and sold; along with teff, trees are the main ‘cash crop. Rainfed agriculture is the norm, and ox plows are used to cultivate. Poorer households rely heavily on finding work as seasonal migrant laborers outside the zone, on large commercial farms and in towns (on construction projects). Livestock are another important source of cash, but herd sizes are severely constrained by a lack of grazing land and it is expensive to maintain larger animals year-round. Cash transfers from the PSNP provide a crucial supplemental source of income for poorer households.

Zone Description

June 2017

Abay-Tekeze Watershed Livelihood Profile 2 relatively more productive; others, like Tach Gayint and Simada, are far less productive due to erratic rainfall and highly fragmented land holdings.

The household economy rests on three pillars: crop production, livestock production and labor sales. Wheat, Barley, maize, Irish potatoes, teff, sorghum, lentils, beans and haricot beans are cultivated, all of them rainfed. All households also grow and sell eucalyptus trees; along with teff, trees are the main ‘cash crop’ in this livelihood zone. Land is prepared using ox-plows, although hand tilling is practiced in hilly areas and on the steep slopes. Men are responsible for land preparation, plowing and planting, while women are more responsible for weeding and men are more responsible for harvesting. Very few households (only some from the better off wealth group) hire help from outside;

agricultural tasks are performed using intra-household labor. The majority of households use industrial inputs, especially fertilizers and improved seeds.

Households keep cattle (including oxen), sheep, goats, donkeys and chickens. Some also keep horses and mules.

Grazing areas are in short supply, so households need to purchase fodder during part of the year. Crop residues are also fed to livestock. Animals find water in major rivers, seasonal ponds and from harvested rainwater kept in troughs near the homestead. Cows provide milk for household consumption from August through December, and the milk is also turned into butter for sale. All livestock are also sold ‘on the hoof’ and for slaughter, particularly in

January and April for Christmas (Genna) and Epiphany (Timkat) and for the Muslim holidays Eid ul Adra and Eid ul

Fitr. Men are responsible for looking after cattle, oxen and donkeys, whereas women take care of the small stock and chickens.

Poorer households rely heavily on casual labor, finding paid work outside the livelihood zone as migrant laborers and on construction projects in the main towns, including Addis Ababa. Petty trade provides some poorer households with additional income. Local farms are a source of small amounts of income for women from female-headed households, who work during the weeding season. They also sell handicrafts as and when they can. Cash transfers from the PSNP are also critical for these households.

The services in this zone are commensurate with other rural areas of Ethiopia. Water for human consumption is collected from springs, hand-dug wells and hand-pumps. Water for washing and laundry, and for livestock, comes from rivers, in addition to the sources listed above. There is no charge for water, but water quality is not always high. Sanitation facilities are basic; all households use simple latrines and communal garbage disposal areas. Local health posts and health centers serve the population; services are subsidized and generally affordable, but drugs and qualified medical professionals are in short supply. Health insurance programs, including free medication for poorer households, have recently been introduced by the government. For serious medical problems people need to travel to regional centers, which can be expensive and difficult for poorer households to afford. Nevertheless, medical services and coverage have improved over the past decade. Electricity service is not wide-spread, concentrated mainly in kebele centers. Most households use kerosene, solar lanterns and battery-operated torches for light. Mobile phone service and use has increased dramatically since the last baseline. Almost all better off households have at least one mobile phone, often two; and some poorer households do as well. Primary schools

(grades 1-8) are found at village level; secondary schools (9-12) operate in woreda towns. Poorer households usually send their children through secondary school; better off households typically send their children all the way through to college. Microfinance services and savings schemes are available in all kebeles. The NGOs and international agencies working in this livelihood zone include Save the Children, Concern, ORDA, SLM, FHI and Care.

Markets

Abay-Tekeze Watershed Livelihood Profile 3

There has been a rapid expansion of the road network in Amhara Region over the past decade, and woredas are now connected to the zonal capital, Debere Tabor and Weldiya, by all-weather roads. Nevertheless, many parts of this livelihood zone are located in remote, difficult-to-reach areas, and dirt roads are still the norm for many of the more isolated areas. Access to market centers continues to be challenging in these distant kebeles, especially during the rainy season, when dirt roads become impassable. Most people continue to bring their goods to market by foot, walking along dirt paths to small woreda towns like Wegel Tena, Kone, Kurba, Felaket, Mekane Yesus and Andabet.

Dessie, Debere Tabor, Gondar, Bahir Dar, Kombolcha, Weldiya, Mekelle and Addis Ababa are key intermediate and terminal markets for this livelihood zone.

The main crops sold by households are teff, lentils/pulses and wheat. Most crops are transported from the farmgate to market by household members themselves, with poorer households traveling on foot, and better off households using vehicles. External traders buy up goods from woreda markets and transport them to terminal markets, or to intermediate markets, where they are bundled and sold onwards. The terminal market for teff is Gonder and

Mekelle (in Tigray), although some also remains in Debere Tabor and Weldiya. Poorer households sell teff in

December and January; better off households wait until June/July, when prices are higher. Lentils and pulses are sold in November and December to Dessie and Kombolcha and then on to Addis Ababa, where some is exported.

Wheat is sold to woreda markets from December to April.

Livestock are also sold by all households; cattle (sold mainly by upper wealth group households) are transported from villages to local woreda centers and then on to Bahir Dar and Weldiya. The final destination for many cattle is

Addis Ababa. Oxen are sold after the agricultural season and re-purchased when needed again, helping reduce the costs of maintaining them year-round. Goats and sheep are sold during the festival season in April (Easter/Fasika), September (New Year’s/Meskerem), December and January (Epiphany/Timkat). Kombolcha, Woldiya, Mekelle and

Addis Ababa serve as key intermediary and terminal markets for sheep and goats.

Households here rely heavily on purchasing staple food for a good portion of the year. Sorghum and maize are the main staples, imported from Humera and Gojam. Sugar, coffee and cooking oil are sourced from Addis, making their way into the zone via Debere Tabor and Weldiya, and then to woreda markets and villages.

The source of demand for seasonal agricultural work is mostly outside the livelihood zone, on commercial farms in

Humera and Oromia. A very small amount of local agricultural work is also on offer by better off households, usually during the weeding period. The urban casual labor markets in Addis Ababa and in regional towns provide additional seasonal employment opportunities.

The baseline assessment refers to a very specific time-period called the ‘reference year’. In the Abay-Tekeze

Watershed Livelihood Zone the reference year covered the consumption period from September 2014 to mid-

August 2015. During community leader interviews, informants were asked to rank the last five years in terms of seasonal performance with ‘1’ indicating a poor season and ‘5’ an excellent season. The table below, which summarizes the response of the community leaders, shows the performance of the production year, which in this case, means the meher harvest of that year. The meher harvest, starting in September, is the start of a consumption year. This means that the 2013 (ET 2006) meher production season is linked to the 2013/14 consumption year; 2014 is linked to the 2014/2015 consumption year, and so on. The 2014 meher season performance, shown in the highlighted row below, is associated with the reference year of 2014-2015 described in this profile. As indicated, the reference year was an average year, with typical pockets of inadequate rainfall; hail, frost and flooding in some areas; and crop pests and diseases, which are chronic hazards.

Timeline and Reference Year

Abay-Tekeze Watershed Livelihood Profile 4

Production Year Season Rank Critical Events

2016 (ET 2009) meher 3

Average year, with pockets of inadequate rainfall, hail, frost, water-logging, crop diseases and pests.

2015 (ET 2008) meher 1 Drought year

2014 (ET 2007) Reference year production meher 3 Average year, with pockets of hail, frost and flooding, with crop pests and diseases

2013 (ET 2006) meher 3 Average year, with pockets of inadequate rainfall, crop pests and diseases

2012 (ET 2005) meher 3 Average year, with pockets of inadequate rainfall, crop pests and diseases

5 = an excellent season for household food security (e.g. due to good rains, good prices, good crop yields, etc.)

4 = a good season or above average season for household food security

3 = an average season in terms of household food security

2 = a below average season for household food security

1 = a poor season (e.g. due to drought, flooding, livestock disease, pest attack) for household food security

The main rainy season (kremt) in this livelihood zone occurs from June to September. Agricultural activities are timed around the rains, which signal a start to the planting season. Oxen are employed to plow and prepare the lands, taking several passes, starting as early as January, after the harvest period is completed from the previous year, and all crop residues are collected; a second plowing occurs from March through April, before the main rains begin, and then again in June, as the kremt rains start to soften the ground. Long-cycle sorghum is planted before the other crops, with the first hint of moisture in April. With the main rains in June, wheat, barley, maize, pulses and then teff, are planted. During August, people are heavily engaged with weeding. Maize is the first to be harvested, green, in

September, along with pulses. Other crops are harvested in October and November. Threshing extends into

November and December.

Livestock production cycles are also linked to the rains. Milk production is highest from July through October, when water and pastures are abundant. Thus, income from butter/ghee sales will also be highest in these months.

Livestock diseases also peak during the rainy season, when tick-borne diseases increase. Livestock are sold in the highest numbers in the immediate post-harvest months and during major religious festivals, when prices for livestock are highest. Middle and better off households are best placed to time their sales to maximize their income from livestock sales by offering up animals in the months when the maximum possible profit is expected.

Division of labor by gender

Women’s tasks Men’s tasks

Planting (only small amounts) Land preparation/plowing

Weeding (highly involved) Planting

Harvesting (alongside men and children) Harvesting & threshing

Milking cows Herding, feeding & watering livestock

Sales of butter Care for sick animals

Care for calves, chickens, lambs Marketing of cattle, goats & sheep

Chicken sales Collecting/purchase livestock fodder

Preparing meals Slaughtering livestock

Collecting water (with children)

Seasonal Calendar for Reference Year

Abay-Tekeze Watershed Livelihood Profile 5

Poorer households, on the other hand, sell when they have an urgent need for cash, which leads to less profitable outcomes.

In an average year, like the reference year, middle and better off households typically manage to draw from harvested food stocks throughout the whole twelve-month period. However, poorer households run out of their harvested food stocks after around six to eight months. From June, very poor households buy almost all their food, and by August poor households join them. The four months from June until the new harvest begins in September or October are known as the lean season. This time of relative hardship is characterized by higher staple food prices, and high household expenditure requirements, due both to a pressing need to purchase food, as well as, typically, higher medical bills associated with an increased incidence of malaria.

This same time-period (the lean season) coincides with the highest labor demands of the year, when people are preparing land, planting and weeding. Because poorer households need extra cash during the lean season, they send at least one male member of their household to work in areas outside of the livelihood zone for around three months. Some people – usually from female-headed households – also find work locally, paid to weed the fields of better off households. Thus, poorer household members are working hardest at the time of year when their food supplies are lowest. In addition, as mentioned above, malaria is worst during the lean season. Illness brings the dual hardship of finding extra money for treatments, while at the same time losing the productive contributions of the sick family member.

The table below summarizes the types and numbers of productive assets that typical households within each wealth group own and/or manage. The graph below the table shows the percent of households within the zone that falls

Wealth Breakdown and Productive Assets

Abay-Tekeze Watershed Livelihood Profile 6 into each wealth group. The yellow bars indicate the percent of female-headed households within each wealth group. On the right side of the table, a separate set of productive assets figures is provided for poor female-headed households

Household wealth is determined, first, by the amount of land owned and under cultivation and, second, by the number and types of livestock owned. Arable land is limited, and becoming more fragmented with each generation.

Since there official land distribution in 1975, there has been no further allocation of plots.

People obtain land through inheritance, and because land is divided equally among the children in a household, plot sizes diminish with each successive generation.

No fallow land remains, and better off households rent in land from poorer households to expand the area they cultivate. During the reference year, typical better off households cultivated around 1½ hectares of land, although they owned less than that. Very poor households cultivated around ½ hectare, although they owned slightly more. Poor households generally cultivate all the land they own (around ¾ hectare), neither renting in nor renting out land.

Oxen are used for plowing and owning oxen distinguishes those at the upper end of the wealth spectrum from those at the lower end. It takes a pair of oxen to plow one’s land, and only better off households typically own two oxen.

Middle households may or may not own a pair; poor households may own one, but they might also own none. Very poor households do not own any oxen. Those who do not own oxen need to make arrangements to use those of middle or better off households, but this means they plow their land later than they should, and usually with fewer than the recommended passes. Yields for poorer households are lower as a result.

Owning livestock also provides households with access to cash throughout the year. Goats and sheep are sold during festival periods and to generate cash for school fees and ongoing household expenditures. Cattle are used for milk, which is both consumed and sold in the form of butter. Cows are not typically sold unless they are no longer productive, but young bulls are sold and can provide households with substantial cash infusions. Chickens are kept by all households, too, with eggs sold on an almost-daily basis to generate small amounts of cash. Livestock ownership is constrained foremost by the limited grazing land and fodder. Buying fodder is expensive, and poorer households simply cannot afford to keep more than a few animals. Better off households typically owned around 4-

5 cattle, 2-4 goats and 4-6 sheep in the reference year, along with some chickens, at least 2 oxen and a donkey; very

Abay-Tekeze Watershed Livelihood Profile 7 poor households, on the other end of the spectrum, typically owned only 1-2 sheep, along with a few chickens. They did not own any of the higher value livestock, like oxen or cattle.

Household size generally increases with wealth, but not substantially; better off households have more productive labor to draw on, but also more mouths to feed. Poor female-headed households have the least amount of labor for productive activities, putting them at a particular disadvantage.

Female-headed households make up a portion of all wealth groups, with higher proportions found in the lower three wealth groups. Poor female-headed households have an asset profile that falls in between very poor male-headed and poor male-headed households. They cultivate the same amount of land as poor households, but have, on average, a few more livestock, with at least 1 cow and 2 sheep.

Since the last HEA baseline, which took place a decade ago, there has been a slight change in the size of land cultivated per household. Poorer households appear to be cultivating slightly more than they were a decade ago

(around ¼ hectare more), and middle and better off households are cultivating slightly less (around ½ hectare less).

It is not immediately clear why this would be the case. The number of livestock owned by households has remained the same, with the exception of sheep, which have declined notably. For example, in the baseline from a decade ago, better off households typically owned 20 sheep, but now they own around 5.

The graphs on the next page present the sources of food for households in different wealth groups in the livelihood zone for the period September 2014 to August 2015. September represents the start of the consumption year because it is when the green harvest of staple cereal crops begins, marking the end to the hunger season. Food is presented as a percentage of 2100 kcal per person per day for the 12-month period. This was considered an average year.

Households depend on two main sources of food in this zone and three minor ones. The main sources are own crop production and purchased food. The minor sources are own milk/meat; food received as payment in kind for labor;

and PSNP food transfers. Own crops covered around 40-50% of minimum calorie needs for the bottom two wealth groups and 70-80% of minimum calories for the top two groups. A number of crops are grown for consumption, including barley, wheat and teff, along with minor contributions from sorghum, maize, Irish potatoes and pulses

(including vetch, peas, beans and lentils). Wheat is the main cereal crop, grown by all wealth groups, with teff a close second, followed by barley. The table below shows substantial differences in the amount of food produced by different wealth groups: better off households typically generated over 1,700 kg of cereal crops, along with around

350 kg of tubers and 265 kg of pulses in the reference year, whereas very poor households generated just under

500 kg of cereals, around 100 kg of tubers and less than 40 kg of pulses. On average, better off households cultivated

3 times more land than very poor households, but were able to produce on this land almost 4 times more output. This difference is due to better management practices on the part of richer households (timely plowing and more appropriate applications of inputs).

All wealth groups sold a portion of their teff crop, and those who grew lentils sold these as well; this makes good economic sense, since teff sold for around 11 ETB/kg in the reference year and lentils sold for around 22 ETB/kg.

Typical household production in the reference year - ATW very poor poor middle better off poor-fhh

Milk (ltr) 0 85 380 488 85 Cereals

(kg) 480 600 1075 1775 400 Pulses (kg) 40 40 215 265 0 Tubers (kg) 100 75 130 350 50

Sources of Food

Abay-Tekeze Watershed Livelihood Profile 8

Households could purchase cheaper cereals, like sorghum, for around 5.5 ETB/kg. In addition, better off households sold a substantial portion of their barley, wheat and remaining pulses, along with some Irish potatoes. Poorer households retained most of what they grew for consumption. In the reference year, even if very poor and poor households had consumed everything they produced, and not sold anything, they would still have been facing a calorie gap of 50-60% of minimum needs. Middle and better off households, on the other hand, could have covered all of their minimum calorie needs with their own crops if they hadn’t sold any, with better off households able to cover almost 150% of annual needs and middle households able to cover just 100%.

However, selling higher value crops to purchase cheaper staple cereals is a successful strategy; and households need to generate cash for items beyond just food, as shown in the section on expenditure, below.

Thus, all households needed to buy at least some of their food in the reference year.

The top two wealth groups obtained 20-30% of their minimum calorie requirements from the market in the reference year and the bottom two groups bought 35-40%. As shown in the graph, cereals made up a good portion of the food purchased by all groups.

Maize and sorghum were bought in the highest quantities, as these were the cheapest staples; small amounts of wheat were also purchased by some households.

Non-cereal purchases included sugar, oil and pulses. Most households covered under

10% of their annual food needs with these higher-value foods; better off households did not need to buy as much of these since they grew a substantial amount of their own pulses; poorer households produced less of their own non-cereal crops, but could not afford to buy more given the high price of these goods.

Milk provided an additional source of food for middle and better off households, who had at least one cow milking during the reference year. Around 70-80% of the milk was sold; the amount retained for household consumption covered just under 5% of annual food needs in the reference year. Poorer households may also generate a small amount of milk if they have a cow that is lactating, but the amounts they receive are almost insignificant in relation to annual calorie needs.

In the graph, food access is expressed as a percentage of minimum food requirements, taken as an average food energy intake of 2100 kcals per person per day.

The graph provides a gender-based division showing who within the household generates what proportion of food that is produced by the household.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Very poor Poor Middle Better off green crops own maize own teff own barley/wheat other own crops own milk/meat in kind purchased cereals purchased non-cereals PSNP

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% very poor poor middle better off men women children all

Abay-Tekeze Watershed Livelihood Profile 9

Poorer households also derived a small amount of food from in-kind contributions, usually in the form of lunches provided to migrant workers in Humera and Wellega during the two months they stayed away from home. In addition, the bottom two wealth groups received PSNP food transfers, which totaled, on average, just over 110 kg in grain, along with small amounts of pulses and oil. It should be noted that not all woredas received food transfers;

some received food, and others received cash. The data here shows an average of the results.

As shown in the lower set of graphs above, all household members (men, women and children) share in the majority of food-related production tasks in this zone. Women in the top two groups are responsible for milking, which accounts for their slightly higher contribution in terms of milk production. Men are the ones who take part in migratory labor, which accounts for their contribution (of in-kind food) in the graphs of the lower two groups.

Comparing the current sources of food to the patterns from the HEA baseline conducted ten years ago, there is very little change in the sources of food themselves, although the particular amounts and types of crops being grown has shifted slightly. More wheat was being grown before and no barley was grown, for example, and more lentils were grown before, but no Irish potatoes or maize. In general, middle and better off households are producing more now, but they are also selling a higher proportion of their production and purchasing more food as a result. Own milk/meat and payment in kind have not changed. In addition, the contribution from PSNP food transfers was higher in the previous baseline than this one.

The main sources of cash income for households in this zone are crop sales, livestock sales, tree sales, and local/migrant labor. Less substantial amounts of cash also come from milk/ghee sales, chicken/egg sales and PSNP cash transfers. Significant differences exist between the cash income of better off households and those in the bottom two wealth groups. Better off households rely entirely on cash income generated from on-farm sources; poorer groups rely heavily on paid labor off their farms to meet their cash needs. Middle households are almost entirely dependent on their on-farm income, but still generate a small amount of extra cash from migrant labor.

Teff is the most important crop sold in this zone, with better off households deriving around a quarter of their annual cash income from this crop alone in the reference year. They also sold barley, wheat, Irish potatoes, lentils and peas; these sales comprised an additional 20% of their cash income. Sales of eucalyptus trees, used as building materials, provided another 15-20% of annual cash for better off households.

Thus, in total crop sales (including tree sales, which are cultivated and can be considered a ‘crop’), accounted for

55-60% of annual cash income for better off households in the reference year. The remaining portion of cash came from livestock sales, milk/ghee sales and chicken/egg sales.

Sources of Cash Income

The graph provides a breakdown of total annual cash income in Ethiopian birr according to income source.

10000

15000

20000

25000

Very poor Poor Middle Better off

Et h io p ia n b ir r barley/wheat sales pulse sales teff sales tuber sales livestock sales tree sales milk/ghee chicken/egg sales local labor migrant labor handicrafts PSNP

Abay-Tekeze Watershed Livelihood Profile 10

Very poor households, on the other hand, derived only around 15% of their cash income from crop sales, producing and selling far less.

They did not sell pulses or tubers, and very little of their barley/wheat and teff. Tree sales, in fact, generated half of their crop sale income. Far more important for these households was the cash income from labor sales, mainly outside of the zone, in Humera

(western Tigray) on the sesame plantations and in the Wellega areas. This cash made up

50-60% of the annual income for very poor and poor households in the reference year, and around 10% of the income for middle households.

Better off households generated, on average,

2.8 times more cash income than very poor households in the reference year. In fact, better off household cash income from livestock-related sales alone far exceeded the annual cash income of a typical very poor household (from all sources combined) in the reference year.

Livestock-related sales, including sales of more valuable animals, like cattle, goats and sheep, as well as sales of less valuable animals and animal products, like chickens, eggs and milk/ghee, provided cash income to all households, increasing in absolute value with wealth.

Middle and better off households sold a bull or unproductive cow during the reference year, along with multiple goats and sheep.

Poorer households sold only goats and/or sheep. The top three wealth groups also sold milk in the form of butter or ghee; and all wealth groups sold chickens and eggs. The poorer two wealth groups derived 15-20% of their annual cash from livestock-related sales in the reference year; the upper two wealth groups derived 40-50% of their cash income from these sources.

PSNP cash transfers accounted for the remaining 10-15% of very poor and poor household income in the reference year, but

2 The average exchange rate from September 2014 to August 2015 was 1 USD = 20.30

INCOME SUMMARY TABLE (Ethiopian birr)

Wealth group

Very poor

Poor -

MHH

Poor -

FHH

Middle Better off

Annual income per household 2

6,500 - 8,800

8,800 – 11,000

6,000- 9,000

11,000 – 20,000

20,000- 35,000

The graph provides a breakdown of total annual cash income as a percent of annual cash income.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Very poor Poor Middle Better off o f a n n u al c as h in co m e barley/wheat sales pulse sales teff sales tuber sales livestock sales tree sales milk/ghee chicken/egg sales local labor migrant labor handicrafts PSNP

The graph shows the amount of cash generated according to gender/age.

10000

15000

20000

25000 very poor poor middle better off men women children all

Abay-Tekeze Watershed Livelihood Profile 11 did not contribute at all to the top two groups.

The amount of cash generated according to gender/age group is presented in the graph above, supported by the list of gender-specific income generating activities in the table. All household members sell food crops. Men are responsible for selling most livestock. Women sell chickens and eggs, which shows up on the poorer end of the wealth spectrum, and milk/ghee, which appears on the upper end. Women also sell handicrafts, which is a source of cash, especially, for female-headed households.

In general, the sources of cash income for households in this livelihood zone have not changed substantially since the last baseline. Households are still relying on the same sources of cash, including teff sales, tree sales, cattle, goat, sheep, sales, etc. There has, however, been an increase in the cash derived from crop sales for the upper wealth groups, and an increase in the cash income from milk/ghee sales. In additon, local labor has declined since the last baseline. At the same time, the spread of cash income between the top and bottom of the wealth spectrum stayed almost exactly the same, with better off households generating around 2.6-2.8 times more than very poor households in both reference years.

The graph presents expenditure patterns for the reference year September 2014 – August

2015. While absolute expenditure increases with wealth in line with total cash income, the expenditure breakdown by percent in this graph shows the relative amount of income spent on different categories.

Over the year, households need cash to buy a range of essential goods and to cover various service requirements. These include:

staple food, non-staple food, household items (like salt, soap, tea, lighting, grinding services, etc.), productive inputs, social services (which include school and health), clothes and other miscellaneous items.

Spending on three areas, in particular, accounted for the largest portion of expenditure in the reference year: 1. staple food; 2. productive inputs; and 3. Household items. All wealth groups had to devote a portion of their cash to buying staple food; this ranged from as low as 5-

6% of annual expenditure for better off households to 20-30% for very poor households. The staple food category is comprised of sorghum, maize and wheat, plus half of the beans and oil purchased. Poorer households had to buy more food because they produced less of it themselves. Spending on non-staple food, which consists here of the remaining portion of beans and oil, accounted for an additional 4-10% of annual expenditure.

Gender-specific income generating activities

Women’s tasks Men’s tasks

Milk/ghee sales Cattle sales

Egg sales Goat sales

Chicken sales Sheep sales

Handicraft sales Migratory labor

Expenditure Patterns

The graph provides a breakdown of total annual cash expenditure according to category of expenditure.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

V.Poor Poor Middle Better-off staple food non-staple food HH items water inputs health/school clothes other

Abay-Tekeze Watershed Livelihood Profile 12

Investments in productive inputs comprised between 15-25% of expenditure for poorer households and 25-30% of expenditure for middle and better off households. In absolute terms, better off households spent an average of 4 ½ times more on inputs than very poor households, reflecting their larger land areas and bigger herds. Included in the inputs category are the following items: animal drugs, fodder for animals, land rental, plowing, seeds/tools, fertilizers/pesticides, livestock purchase, loan repayments and other inputs. Of these items, all wealth groups spent the most on fertilizers/pesticides (taking up 35-50% of the inputs budget), followed by loan repayments for the bottom three wealth groups (comprising 20-35% of the inputs budget) and seeds/tools (taking up 15-25% of the inputs budget). Only better off households purchased livestock, and the upper two wealth groups also spent a portion of their budget on fodder and on land rental and plowing. Very small amounts were spent by all households on animal drugs.

Spending on household items (‘HH items’) ranged between 20-25%. Included here are weekly and/or monthly outlays on coffee, tea, salt, red pepper, soap, grinding and utensils. Within this category, households spent the most on coffee, tea, salt and pepper; these items made up 65-70% of the household items budget for all wealth groups in the reference year. Grinding services accounted for an additional 10-15% of this budget; and lighting made up 5-

10%. Utensils and soap comprised the balance.

The remaining cash was spent on social services, clothes and ‘other’ items. Social services (health and education) accounted for 6-9% of annual expenditure for all households, although in absolute terms better off households spent more around 4 times more on education and health than very poor households (on a per capita basis). Clothing made up 12-14% of expenditure across the board in the reference year, with absolute expenditure increasing with wealth. ‘Other’ items included non-essentials, like beer, tobacco, festivals, gifts and other discretionary expenditure.

This spending can be reduced or eliminated in a bad year. In the reference year, this category accounted for 7-17% of expenditure, increasing in relation to wealth. Very poor households had less than 10% of their annual expenditure allocated to discretionary spending, highlighting the narrow margins within which they operate, even in an average to good year.

Female-headed households are found in each of the wealth groups, as shown in the wealth breakdown. During field work, in-depth interviews were conducted with poor female-headed households. This is a group that faces similar constraints and characteristics as male-headed households in the same wealth group, but they are further disadvantaged by a lack of productive intra-household labor and, potentially, constraints on certain types of asset ownership, productive work, or income generating activities. Having said that, women in this livelihood zone have the right to own and inherit land as well as livestock from their parents.

The graphs below illustrate that poor female-headed households and poor male-headed households share a similar pattern of food access, although they have a slight deficit in relation to annual calorie requirements. This is because their crop production is marginally lower, given constraints on access to oxen and constraints on labor within the household. As shown in the breakdown of calories generated according to gender and age, most production is generated by a combination of women and men (young or older boys) within the household. All members of the household engage in food production; the proportion generated by women reflects the small amount of milk that these households typically have access to.

Two sources of cash income are notably different for poor female-headed households compared to poor male-headed households. First, instead of migrant labor, poor female-headed households rely on whatever local agricultural paid labor they can find, typically working for better off households during the weeding season. Second, they make and sell handicrafts to supplement their other cash income. These sales help to make up for the lower

Female-headed Households

Abay-Tekeze Watershed Livelihood Profile 13 crop sale and tree sale income. Their absolute cash income levels are also slightly lower than male-headed households in the same wealth group (around 90% of the value on a per capita basis).

The chronic hazards affecting households in this livelihood zone include: 1. inadequate and/or poorly distributed rainfall, experienced in one or another pocket of the livelihood zone every year; and 2. crop diseases and pests, Sources of food: poor female headed households vs poor male-headed households

Proporiton of annual minimum calories produced by household according to gender and age

Sources of cash: poor female headed households vs poor male-headed households

Amount of annual cash generated according to gender and age

Hazards

Abay-Tekeze Watershed Livelihood Profile 14 such as stalk borer, which affects sorghum and maize; yellow rust, which affects wheat; chocolate spot, which affects beans; and aphids and cut worms, which damage pulse crops. Malaria also spikes every year during the rainy season.

Livestock diseases are another hazard, occurring once every two years. Local livestock diseases of concern include:

anthrax and black leg, which affect cattle; pasteurellosis, which affects goats, sheep, cattle and oxen; and mange mites, and worms. Other periodic hazards include frost, which damages crops once every three years; floods, occurring every other year in some part of the zone; and hail, which damages pockets within the zone intermittently.

In response to hazards and years with bad production, households attempt to meet their minimum food needs and cash requirements through a number of strategies. These strategies are detailed for this livelihood zone below:

• All households try to reduce expenditure on non-essential or more expensive items first, buying less sugar and oil, for instance, and using that money to buy the cheaper staple – sorghum, wheat or maize – instead; or cutting down on festivals, tobacco and beer, or eliminating clothing purchases.

• Very poor, poor and middle households try to increase cash income through increasing their paid labor.

However, in bad years, as increasing numbers of people flood the labor market, this option quickly loses its value because wage rates drop and jobs are hard to find.

• Poorer households also try to increase cash income through increasing various forms of self-employment, such as firewood sales or petty trade. Again, in bad years, when increasing numbers of people attempt to rely on these strategies, marginal profits decrease over time.

• Middle and better off households try to increase their livestock sales. However, even these households have very limited numbers of animals, and the value of livestock tends to drop in bad years, putting a cap on the effectiveness of this strategy.

• All households also attempt to take out additional loans, although better off households, with more collateral and less risk, have more luck with this than poorer households. In addition, with more money to pay back once the bad year is over, households face a slower recovery, extending the negative effects of the bad year into the future.

The key parameters listed in the table below are food and income sources that make a substantial contribution to the household economy in the Abay-Tekeze Watershed Livelihood Zone. These should be monitored to indicate potential losses or gains to local household economies, either through on-going monitoring systems or through periodic assessments.

Item Key Parameter - Quantity Key Parameter – Price

Crops • Wheat - meher – amount produced

• Teff – meher – amount produced

• Barley - meher – amount produced

• Maize - meher – amount produced

• Lentils - meher – amount produced

• Vetch – meher – amount produced

• Eucalyptus trees – number grown

• Wheat – producer price

• Teff – producer price

• Lentils – producer price

• Vetch – producer price

• Eucalyptus trees – producer price

Response Strategies

Key Parameters for Monitoring

Abay-Tekeze Watershed Livelihood Profile 15

Livestock production • Cow milk – yields

• Cattle – herd size

• Goats – herd size

• Sheep – herd size

• Eggs – number sold

• Cows’ milk/butter – producer price

• Cattle – producer price

• Goats – producer price

• Sheep – producer price

• Eggs – producer price

Other food and cash income

• Migratory labor - number of jobs

• PSNP – amount distributed (food & cash)

• Migratory labor wage rates

Expenditure • Sorghum – consumer price

• Maize – consumer price

• Wheat – consumer price

The longer-term program implications suggested in the bullet points below include those that were highlighted by the wealth group interviewees themselves and those made by the assessment team following detailed discussions and observations in the field in order of priority. All of these suggestions require further detailed feasibility studies.

Development priorities for very poor and poor households include:

• Improved road infrastructure and maintenance

• Expanded employment opportunities

• Electricity

• Access to clean and affordable water

• Improved health services, with access to affordable, well-stocked health clinics and medical staff

• Access to improved educational facilities, including at the high school level

• Access to affordable and appropriate agricultural inputs

• Development of irrigation infrastructure

• Provision of credit at affordable rates

Development priorities for middle and better off households include:

• Improved road infrastructure and maintenance

• Development of irrigation infrastructure and generators for irrigation

• Access to clean and affordable water

• Improved health services, with access to affordable, well-stocked health clinics and medical staff

• Electricity

• Access to affordable and appropriate agricultural inputs

• Development of market infrastructure and market opportunities

Program Implications