Public Policy and Administration Research ISSN 2224-5731(Paper) ISSN 2225-0972(Online) Vol.4, No.5, 2014 www.iiste.org The Contribution of Rural Resettlement to the Livelihoods of Settlers in Ethiopia: A Case of Essera District Resettlement Schemes in SNNPR Terefe Zeleke (Corresponding Author) Ethiopian Civil Service University Melesse Asfaw, Ph.D., PMP Ethiopian Civil Service University E-mail: drmelesse@gmail.com Abstract This study examines the contribution of resettlement program to the livelihoods of settlers in resettlement areas of Essera DistrictinDawuro Zone, SNNPR. One hundred thirty eight (13%) sample participants were selected for survey by using simple random sampling techniques from three kebeles of resettlementarea. In addition, focus group discussion with representatives of settlers; key informant interviews and personal observations have been employed to collect data in this study.The study results show that the consultation about the resettlement program was made with majority of settlers before the implementation of program. It was also noticed that the movementof settlers to the new area was voluntarily based. The study also asserts that the occurrence of conflict among settlers and the host community is very minimal. Regarding the livelihood status of settlers, the study tells us that the resettlement program is positively contributing to the social, financial and physical capitals of settlers’ livelihood assets. However, the current human and natural capitals of livelihood assets are not at pleasing status due to less infrastructure and social service facilities like schools, health services, safe drinking water, veterinary services, and land holdings in the resettlement areas. Furthermore, the resettlement program has not equally reduced the vulnerability of all settlers to food insecurity. In this regard, the study reveals that 14.5 percent of settlers were food insecure during the survey period. The agricultural activities and all income sources to participants are entirely relied on rainfall which is highly susceptible due to seasonal variations. The off-farm and non-farm activities such as petty trade, handicrafts, engagement in agricultural labor work and food-for work programs can generate additional income to household heads to promote their livelihood assets and to cope with adverse circumstances. However, the study found that these activities are hardly carried out by settlers. Thus, the integrated intervention of all concerned bodies is indispensable to reverse the problems related with resettlement and to enhance the diversification of income sources to settlers to build their livelihood assets in sustainable manner. Keywords:Resettlement, settlers, livelihoods, livelihood assets, off-farm activities, non-farm activities. 1. Introduction The most Ethiopian farmers dependon undiversified livelihoods based on low inputand low output rain fed agriculture. As a result, most of them do not produce enough to meet their consumption requirement (Devereux, 2000). Besides, long term factors such as population growth, environmental degradation, diminished land holdings, lack of on-farm technological innovations, and lack of off-farm income sources have led to a decline in productivity per household in the country (Workneh, 2008). In order to find long- term solutions to chronic food insecurity in four largely populated regions such as Amahara, Tigray, Oromia and Southern Nations, Nationalitiesand Peoples Region/SNNPR/, the current Federal Democratic Government of Ethiopia launched the voluntary intra-regional resettlement program.The intraregional resettlement program was launched with an objective to resettle 440, 000 household heads (2.2 million chronically food insure people). The implementation document of the program states that the current resettlement program is based on basic pillars and principles such as purely voluntarism, the availability of underutilized land in receiving areas, establishment of minimum infrastructure facilities, consultation with host communities, proper preparation, etc. among others to ensure sustainablefood security and livelihoods in new areas where people have been relocated(FSCB, 2003, MoFED, 2006). Concerning the execution of the program, most of the studies undertaken at national level on different resettlement areasreport seem to indicatepoor social and physical infrastructure facilities in the resettlement areas, less consideration for environmental management, absence of feasibility study and minimal consultation with settlers and host community all of which contribute for the successfulness of the program to improve the livelihoods of settlers(Dessalegn, 2005, Gebre, 2005, Kassahun, 2005). Although the purpose of implementing the resettlement program is to ensure food security and to improve the livelihood conditions for settled households in the country, settlers in different resettlement areas of the country were unable to improve their 36 Public Policy and Administration Research ISSN 2224-5731(Paper) ISSN 2225-0972(Online) Vol.4, No.5, 2014 www.iiste.org livelihood through the current one hectare and below land holdings which they have been given in new areas(Asfaw, 2005, Driba, 2005). In addition, some studies reveal that there were some problems related to most important livelihood building elements like education, health, safe potable drinking water, road during implementation of the resettlement program in SNNPR (Mellesse, 2005, Wold Selassie, 2003). Resettlement is the largest program carried out in the region by the government and was described in the national media as part of the solution to the country’s problems of food insecurity, land degradation in high land areas and population pressure. Tadros (1979)explains that large scale planning of new resettlements is a relatively recent phenomenon in developing countries. Nevertheless, rural households in developing countries are observed to devote a lot of attention to personalized networks, setting up complex, but informal systems of rights and obligations designed to improve their future livelihood security as stated by Berry cited in (Ellis, 2000). Likewise, most Ethiopian agricultural households have an informal social capital that strengthens the solidarity among them in good and bad times. According to DFID (1999), social capital can also be actively, though often unintentionally, destroyed through heavy-handed interventions like resettlement programs that impose new social relations without taking into account the strengths of the old one. In line with this, the resettlement program in Essera district of Dawuro zone could create new patterns of social interactions and relationships which would affect the livelihood assets of settlers. In addition, it could be argued that the experiences of settlers to use other livelihood strategies would have their own effect in realizing the livelihood assets in new resettlement area. Moreover, it could be argued that sustainable livelihood would be realized when the vulnerable groups are able to utilize five livelihood assets such as natural, social, physical, human and financial capitals in the new resettlement areas of the district. However, a change in any one of these assets may result in a difference in the livelihood assets of the settlers either positively or negatively. In this regard, Pankhurst (2004) indicates that often the assumption is settlers will require some starting packages in the beginning and afterwards it is presumed that the problems will be solved by the efforts of settlers themselves. However, the effect of the program on the livelihood of settlers after subsequent years is yet rarely investigated in the study area. Thus, this study has paramount contribution in addressing thecontributions ofresettlement program on livelihood conditions of settlers in selected resettlement areas in line withthe following objectives: a. To examine the perceptions of settlerson the implementation of resettlement program and their relationshipswith host communities; b. To analyze the contribution of rural resettlement program to the improvement of the livelihood assets of settlers in the new area; and c. To assess the livelihood strategies and coping mechanisms used by settlers to sustain their livelihood asset. 2. Research Methodology This study utilizescase study toassess thesuccess of resettlement program on livelihood conditions of settlers from the views of settlers in the study area.To achieve this, mixed method research design that combines both quantitative and qualitative approaches has been adopted. Scholars also agree that a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods is the most effective to triangulate objective information with subjective one to increase the accuracy of data (Prowse, 2010). 2.1. Profile of the Study Area SNNPR is one of the nine regions in Ethiopia; comprises 14 administrative zones and 8 special districts. Dawuro is one of the 14Zones in SNNPR. The capital of Dawro Zone is Tarcha and is located about 438 kilo meters via Hossana to South West of Addis Ababa, 280 Kms to the West of Hawassa, the regional state’s capital, and 140km to south east of Jimma city. It is situated 7o 14' north latitude and 37o 5' east longitude. River Gojeb delimits the area from Jimma Zone of Oromiya region in the north; Omo River demarcates Dawuro from Kembata Tembaro Zone in the north east, Wolayita Zone in the east, and Gamo Gofa Zone in the south. In the west, Konta special district is adjacent to Dawro sharing Chabara -Churchura National Park which consists varieties of wild life in common (Dawuro Zone Trade and Industry Department/DZTID, 2012). The total population in the Zone is 492,742 of which 250,742 are male and 242,000 are female(CSA, 2007). People from different parts of the country, for instance, Amhara, Gurage, Oromo, Wolayita, Hadiya and Kambata were assimilated with local people through marriage, religion, etc. The local people speak dominantly “Dawuregna” language, the vernacular of Dawuro people which is currently used as medium of instruction at 1st cycle primary school throughout Zone. In addition, Dawuro people have their own marriage, funeral ceremony, clothing and feeding culture quite distinct them from other ethnicities in the region. The crude density of population is calculated to be found 119 persons per km2. Agro- ecologically, about 54.04 % of Dawuro is Kola (500-1500m), 45.28% is Woyina Dega (1500-2500m) and the rest 0.69% is Dega (>2500m). Its altitude ranges from 550m at the south western corner where the rivers Omo and Zigna converge to 2820m above the sea level at Tuta, Tocha (DZTID, 2012). 37 Public Policy and Administration Research ISSN 2224-5731(Paper) ISSN 2225-0972(Online) Vol.4, No.5, 2014 www.iiste.org This zone is structured in to 5 districts (namely Loma, Mareka, Essera, Gena Bosa and Tocha), one town administration (Tarcha). Essera district, the target of this study, is one of the five districts in Dawuro Zone where the intra-regional resettlement program has been executed in the SNNPR. It has received and hosted 3357 household heads from other three Zones in the region such as Wolayita, Kambata and Hadiya during 20032008(EDFSCD, 2012). The total population of the district is 65,751 out of which 33,221 are male and 32,530 are female (CSA, 2007). The areas of district consist of mainly three agro- ecological climatic conditions such as “Kola”, “Woyina Dega”and “Dega” agro-climatic zones. The settlers were relocated in five low land kebeles in the District (“Kola” agro-climatic conditions) namely Manera, Boyina, Neda, Modi and Yucha which have not been occupied by host communities so far. All the areas selected for resettlement were savanna grassland and forest areas which have not been cultivated by local people prior to the relocation of settlers(EDARDO, 2012). The district is bounded in west by Konta special district, in south by Gamu Gofa Zone, in the east by Loma district and in the north and north-east by Tocha and Mareka districts respectively. Figure 3.1: Administrative Map of Dawuro Zone 2.2. Population and Sampling Technique Random sampling technique among probability sampling techniques has been employed to this study to select representative household heads to survey in the study area. Accordingly, the Essera Resettlement Scheme consists of five resettlement sites (kebeles) such as Boyina, Manera, Yucha, Neda and Modi which are bounded by three kebeles of the host communities. From these resettlement sites, three resettlement kebeles such as Boyina, Maneraand Neda kebeleswith their 13% respective household heads were selected as a representative sample by using simple random sampling technique. Table 2.1 illustrates the size of total population of the study areas and the sample size selected from the entire population. Table 2.1: Sample frame and size Selected Resettlement Kebeles Total Household Heads Sample Size Boyina 203 27 Manera 313 41 Neda 539 70 Total 1055 138 Source: Compiled from EDFSCD (2012) From non-probability sampling technique, a purposive method was applied to select 8-10 members from each selected resettlement kebelefor focus group discussion. In addition, key informants for interview were contacted purposively from schools at resettlement areas and food security coordination offices at zonal and district levels. 2.3. Data Gathering Instruments The primary data required for this study have been gathered by employing methods such as survey questionnaire, interview, focus group discussion and direct observation.Secondary data about the program are also retrieved from different official documents of Dawuro Zone Agricultural and Rural Development Department/DZARDD,Essera District Agricultural and Rural Development Office/EDARDO, Essera District Food Security Coordination Desk/EDFSCD andpublished and unpublished references to support the reliability of primary data. 2.4. Data Analysis and Presentation The quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics by the help of Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS). As a result, the percentage, frequency table and linegraphs were generated to analyze and describe data that facilitate discussions of cases. Besides, to examine the average difference in livestock productionbefore and after resettlement program (physical asset), t-test from the parametric tests was used. The 38 Public Policy and Administration Research ISSN 2224-5731(Paper) ISSN 2225-0972(Online) Vol.4, No.5, 2014 www.iiste.org multiple regression models were also applied to evaluate whether the farmland size, land fertility and means of production affect the level of agricultural outputs in the study area.Furthermore, Wilcoxon signed ranks test from non-parametric tests was employed to examine the average difference of the income status (financial capital) of participants before and after resettlement program. In parametric and non-parametric tests, and multiple regression models, 5 percent of significance level was considered while examining statistical results. The qualitative data gathered through focus group discussion, interview and observation were summarized andanalyzed thematically in the way to support quantitative data. 3. Literature Review and Conceptual Framework 3.1. Concepts on Resettlement Recently, resettlement has been defined by different scholars in different ways although the basic idea is the same. The conference of National-Resettlement (1995)defined resettlement as aplanned and supported process of change in the accommodation contexts. In addition, resettlement is defined as the process by which people are enabled to live as full life as possible within an appropriate form of housing (Simon, 1994). United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees/UNHCR (2006)has also defined resettlement as theprocess which commences with the selection and transportation of people and continues through to their reception and integration in the host community due to various factors. Besides, resettlement has been defined as the phenomenon of population redistribution either in planned or spontaneous manner; relocating people in areas other than their own for the purpose of converting transient populations, nomadic pastoralists, transhumant or shifting cultivators to a new way of life based on sedentary forms of agricultural production(Dessalegn, 2003). Two main features characterize resettlement: ‘A movement of population; and an element of planning and control as reported by Chambers cited in (Pankhurst, 1992). It refers to a variety of migration and settlement types and can be broadly categorized in to two: spontaneous, which leaves full scope for individual initiatives; and involuntary or forced, which refers to a planned and controlled transfer of people from one area to another(Wolde Selassie, 2002). Similarly, as Tadros (1979), there are two types of land settlement which conceptualized as spontaneous and paternalistic. According to him, the formerincludes individual initiatives in resettlement, while the second is characterized by planned and controlled relocation. Besides, Scudder (1991)indicates that the distinction between spontaneous and sponsored settlers has nothing to do with the reasons or motivation for leaving the original residence for a new settlement area. (Cernea, 1999)describes that the resettlement executions involving the planned and controlled transfer of people from one area to another are undertaken throughout the developing countries in order to solve multiple problems which include population pressure, natural catastrophes, man-made disasters, poverty, unemployment, agricultural and industrial development, food insecurity, andpoliticalinstability.In turn, the African continentis the scene of massive population resettlement processes of all types. Profoundly dramatic and painful are the involuntary displacements of people. However, Africa’s most important forced displacements are not those caused by development programs, but those also triggered by social and political causes such as wars and civil wars, or by ethnic, racial and/or religious persecutions, or by natural causes such as droughts and famines(Cook, 1994). Sorensen (1996) noticed that “voluntarily or forced by external circumstances, individuals and groups or whole communities in developing countries have left their home areas in order to settle down temporarily or permanently in a new area, which may differ more or less in terms of climate, natural resources, social and cultural organization and practices from their usual environment.” Scudder (1991)argued that resettlementcan be classified into four categories. In his classification of resettlement, he stated that it is necessary to distinguish both the type of settler and the nature of the involvement of the sponsoring agency or agencies. These classifications include: • Spontaneous settlement with very little government or other assistance; • Spontaneous settlement facilitated by government and other agencies; • Voluntary settlement sponsored by government or other agencies; and • Compulsory resettlement sponsored primarily by government agencies This study adopts the definitions given by UNHCR (2006) and (Dessalegn, 2003) for resettlement and assumes the classification of the program as ‘Voluntary settlement sponsored by government or other agencies presented by (Scudder, 1991). Ethiopia has the long term experience of undertaking the spontaneous resettlements in the last few centuries and voluntary statesponsoredresettlement programs by successive governmentssince the1960s (Kassa, 2004). The following section discusses the experience of Ethiopia in implementation of resettlement program from the imperial regime to the current government. 3.2. Ethiopian Experience in Planned Resettlement Program 3.2.1. Resettlement during Imperial Regime The planned resettlement was started in Ethiopia for the first time during imperial regime in the 1958. During this period, the project involved a combination of spontaneous and planned settlement programs which accommodated 700 farmers from the populated upland areas of the country and were settled in western Ethiopia 39 Public Policy and Administration Research ISSN 2224-5731(Paper) ISSN 2225-0972(Online) Vol.4, No.5, 2014 www.iiste.org and the Rift valley areas(Dessalegn, 2003). At that time state-sponsored-resettlement was largely undertaken to promote two objectives. The first of these was to rationalize land use on government “owned” land and thus raise state revenue. The second was 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’’(Pankhurst, 2004). However, the resettlement program of the imperial regime failed to meet its intended objectives because of the high costs of the program, low rate of success, and the less viability of a number of schemes in the Rift valley, Kaffa and Gamo Goffa(Dessalegn, 2003). 3.2.2. Resettlement Program during Derge Regime After the 1974 revolution, the military government of Ethiopia started to use policy for accelerating resettlement under the auspices of the Relief and Rehabilitation Commission (RRC) and the Ministry of Agriculture. Subsequently, the government announced its intention and resettled people from the drought-affected northern regions to the south and southwest of the country where arable land was plentiful (CIA, 2004). However, according to Dessalegn (2003), at the end of the period of Derg regime, the cost in human lives and resources was immense as reported below: Some 33,000 settlers lost their lives due to disease, hunger, and exhaustion. In addition, untold numbers of family’s weredestroyed and for many years after, a number of NGOs were still engaged in attempting to reunite thousands of children who had been separated from their parents at the time of settlers’ relocation. 3.2.3. The Current (Post 1991) Resettlement Program The Ethiopian Peoples’ Republic and Democratic Front/EPRDF/ government of Ethiopia also launched the resettlement program for the third time in 2003 to mitigate chronic food insecurity problem in the country. Accordingly, thegovernment prepared the implementation manual to safeguard failure in the program. This official resettlement program document stated that the program is based on basic pillars and principles such as voluntarism, consultation with host communities, establishment of minimum infrastructure facilities and others to guide the implementation of a program that makes it unique when compared with resettlement program undertaken during Imperial and Derg regimes (FSCB, 2003).Table 4.1 clearly indicates the regional resettlement program and its total cost estimated at the beginning of the program. Table 3.1: Resettlement and Its Cost in Ethiopia (2003-2006) Region Household heads Family Total Total cost (in Br) Tigray 40,000 160,000 200,000 192,389,000 Amhara 200,000 800,000 1,000,000 800,625,000 Oromiya 100,000 400,000 500,000 417,397,500 SNNPR 100,000 400,000 500,000 422,397,500 Contingency 34,720,000 Total 440,000 1,760,000 2,200,000 1,867,529,000 Source: FSCB (2003) However, various researchers who conducted their study on various situations of current resettlement program argue that some of the pillars lack clarity and the implementation of a program was highly spontaneous when compared to the experience of other countries which are successful in implementing the resettlement programs. For instance, some argue that the pure voluntary option principle of resettlement would be linked to involuntary resettlement because if some forces like poverty and absence of any choice in their life were not imposed on the people, they would not want to leave their place of birth and separate from kin groups and relatives (Gebre, 2005, Mellesse, 2005). This is naturally true because in the absence of push factors no one wants to be separated from his place of origin, families and kin groups where he/ she lived to long period. 3.3. Livelihoods Livelihood is not a new concept. It was first introduced by the Brundtland Commission on Environment and Development in the mid-1980s as an approach to enhance resource productivity, secure ownership and access to resources and income generating activities as well as ensure adequate stocks and flows of food and cash to meet basic needs(Brundtland-Commission, 1987). While a livelihood in its simplest definition could be defined as a ‘means of living’, the most popular definition of sustainable livelihood by Chambers and Conway (1992); DFID (1999); (Elliott, 1994); (Ellis, 1999, Ellis, 2000); Ellis and Freeman (2005) has been given as: Livelihood is the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources), and activities required for a means of living. They noticed the basic livelihood assets such as human capital, physical capital, social capital, financial capital, and natural capital which are indispensable for means of living to households: a livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stress and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, and provide sustainable livelihood opportunities for the next generation and which contributes net benefits to other livelihoods at local and global levels in long and short terms. The definition of livelihood thus to be separated to highlight four core sub-components in this study: i) 40 Public Policy and Administration Research ISSN 2224-5731(Paper) ISSN 2225-0972(Online) Vol.4, No.5, 2014 www.iiste.org livelihood assets, ii) livelihood strategies, iii) livelihood outcomes, and livelihood adaptations, vulnerability and resilience. The following section presents the discussion of these sub-components. 1. Livelihood assets: are assets that belong to recognized economic categories of different types of capital, and some of which do not, namely, claims and access(Ellis, 2000). (Scoones, 1998) tended to identify five main categories of livelihood assets as natural, physical, human, financial and social capitals. These capitals according to Singh (2007) are the basic building blocks upon which households are able to make their living.Natural capital refers to the natural resource base (land, water, forest, air quality) that yields products utilized by human populations for their survival. Physical capitals refer to assets brought in to existence by economic production processes (tools, livestock, machines, roads, irrigation canals, and market, shelter, and communication services). Human capitals refer to the education level and health status of individuals and populations. Social capitals refer to the social networks and associations in which people participate, and from which they can derive support that contributes to their livelihoods. Financial capital refers to stocks of cash that can be accessed in order to purchase either production or consumption goods. Cash in hand, saving, access to credit in the form of loan are the fundamental financial capitals for rural households including pensions and other transfers from the state and remittances (Ellis, 2000, Scoones, 1998, Singh, 2007).According to (Singh, 2007), financial capital is the most versatile among the five capitals of livelihood assets as it can be converted in to other types of assets, or it can also be used to achieve livelihood outcomes directly. However, this study focuses on all five types of assets to examine the contribution ofrural resettlement program to building the livelihood assets of settlers. 2. Livelihood strategies: are the mechanisms that rural households construct increasingly diverse portfolio of activities and assets in order to survive and to improve their standard of living. These strategies are framing activities (cropping, livestock rearing, beekeeping), off-farm activities (daily labor work, work for food), and non-farm activities (petty trade, handcrafting, and remittances), which help households to build livelihood assets and contribute to welfare improvements/livelihood outcomes (Ellis, 2000). 3. Livelihood adaptation, vulnerability and resilience: The effectiveness ofinterventions like resettlement program could be defined in terms of its contribution to build the ability of rural households to be able to cope with and recover from stresses of trend and shocks is central to the sustainable livelihoods (Davies, 1993). According to Ellis (2000) and Singh (2007), trends and shocks occur outside a household and influence the occurrence of livelihood assets and outcomes. Trends include population pressure, food insecurity, health problem and death, technological change, relative price, macro policy, and national and world trends; drought, flood, pest, livestock disease and death and war. 4. Livelihood outcomes: The end result of adequately built livelihood assets, diversified livelihood strategies adopted, with adaptation and resilience mechanisms, is different kinds of livelihood security (outcome). This livelihood outcome includes among others, improved income, food security, household welfare, and environmental sustainability. Therefore, the study is analyzed in the light of the livelihood framework to understand the extent of resettlement program contribution to the livelihoods of the settlers. This framework also identifies five core asset categories or typesof capital which is vital to build the livelihoods. According to DFID (1999), theapproach is founded on a belief that people require a range of assets (such as human, natural, physical, social and financial capitals) to achieve positive livelihoods. Thus, the livelihood framework suggests a suitable analytical framework to analyze this study. Table 3.2: Conceptual Livelihood Framework 41 Public Policy and Administration Research ISSN 2224-5731(Paper) ISSN 2225-0972(Online) Vol.4, No.5, 2014 www.iiste.org 5. Results and Discussions Introduction This section discusses the characteristics of participants targeted in the study, the nature of resettlement and the extent of settlers’ participation in the initiation and execution of the resettlement program. Besides, the section presents the livelihood conditions of settlers on the basis of five livelihood assets (human, social, financial physical and natural capitals). Furthermore, the discussion in this section focuses on the experiences of settlers in using diversified livelihood strategies and the coping mechanisms adopted to reverse the adverse circumstances in the resettlementarea. 5.1. Characteristics of the Participants The characteristics of participants have been assessed using their sex, age, family size and their educational background. Table 4.1 clearly depicts the characteristics of respondents participated in this study. Table 4.1: Characteristics of Participants Attributes Categories of attributes Frequency Percent Sex Male 135 97.1 Female 3 2.9 138 100.0 Total Age 20-30 yrs 36 26.1 31-40 yrs 74 53.6 Family size Educational status Above 40 yrs Total 1- 5 6-10 28 138 43 83 20.3 100 31.2 60.1 11-15 12 8.7 Total 138 100 Illiterate 58 42.0 1-4 26 18.8 5-8 44 31.9 9-10 Total 10 138 7.3 100 Source: Field survey, 2012 Table 4.1 shows that majority of the participants (97.1 percent) in the study area are male, while female participants are few. This is due to the focus of the study on household heads that are mostly male and they also constitute the largest proportion of people moved to the new resettlement areas. Concerning the age composition of respondents, the study shows that the majority (73.9 percent) of the total participants in the study area are above 30 years old. This implies that majority of the respondents are above the ceiling of the youth age in Ethiopia (15-29 years) which is indicated by (DHS, 2006). From this we may realize that most household heads are approaching to the old age that can limit their physical capability to actively engage in farming activity. Regarding the educational status of participants, majority of them or 58 (42 percent) isilliterate that constitute the lion share of respondents. None of the participants have exceeded grade 10 in their educational status. This may indicate the absence of more qualified households’ involvement in agricultural activities to easily adopt new systems of farming in order to increase agricultural productivity that can positively contribute to the livelihood conditions of settlers. The family sizes of participants are generally large in the study area. Among all participants, 95 (68.8 percent) have above five members. Only 43 (31.2 percent) participants have five and below members. From this we can realize that mosthouseholds in resettlement areas have large family size. According to Masefield (2001), it might be difficult for household heads with five and above family members to cover their family consumption with current two hectare land holdings in study area even though it is possible to make yields of agriculture higher through agricultural intensification and use of improved technology. From this, it might be possible to argue that with current farm land and family size, it would be challenging to the household heads to sustain their livelihoods in the absence of other off-farm activities from which they can generate additional income to fill the gaps. 5.2. Information Exchange and involvement of Participants in Resettlement Program The current voluntary government sponsored intra-regional resettlement program document highlights the importance of information exchange with people in sending districts and consultation with host community to enable participants to maketheir own choices regarding the program. In this regard, table 4.2shows the extent to which informationwas shared with participants in the resettlement program and the criteria applied for selection 42 Public Policy and Administration Research ISSN 2224-5731(Paper) ISSN 2225-0972(Online) Vol.4, No.5, 2014 www.iiste.org of settlers to the program. Table 4.2: Respondents’perception on information exchange and criteria used for selection of settlers Items Response category Frequency Percent 1. Information exchange about the Yes 136 98.6 resettlement program prior to its No 2 1.4 implementation Total 138 100 2. Criteria used for selection of settlers to Small farm land size 137 99.3 the program Drought 1 0.7 Other - - Total 138 100 Source: Household survey, 2012 Almost all participants fromthe resettlementarea have been involved in information sharing about the program. Only 2 (1.4 percent) of the total participants responded that they have not been informed about the program being carried out in the area. This may indicatethatinformation sharing on resettlement program with participants is significant though few respondents have missed it. This opposes the study undertaken by Gebre (2005) which reported as the information provision to settlers and host community on resettlement program is not complete, nominal and minimal in some other areas. Regarding the criteria applied for selection of settlers to the program in their origin, almost all of them have been selected and included to the program because of small farm land size in their origin. From this we can realize that the selection of settlers to the resettlement program is mostly based on farming land size in their origin. Concerning the conflict occurrence, table 4.3indicates that majority or 134 (97.1 percent) of the total participants have not faced any conflict after the resettlement program has been implemented. But only4 (2.9 percent) have reported as they facedconflict because of using host communities’ grazing land. All those reported the occurrence of conflict also disclosed that conflict happens among them sometimes. In general, the study shows that conflict occurrence is very minimal among settlers and host communities in the area.This may help to smoothly adapt the new environment by avoiding tensions. Table 4.3: Perceptions ofparticipants toconflict occurrence Items Response category Frequency Percent 1. Conflict faced by households after Yes 4 2.9 resettlement program in the area No 134 97.1 Total 138 100 2. Frequency of conflict occurrence Often Sometimes 4 2.9 Never 134 37.1 Total 138 100 Source: Household survey, 2012 The representatives of settlers reported in focus group discussion that the current resettlement program isgenerally based on consensus of settlers. On whether they moved to the new area voluntarily, table 4.4 shows that almost all (98.6 percent)ofthe participants said that they moved to the new area voluntarily while only 2(1.4 percent) of them reported thatthe movement as involuntarily. This shows that the movement of most settlers to the new area is mainly voluntarily based. Table 4.4:Respondents’ response on nature of resettlement program Items Response category Frequency Percent 1.Voluntarily movement to the new area Yes 136 98.6 No 2 1.4 Total 138 100 2. Interest of returning back to the origin Yes 6 4.3 No 132 95.7 Total 138 100 3. Convenience of new area for living compared High 115 83.4 to origin. Medium 1 0. 7 Lower 22 15.9 Total 138 100 Source: Household survey, 2012 Table 4.4also depicts that majority or 132 (95.7 percent) of the participants do not want to return back to their origin. Only 6(4.3 percent) want to return because of their cattle death by trypanosomiasis/livestock disease/ and inability to feed their families through crop production in the area. This contradicts a statement by the Dawuro 43 Public Policy and Administration Research ISSN 2224-5731(Paper) ISSN 2225-0972(Online) Vol.4, No.5, 2014 www.iiste.org Zone Food Security Coordinator, who expressed during interview session that all household heads in resettlement areas are food secure and have started to accumulate wealth in the area because of improvement in their farming productivity. Concerning the convenience of new area compared to the areas of settlers’ origin, majority of the participants stated that the new area is convenient for living. However, 0.7 percent and 15.9 percent of them reported the convenience of new area for living as medium and lower respectively. The reason for those not satisfied with the new area is due to the absence of adequate social services like health facilities, safe potable water, market link and transportation, etc which are very important to build their livelihood assets. 4.3. Livelihood Assets of Settlers The main purpose of this study is that exploring the livelihood status of the settlers on the basis of the key livelihood assets. Therefore, based on the analytical framework of the study in figure 3.1, the five categories of assets/capitals were examined during to assess the success of the resettlement programin the study area.These are natural capital (land and water), human capital (education and healthservices), financial capital (access to credit and cash generation), physical capital (livestock,transport, market link and irrigation canals), and social capital (local social institutions). Accordingly, the discussion below addresses all these assets of livelihood. 4.3.1. Human Capital Here in order to examine the human capital of participants, the study considers their educational status, access to education and health services. Regarding the educational status of the participants, the study shows that majority of respondents (42 percent) are illiterate and none of them exceeded grade 10 (Table 3.1). The study also reveals that only 7.3 percent of them attended grade 9-10. The reason behind this might be the lack of educational access in their place of origin at their age of education and if any, it was far away from their residence. This could be one of the reasons why households in the study area have been engaged on agricultural activity as the dominant livelihoodsource since it can be undertaken with help of experience gained from family. According to Moser (1998), human capital development is highly relatedto the economic and social infrastructure provision. The availability of socialservices such as education and health care services certainly promote the skills/ knowledge and physical capability of people respectively. In this regard, the program document of the government declares that the minimum social services and infrastructure facilities to be established in new resettlement areas prior to the arrival of settlers. It is clear that the establishments of these services like educational and health institutions have paramount contribution for building the human capitals to settlers. Regarding the educational institutions in resettlement area, the children of settlers share second cycle school (5-8) from the neighborhood host community kebele. It was also ensured through personal observation during field study that one of the primary schoolswhich has been constructed by the government in one of the resettlement kebeles (Boyina) is poor equipped with teaching materials andits construction work has not yet been finalized during study period (after 9 years of settlers relocation). The director of this primary schoolduring the interview session had this to say: Due to the absence of other options, the kids of settlers are learning in this school which has not been finalized in construction and poorly equipped with class room furniture and other teaching materials. But students are learning in this dusty room which generates some insects that can hurt their feet. Besides, most parents do not need to send their children to this school because of poor facilities. The following figures show us the school and health post that were established in one of the resettlement kebeles with objective to meet the educational and health services demand of settlers. Health post Primary school (1-4) From this we could argue that only the availabilityof school in vicinity is not a sufficient condition to 44 Public Policy and Administration Research ISSN 2224-5731(Paper) ISSN 2225-0972(Online) Vol.4, No.5, 2014 www.iiste.org send children to school.Likewise, there are health posts in each resettlement kebelebut the problem is unavailability of sufficient basic health services. For instance, when ahousehold member gets ill and needs treatment access to medication andskilled medical assistance, it is very challenging. In the case of serious health problem, the only option they have is to go to Tarcha general hospital which is above 80 kilometers far away from the resettlement kebeles. This is again exacerbated by lack of transport facilities to get access tothe hospital, particularly during rainy season. Due to this fact, many of the participants express the lack of access to health centers in the area. One of the focus group discussants stated that as follows: We are not entirely beneficiaries of some social facilities like veterinary services, safe potable water, health services, market, etc. As a result, we have to walk long distances to get such services from the capital of district or the capital of zone. Especially, the death of our livestock and the illness of our families increase from time to time because of the prevalence of trypanosomiasis and malaria respectively in the area. Due to this, some settlers are on the way to go back to their original place. It is clear that the lack of access to adequate health services would affect the capability of the settlers tocarry out activities in a sustainable manner during farming periods and deter them to involve in non- farm activities that could help them to generate additional income.In this regard, it can be argued that there would be a betterhuman capital in the resettlement kebeles for the future as far as access to education since they can easily get access from neighbor kebeles and ongoing constructions of schools.In contrast, labor productivity could be a challenge due to poor accessto health facilities that would negatively affect human capital for the futureto sustain their livelihoods. 4.3.2 Social capital The extent to which a community itself can be considered an asset that reducesvulnerability or increases opportunities depends on the existence of socialcapital (Moser, 1998). In line with this argument, the study attempts to gothrough the existing local relation mechanisms in the area. In this regard, it has been observed that the prominent local institutionsin the study area which do have a significant role in maintaining thesocial relationship among the people are church groups, rotating savings/iqquib, and iddirs/funeral societyandlabor exchange mechanisms like debbo.Consequently, table 4.5 shows the participation of settlers in local institutions that strengthen their social capital. Table 4.5: The Social network of participants Institutions Response category Frequency Percent Funeral society/iddir Yes 135 97.8 No 3 2.2 Total 138 100 Rotating saving/iqquib Yes 35 97.8 No 3 2.2 Total 138 100 Labor exchange/ debbo Church Yes No Total Yes No Total 22 116 138 134 4 138 15.9 84.1 100 97.1 2.9 100 Source: Household survey, 2012 Table 4.5 shows that majority of the respondents inresettlement areas participate in local social institutions (iddirs, iqquibs and church) that strengthen their social networks. Few of them (15.9 percent) involve in labor exchange/debbo. Belonging to church is open to everyone who is within the same religion (protestant religion followers) in the study area since they are not expected to fulfill any requirement of membership. In case of iddirs, those who need to participate are required to contribute money on monthly basis that would be used for assisting households during their family death and burial ceremony. In addition, the member of iddirs is expected to contribute meal and labor at the time of mourning in any household in the village. This network has strong contribution in building the culture of households to be assisted during adverse circumstances like death. Iqquib is the reciprocal way of saving and gaining cash to own property or to cope with adverse circumstances like health problem. Thus, these all local institutions play significant role in mediating and channeling the access of settlers to livelihood resources and providing social security that reduces their tensions in the resettlement areas. 4.3.3. Natural Capital Land is the main natural capital in subsistence agriculture like that of the study area. This is also supported the fact that almost all people consider land as the main asset either in rural or urban areas. In this regard, the study revealed that the settlers have been selected due to their small landholding size in their origin. In their current resettlement area, they confirmed that they are living in an area where the size of land owned and cultivated is 45 Public Policy and Administration Research ISSN 2224-5731(Paper) ISSN 2225-0972(Online) Vol.4, No.5, 2014 www.iiste.org larger than what they had in their origin prior to resettlement. The resettlement program document also indicates that each settler has to be given with 2 hectares of farming land in resettlement areas. Table 4.6 in this regard shows the actual size of farm land given to settlers in the new resettlement areas. Table 4.6: The Size of farm land owned by participants Farm Land Size Frequency Percent Less than two hectares 36 26.1 Two hectares 102 73.9 Above two hectares Total 138 100 Source: Household survey, 2012 Table 4.6 indicates that majority of the participants or 102 (73.9 percent) have had 2 hectares21of farm land which is stated in program implementation manual. The remaining 36 (26.1 percent) have owned below two hectares of farm land. This may show that those who gained below 2 hectares could face challenges to sustain their livelihood since the size of farm land determines the crop productivity when other factors are constant. According to Masefield (2001), household heads with above five family members and that tends to increase from time to time may suffer to sustain their livelihood with two or below two hectares of farm land unless rented additional plot of land for farming. As shown in table 4.7, the size of farm land has also statistically significant effect on the level of agricultural output at 5 percent significance level. Thus, it could be difficult to sustain food security with agricultural output of only two or less hectares of farm land size for households whose family size tends to increase. Table 4.7: Summary of multiple regression results Un standardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients Model B Std. Error 1 (Constant) Farm land fertility (1= better, 0=poor) 11.118 -7.533 4.997 1.642 -.420 4.921 .104 2.225 .028 .000 4.588 1.331 .185 2.740 .219 2.034 .044 1.978 .313 2.960 .004 Means of production ( 1= Oxen, 0= traditional 6.550 hand tools) Farm land size dummy1 (1=above 2 hectares, 5.573 0=others) Farm land size dummy 2 (1= 2 hectares, 5.856 0=others) Beta t Sig. a. Dependent Variable: Amount of crop production The study also clearly reveals that the landholding is not proportional among settlers in the study area in which some owned two hectares and other below 2 per household regardless of their family size. Thus, it can be argued that settlers are not able to obtain access to proportional land size though they have surplus agricultural labor force. Therefore, settlers with larger land size are in a better position to satisfytheir livelihoods as compared to those having smaller land size. According to McCann as cited in Cliffe (2004), in the highland areas, the lack ofproductive resources such as land and oxen are among the factors that cause vulnerability to famine. The study confirmed that allparticipants are engaged in farming as their main occupation and land is the crucial natural resource in the area. In general, it could be argued that not only access to landbut also the size of land holding is found to be an indispensible factor in determiningthe livelihood status of the settlers. Dissatisfaction with the access to the safe drinking water is universal in all developing country contexts (Moser, 1998). In this regard, it was noticed during survey period that the government has built the pipe water to settlers at the time of their arrival to the new area. However, the pipes were broken down and not repaired to be used again. As a result, most settlers reported that they use unprotected river water for drinking in the area. Regarding this fact, one of the participant in focus group discussions reported the problem related with safe potable drinking water as follows: Our spouses and children walk on foot about 4 hours distance of double trip to fetch drinking water from unprotected river because the water pump established at time of our relocation broken down after giving service for some time and no repairs have been undertaken yet. Thus, the study confirmed that settlers are using unprotected river water for drinking and to their 21 Hectare equals area of 10,000 square meter land 46 Public Policy and Administration Research ISSN 2224-5731(Paper) ISSN 2225-0972(Online) Vol.4, No.5, 2014 www.iiste.org livestock which may expose households to water borne diseases that can affect their health. As a result, their ability to increase productivity will be highly influenced in their attempt to ensure their livelihood for future unless these problems are solved by concerning bodies on time. 4.3.4. Physical Capital Given the fact that agriculture is the main activity in the resettlement area using draught animals, oxen have a greater importance of productive utility in the farming. This is to say, households that lack access to oxen face difficulties in farming their land. In line with this argument, Messay (2009) claimed that oxen ownership plays a significant role in improving the livelihood of farming household by ensuring their food security status. Besides, the livestock rearing has paramount contribution in building the physical assets of people. In this regard, this study has found the appealing increment in production of livestock (cow, ox, sheep, goat and poultry in standard of Tropical Livestock Unit/TLU/ to household heads after resettlement program in the study area. The non-parametric test result on the average difference of livestockproduction for all livestock, except beehives has shown statistically significant incrementat 5 percent significance level (table 5.7). This ensures the improvement of physical capital in terms of livestock production to settlers in the study area. Table 4.8: T-test on average difference of livestock before and after resettlement 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Std. Std. Error Mean Deviation Mean Pair 1 Lower Upper t df Sig. (2tailed) number of cows before 6.584 .549 -3.487 -1.318 -4.379 143 .000 resettlement - number of 2.403 cows after resettlement Pair 2 number of oxen before 1.934 .162 -1.606 -.967 -7.955 142 .000 resettlement - number of 1.287 oxen after resettlement Pair 3 number of sheep before 3.236 .270 -1.783 -.717 -4.636 143 .000 resettlement - number of 1.250 sheep after resettlement Pair 4 number of goat before -.944 2.098 .175 -1.290 -.599 -5.401 143 .000 resettlement - number of goat after resettlement Pair 5 number of poultry before 3.553 .296 -1.905 -.734 -4.456 143 .000 resettlement - number of 1.319 poultry after resettlement Pair 6 number of beehive before -.660 5.364 .447 -1.543 .224 -1.476 143 .142 resettlement - number of beehive after resettlement In addition to livestock production, the better access to transport, access to irrigation and market is very important elements for building the physical capital of people. Regarding the market access in the study area, it was noticed during the study that settlers have to travel on foot to the nearest town market which is about 5-7 kilometers away from their village. In order to sell what they produced, they have to carry by their own if they do not have loading animals. In regard to the transportation, the government has constructed the dry weather road during the arrival of settlers. However, it is totally out of function due to lack of maintenance during study period. So it is challenging for settlers to travel from their village to the capital of zone where the hospital is located even for getting heath treatment. Concerning access to the irrigation, it was observed that none of the settlers was using irrigation for farming. As a result, they totally relied on rainfall that is highly exposed to seasonal variations. Thus, improvement of these social services is very critical to build the physical capitals of settlers in the future. 4.3.5. Financial Capital In the SNNPR, there is Omo micro finance institute which is the dominant financial institution that provides credit serviceto farmers and cooperatives to some extent, which are regulated by the local government. In addition, local people borrow money from their relatives, neighbors and friend during adverse circumstances. It is obvious that the availability of access to credit could have its owncontribution in solving the financial 47 Public Policy and Administration Research ISSN 2224-5731(Paper) ISSN 2225-0972(Online) Vol.4, No.5, 2014 www.iiste.org Participants in percent constraints of farmers. In this regard, this study addresses the financial capital of settlers with use of their access to credit service of any source within a year and change in their income status before and after resettlement. Concerning the access to credit, table 4.9 shows the access of settlers to credit any source in the local within a year until the study period. The table clearly depicts that majority of the participants (71.7 percent) did not have access to credit from any source at the local level. As a result, they may face challenges to deal with some unexpected vulnerabilities like health problem, low agricultural production, shortage of food, etc. Thus, taking in to account the improvement of credit facilities to settlers is indispensable for building their financial capital in the resettlement area. Table 4.9: Access of participants to credit services Access to credit services Frequency Percent Yes 39 28.3 No 99 71.7 Total 138 100 Source: Household survey, 2012 Change in income status of household is another proxy to examine the financial capital of households.Accordingly, the study found that the annual income level to majority of respondents was below 1000 Br prior to the implementation of resettlement program in the area. In other words, only 26.1 percent of the total participants were able to generate above 1000 Br annually before the implementation of resettlement program. This clearly shows that the annual income status of participants was very low before resettlement program at theirorigin. Figure 4.1 shows the annual income status of participants before and after resettlement. Annual income category Before resettlement After resettlement Figure4.1: Householdheads’annual income before and after resettlement program As it can be seen from the figure, the annual income status of participants after resettlement is higher than before resettlement for all categories of income (above 1000 Br). Thus, it is possible to argue that the annual income level to most respondents inresettlement areas hasrisenafter resettlement program compared with prior to the programimplementation. The statistical test at 5 percent significance level also shows that the variation in average annual income of households after resettlement program compared with prior situation is statistically significant (Table 5.10). Therefore, the income status of settlers is in a better situation to build their financial capital. Table 5.10: Non-parametric test ( Wilcoxon) Test Statisticson average difference on annual income of household heads before and after resettlement -7.281a .000 Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) a. Based on negative ranks. b. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test 4.4. Vulnerability/Shocks Faced by Settlers The study found the vulnerability of some settlers to food insecurity in new areas. In order to realize the food insecurity status of the participants, the study used the average calorie intake of households by converting different food items they consume daily. The average amount of calorie intake per day is mostly used as a measure of calories required (i.e., demand) to enable an adult to live a healthy and moderately active life. Then in this study, a comparison between the availability and requirement for grain food was made to distinguish food secureandinsecure households in the study area. According to FAO (2008), the general recommendation for men is about 2700 calories per day while women require 2000 calories per day. But FAO in general recommends 2200 calorie per day for healthy life of human beings. By taking this level of calorie intake per day as a threshold, the study determines the food security status of participants in the study area. From the household heads surveyed, 14.5 percent are thatwho’s daily per capita caloric availability (supply) is less than their demand/requirement of daily calorie (table 4.11). 48 Public Policy and Administration Research ISSN 2224-5731(Paper) ISSN 2225-0972(Online) Vol.4, No.5, 2014 www.iiste.org Table 4. 11: Food Security Status of Participants Food security status Frequency Percent Food secure ( Caloric availability >2200) 118 85.5 Food insecure (Caloric availability < 2200) 20 14.5 Total 138 100 Source: Household Survey, 2012 4.5. Livelihood Strategies and Coping Mechanisms used by Settlers toReduceShocks There are different types of livelihood strategies which can be used in normal circumstances and during sever conditions by households to cope with them. They can also help households to survive in extremely difficult circumstances(Yared, 2001). In this regard, table 4.12 illustrates the experiences of participants in study area, using different livelihood strategies to handle the difficult circumstances. Table 4.12: The livelihood strategies used bysettlers to handle food insecurity shock during last harvesting season (allowing multiple responses) Livelihood strategies Fr % Livestock sale Labor work Petty trade 22 Acquire grain and fruits from market Requesting grain loan from neighbors 5 11 20 - 25.0 55.0 100 - Remittance from relatives Involving in Food for work program Handicrafts23 Total 20 Source: Household survey, 2012 Table 4.12 revealsthat all participants that were unable to meet the consumption need of their families use the strategy of acquiring grains and fruits from market in the study area. This may indicate that many household heads in these areas are using a strategy that is highly depending on their income level.In addition, most of them involve in petty trade to handle the adverse situation. 5 (25 percent) of the food deficientparticipants stated that they sell their livestock to buy additional food items to cover their families food demand in the area. Besides, 11(55 percent) have experiences of involving in various petty trade activities that allow them to generate more income to cope with adverse circumstances.From this we can realize thatthe livelihood strategies used by the participants are not as such diverse to successfully handle the adverse circumstances such as deficit in food crops and income. 5. Conclusion and Implications Resettlement program is a development project that the Ethiopian government has launched to overcome the problem of chronic food insecurity in the country. On top of this, the program has been implemented in Essera District of Dawuro Zone in SNNPR. The study shows that the resettlement program has been implemented on voluntarily basis after consultation has been carried out with settlers and host community. This might be the reason that reduced the degree of socialconflict betweensettlers and host community in the area. It was also found that after the resettlement program has been executed, the livelihood status of settlers have shown improvement in some proxies of livelihood assets. The resettlement program has positively contributed to the financial capitals of settlers by improving their annual income status compared with status before the program though the credit facilities need more efforts for future improvement. The program has also helped the settlers to strengthen their social capital through local social networks or with help of local institutions. In regard to physical capital, it was noticed that the livestock production is at promising status to help settlers to build their physical capital compared with prior to resettlement execution situation. However, some social services like transport, access to market and irrigation have not yet been improved to sustain the physical capital of settlers in the resettlement areas. The human and natural capitals of settlers have not yet been satisfactorily improved in resettlement areas due to lack of adequate health services, shortage of safe drinking water, insufficient land holding of settlers. This may tell us that the implementation of resettlement program in the area is extremely spontaneous which came to existence without the prior fulfillment of promised infrastructure and social services. Furthermore, the program has not reduced the vulnerability of some settlers to food insecurity. This might be the variation on landholding size regardless of household members. Because, the farm land has great implication on agricultural productivity 22 Petty trade includes condiments retailing, bee honey sale, etc Handicrafts include blacksmithing and pottery 23 49 Public Policy and Administration Research ISSN 2224-5731(Paper) ISSN 2225-0972(Online) Vol.4, No.5, 2014 www.iiste.org to cover the consumption requirement of all members in the household. To cope with adverse circumstances, it is very important for households to use diversified livelihood strategies. In this regard, the settlers are not sufficiently experienced to involve in adoption of diverse livelihood strategies. Thus, their vulnerability to different shocks like drought, food insecurity, illness, etc tends to increase unless they assisted and trained to involve in off-farm and non-farm activities. Generally, it is possible to say that most of the participants under the study area are changing their livelihood assets positively as compared to what they had before resettlement. In this regard, the resettlement program has brought its own contributions in improving the livelihoods to most of the settlers. However, it did not contribute uniformly to all settlers. Therefore, making sustainable contribution of the program to the livelihood improvement of settlers in the new area requires additional efforts and considerations. Therefore, it is suggested that the government bodies at federal, regional and local levels should work in collaboration to improve the infrastructure and social facilities like schools, health services, road, safe drinking water, and veterinary services to satisfactorily build and sustain the livelihood assets of settlers. Moreover, it is very important to take in to account the family size of settlers during the farm land allocation since it is challenging to sustain the livelihood of people with only two and below hectares of landholding. It is also recommendable to encourage settlers to diversify their crop production, vegetation, and fruit plantation. In addition, the area of all settlers is suitable for enset plantation that has high resistance to drought and can help households to cope with the adverse deficits in crop production. Thus, settlers should be significantly advised by local government bodies to plant enset and other fruits intensively in their garden. To increase the agricultural productivity of settlers, there should be an effort to establish small scale irrigation schemes and develop water harvesting systems in the area to reduce the dependence of settlers on susceptible rain-fed agriculture. According to Chambers and Conway (1991), a livelihood of people can be sustainable if they are able to adopt diversified livelihood strategies to cope with shocks andstrengthen their capabilities and assets both at present and in the long run. Thus, instead of dominantly focusing on farming activity, the local government bodies should periodically train and advise male and female settlers to involve in different livelihood strategies like offfarm and non-farm activities that can diversify their income generation sources. In addition, the micro finance institutions should give attention to the resettlement areas and expand the credit and saving services to the area.It is also very important to introduce Productive Safety Net Program in resettlement areas after the assistance of government has been stopped to encourage the labor available people to engage in such activities to generate additional income and to directly help vulnerable household heads on timely manner to protect their livelihood assets. References Asfaw, K. 2005. Resettlement Dynamics in Ethiopia: With special reference to Qeto Resettlement Area in West Wellega Zone of Oromia Region; MA Thesis, Institute of Regional and Local development Studies, Addis Ababa University. BoFED 2012. The Administrative Map of Region. Awassa, SNNPR, Ethiopia. Brundtland-Commission. 1987. World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Accessed on 20 March 2014, Available at http://www.worldcomssion.oxford.org. [Online]. Cernea, M. E. 1999. The Economics of Involuntary Resettlement: Questions and Challenges. Washington D.C. Chambers, R. andConway, R.1991. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: PracticalConcepts for the 21st Century, IDS Discussion Paper, No.296. Chambers, R. and Conway,G.R. 1992. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century. Discussion Paper No. 296. Brighton, IDS. CIA. 2004. Ethiopia Resettlement and Villagization. Accessed on 19 MarchDecember 2009; Availableat:http://www.phoutius.com/countries/ethiopia/economy/ethiopia_economy_resettlement_and _vil~197.html. [Online]. Cliffe, L. 2004. International and Ethiopian Resettlement Experiences: Lessonsfor Planning in Oromia Region’ In: Pankhurst, A. and F.Piguet (eds.)People, Space and the State: Migration, Resettlement and Displacement in Ethiopia,pp.191-218. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University. Cook, C. (eds). 1994. Involuntary Resettlement in Africa: Selected Papers froma Conference on Environment and Settlement Issues in Africa. Washington, D.C:The World Bank. CSA. 2007. Population Census in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa. Davies, S. 1993. Versatile Livelihoods: Strategic Adaptation to Food Security in the Malian Sahel. IDS Discussion Paper No 304. Sussex: Institute of Development Studies. Dessalegn, R. 2003. ‘Resettlement in Ethiopia: The Tragedy of PopulationRelocation in the 1980s’, FSS Discussion Paper No.11. Addis Ababa:Forum for Social Studies. Dessalegn, W. 2005. The Challenges and Prospects of Post 1991 Resettlement Program in the Quest for Food 50 Public Policy and Administration Research ISSN 2224-5731(Paper) ISSN 2225-0972(Online) Vol.4, No.5, 2014 www.iiste.org Security: The case of Kenaf site, Western Oromia region. MA Thesis, Institute of Regional and Local Development Studies, Addis Ababa University. Devereux, S. 2000. Food Security in Ethiopia. A Discussion Paper for PFID, 1DS, Sussex. DFID. 1999. Sustainable livelihoodsguidance sheets.’ Accessed on 15 March2014; Available at http://www.nssd.net/pdf/sectiont.pdf. DHS. 2006. Demographic Health Survey of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Driba, D. 2005. Shanaka Resettlement in Oromia Region. Paper Presented at Forum for Social Studies, Published : Understanding the dynamics of resettlement in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, 19 December. DZTID. 2012. Profile of Dawuro zone, Unpublished. Tarcha, SNNPR, Ethiopia. EDARDO. 2012. Official document on agroclimatic condition of the woreda, Unpublished. Balle, SNNPR, Ethiopia. EDFSCD. 2012. Official Document on Resettlement, Unpublished. Balle, SNNPR, Ethiopia. Elliott, J. 1994. Introduction to Sustainable Development: The Developing World. Routledge, 11 New Fetter Lane, London. Ellis, F. 1999. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries: Evidence andPolicy Implications, Overseas Development Institute Natural Resource Perspectives,No. 40. New York. Ellis, F. 2000. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. New York:Oxford University Press. Ellis, F. and Freeman, H. 2005. A Rural Livelihoods and Poverty Reduction Policies. New York: Routledge. FAO. 2008. Food Security Program: An Introduction to the Basic Concepts of Food Security. Available at: Accessed on 15 March 2012; Available at http:// www.foodsec.org.. [Online]. FAO. [Accessed March 15, 2012 2014]. FSCB 2003. New Coalition for Food Security in Ethiopia, Food Security Program: Monitoring and Evaluation Plan. Addis Ababa. Gebre, Y. 2005. Stakeholders Participation in Resettlement Decision Making. Paper presented at Forum for Social Studies, Published: Understanding the Dynamics of Resettlement in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, 19 December. Gerum, T. 2010. Assessing the Rural Resettlement Programme in Ethiopia in meeting the Livelihood of the people:A Case Study of Metema yohanes Resettlement Scheme, in the Amhara National Regional State. MA, Institute of Social Studies. Kassa, B. 2004. Resettlement of Peasants in Ethiopia’, journal of rural development27:223-54. Kassahun, B. 2005. Site selection, infrastructure, services, provisions and resettlement administration. Paper Presented at Forum for Social Studies, Published: Understanding the Dynamics of Resettlement in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, 19 December. Masefield, A. 2001. Chronic food insecurity in Ethiopia: Looking through a livelihood lens. In: Yared, A. (ed.), Proceedings of the Symposium of the Forum for Social Studies: Food security and sustainable livelihoods in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa.PP41-42. Mellese, M. 2005. Challenges of Inadequate Preparation and the Dilema of Voluntary Displacement: The case of Intra- zonal Resettlement in Wolayta zone, SNNPR. Paper presented at Forum for Social Studies: Understanding the Dynamics of Resettlement in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, 19 December. Messay, M. 2009. Challenges and Opportunities of Voluntary ResettlementSchemes in Ethiopia: A Case from Jiru Resettlement Village, Nonnodistrict, Central Ethiopia’, Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 11(3):93-102. MoFED. 2006. Plan for Accelerated and Sustainable Development to End Poverty (PASDEP); Main Text, vol.1, Addis Ababa. . Mosser, O. C. 1998. The Asset Vulnerability Framework: Reassessing UrbanPoverty Reduction Strategies’, World Development, Vol.26, No.1, pp.1-19. Washington, D.C: The World Bank. National-Resettlement. 1995. Resettlement question Paper: Published, Manchester. Pankhurst, A. 1992. Resettlement and famine in Ethiopia: The villagers’ experience.Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press. Pankhurst, A. 2004. Longer term Implications of Resettlement in Ethiopia’ In: Pankhurst, A. and F.Pigeut (eds.) People, Space and the State: Migration, Resettlement and Displacement in Ethiopia, pp.112-32. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University. Prowse, M. 2010. Integrating reflexivity into livelihoods research, Institute of Development Policy and Management (IOB). University of Antwerp, Belgium, Progress in Development Studies 10 (3) 211–31. SAGE Publications. Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Frame Work for Analysis’, IDS working paper, No. 72. Scudder, T. 1991. A Sociological Framework for the Analysis of New LandSettlements’, In: Cerena, Michael M. (ed.) Putting People First: Sociological variablesin rural development. The World Bank, New York: Oxford UniversityPress. 51 Public Policy and Administration Research ISSN 2224-5731(Paper) ISSN 2225-0972(Online) Vol.4, No.5, 2014 www.iiste.org Simon Commision of Ireland. 1994. Settlement and Housing policy, Ireland. Singh, M. 2007. Contribution of Farming on Rural livelihood in Nepal: Focusing on Dairy Farming in Chitwan. Doctoral Dissertation, Hiroshima University. Sorensen, B. 1996. Relocated Lives: Displacement and resettlement within the MahaweliProject,Sri Lanka. Amsterdam: VU University Press. Tadros, H. R. 1979. The Human Aspects of Rural Resettlement Schemes inEgypt’ In: Berdichewsky, B. (ed.) Anthropology and Social change in Rural Areas.The Hague: Mouton Publishers. UNHCR. 2006. Modelling of organization, services and reception of refugees. Accessd on 10 March, 2014; Available at: http://www. mostproject. Fi/English/about-the-project/resettlement/. . Wold Selassie, A. 2003. Resettlement as a response to Food insecurity: The case of Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples’ Region, UN-OCHA-Emerging unit for Ethiopia. Addis Ababa. Wold Selassie, A. 2002. Gumuz and Highland Resettlers: DifferingStrategies of Livelihood and Ethnic relations in Metekel, NorthwesternEthiopia’,PhD dissertation. University of Gottingen. Workneh, N. 2008. Food security strategy and Productive Safety Net program in Ethiopia. In: Digest of Ethiopia’s Policies, Strategies, and Programs. Forum for Social Studies, Addis Ababa. Yared, A. (eds). 2001. Livelihood strategies and food security policy in Ethiopia. In: Proceedings of the Symposium of the Forum for Social Studies: Food security and sustainable livelihoods in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa. 52 The IISTE is a pioneer in the Open-Access hosting service and academic event management. The aim of the firm is Accelerating Global Knowledge Sharing. More information about the firm can be found on the homepage: http://www.iiste.org CALL FOR JOURNAL PAPERS There are more than 30 peer-reviewed academic journals hosted under the hosting platform. Prospective authors of journals can find the submission instruction on the following page: http://www.iiste.org/journals/ All the journals articles are available online to the readers all over the world without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. Paper version of the journals is also available upon request of readers and authors. MORE RESOURCES Book publication information: http://www.iiste.org/book/ Recent conferences: http://www.iiste.org/conference/ IISTE Knowledge Sharing Partners EBSCO, Index Copernicus, Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, JournalTOCS, PKP Open Archives Harvester, Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek EZB, Open J-Gate, OCLC WorldCat, Universe Digtial Library , NewJour, Google Scholar