Adama Science and Technology University

ADAMA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND LAW

DEPARTEMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS OF VILLAGIZATION PROGRAM IN ODA BULDIGLU WOREDA , WESTERN ETHIOPIA

BY:

YAYUT BEFEKADU

A THESIS IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR MASTERS OF ART IN GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES.

AUGUST, 2017

ADAMA, ETHIOPA

ADAMA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSTY

SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND LAW

DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS OF VILLAGIZATION PROGRAM IN ODA BULDIGLU WOREDA , WESTERN ETHIOPIA

BY:

YAYUT BEFEKADU

ADIVISOR:

MESSAY MULUGETA (PhD)

MA THESIS SUBMITTED TO:

DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

AUGUST, 2017

ADAMA, ETHIOPIA

DEDICATION

I dedicated this thesis manuscript to my beloved grandmother Alemitu Kebede, who sacrificed much to bring me up to this level. She did all she can for my success, but I do nothing for her to the contribution she made for my success.

DECLARATION

First, I declared that this thesis is the result of my own work and that all sources or materials used for this thesis have been appropriately acknowledged. The thesis is submitted to Department of Geography and Environmental Studies in the partial fulfillment of the requirement for Maters degree in Geography and Environmental Studies. At last, I announce that this thesis has not been submitted to any other institutions anywhere for the award of any academic degree, diploma, or certificate.

Name ______Signature ______Date ______

Adama Science and Technology University

ACKNOLEDGMENT

First and for most I would like to thank to the Almighty God since everything is done through his permission. I am highly grateful to Messay Mulugeta (PhD) for his constructive criticism and helpful corrections throughout the manuscript and for his enthusiastic encouragement, guidance, and assistance through the research work. I would like to extend my genuine thanks to Gezmu Hunde (PhD Fellow) for his valuable advices, insight and guidance during the proposal evaluation of this work. He worked hard to keep me on the right track and proper design of the study. I have also acknowledged Buldiglu secondary school teacher and the school itself for their kind cooperation and my students also, the communities to fill the questionnaire and the government staff members in Oda Buldiglu Woreda especially: Habtamu Mnuye, Agriculture officer Yohannes Ejeta, and Amsaye Biratu Land and Environmental Protection officers. Besides, I’m also indebted to the Benishangul Gumuz Region Agriculture Office and the Central Statistics Authority for their assistance in providing tangible information about elements of weather and climate data plus other valuable information important to my work. Moreover, I express my heartfelt gratitude with affection to Adama Science and Technology University for the financial support. I would like to thank my compassionate friend Tewodros Fisseha to his good-natured tolerance and endurance in shouldering different responsibilities, and making me free to devote my time to the research work; and to my Director Jemal Mohammed for his cooperation in different ways; and also to my friend Molla Getahun for his valuable suggestions. Last, but by no means least, I wish to express my deep appreciation to my classmates especially, Ashenafi Zewdu, Dagimhret Petros and Endalew Desta for their consistent cooperation and support.

Table of contents page Acknoledgment ...... i Table of Contents………………………………..………………………………………………...ii List of Tables ...... v List of Figures ...... vi Acronyms ...... vii Abstract ...... viii i CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1. Background of the Study ...... 1 1.2. Statement of the problem ...... 3 1.3. Objectives of the Study ...... 3 1.3.1. General Objective ...... 3 1.3.2. Specific Objectives ...... 4 1.4. Research Questions ...... 4 1.5. The significance of the Study ...... 4 1.6. Scope and Limitation of the Study ...... 5 1.7. Organization of the Thesis ...... 5 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND THEORTICAL FRAME WORK ...... 7 2. Conceptual Literature of the Study ...... 7 2.1. Concepts of Villagization ...... 7 2.2. Development nexus Villagization ...... 8 2.3. Concepts of Resettlement ...... 10 2.4. Population Redistribution by Villagization and Resttlement ...... 11 2.5. Empirical Literatures ...... 12 2.5.1. History of Villagization Program in Africa ...... 12 2.5.2. History of Villagization in Ethiopia ...... 13 2.5.3. Villagization during the Imperial Period ...... 14 2.5.4. Villagization during the Derg Regime ...... 14 2.5.5. Villagization in the 1980s ...... 15 2.5.6. Villagization during EPDRF ...... 16

2.6. Viilagization for the Purpose of Militarization in Southwestern Ethiopia ...... 18 2.7. Resettlement in Ethiopia ...... 19 2.7. 1.Resettlement during the Imperial Regime ...... 19 2.7.2. Resettlement under the Derg ...... 19 2.7. 3.The Current (post 1991) Resettlement Program ...... 20 2.8. Villagization Program in Benishangul Gumuz Regional State ...... 21 2.8.1. Construction of Housing and Relocation of Selected Villagers ...... 21 2.8.2. Social and Economic Institutions ...... 21 2.8.3.Human Rights Abuses in theVillagization Process in Benishangul Gumuz Region .... 21 2.9. Research Gap...... 22 CHAPTER THREE: DESCRIPTION OF THE STDY AREA AND RESEARCH METHOLOGY ...... 23 3.1. Background of the Study Area and the Sample Household ...... 23 3.1.1. Location of the Study Area ...... 23 3.1.2. Climate ...... 24 3.1.3. Topography ...... 24 3.1.4. Land Use Land Cover in the Area ...... 24 3.2. Demographic and Socioeconomic Characterstics of the Study Area ...... 25 3.2.1. Age and Sex Composition ...... 25 3.2.2. Religion ...... 25 3.2.3. Ethnic Group...... 26 3.3. Social Services and Economic Condition ...... 26 3.4. Research Design, Approach and Sampling Techniques ...... 27 3.4.1. The Research Design ...... 27 3.4.2. The Research Approach ...... 28 3.4.3. The Sampling Techniques ...... 29 3.5. Sample Size Determination ...... 30 3.6. Sources and Tools of Data Collection ...... 30 3.6.1. Sources of Primary Data ...... 30 3.6.2. Sources of Secondary Data ...... 32 3.7. Methods of Data Analysis ...... 34

iii

3.8. Reliability and Validity Checks ...... 33 3.9. Ethical Consideration ...... 35 CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS ...... 36 4.1. The Respondents Background Information...... 36 4.2. Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents ...... 36 4.3. Current Socioeconomic Status of the Respondents...... 39 4.4. Comparison of Socioeconomic Status of the Respondents before and after Villagization 41 4.4.1. The Housing Condition of Respondents ...... 41 4.4.2. The Livelihood Income of the Respondents ...... 43 4.4.3. The Livestock Condition and Annual Income of the Respondents ...... 44 4.4.4. The Infrastructural and Public Service Condition of the Respondents ...... 46 4.5. Membership towards the Community Association of the Respondents ...... 49 4.6. Factors Influencing Current Income of Respondents in the Study Area...... 49 4.7. Implications of Villagization for Sustainable Rural Development ...... 49 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 50 5.1. Major Findings and Conclusion ...... 50 5.2. Recommendations ...... 52 Reference ...... 54 Appendix-1Table shows Size of Livestock Possessed by Settlers before and after Villagization59 Appendix-2. Questionaire on Socioeconomic Impact of villagization in Oda Buldiglu Woreda ...... 591 Appendix-3. Focus group discussion Guide: To be administered to Focus Group Discussants . 65 Appendix-4. Interview Guide: Administered to Resettled households ...... 67

List of Tables Page

Table 2.1: Resettlement and Its Cost in Ethiopia (2003-2006) ...... 20 Table 3.1: Land Use Land/Cover of Oda Buldiglu Woreda ...... 25 Table 3.2: Occurrence of the Top 10 (ten) Diseases in the Study Area (2010-2016) ...... 27 Table 3.3: Selection of Sample Respondents ...... 30 Table 4.1: Percentage Distribution of Respondents………………………………….……...37 Table 4.2: Demographic Characteristics of the Selected Respondents...... 38 Table 4.3: Size and Fertility Status of the Land Possessed by the Selected Households ...... 39 Table 4.4: Use of Tools and Fertilizer to Cultivate Land Possessed by the Selected Households………………………………………………………………………….40 Table 4.5: Sources of Information and Feelings of Resettlers about Resettlement ...... 41 Table 4.6: Types of House Owned by the Respondents before and after Resettlement ...... 42 Table 4.7: Main of Livelihood Source of the Sample Households ...... 44 Table 4.8: Comparison of Mean Financial Capital of the Respondents before and after Villagization ...... 46 Table 4.9: Types of Water Sources in the Origin of Settlement and New Resettlement Village ...... 48 Table 4.10: Membership Status of Respondents before and after Villagization ...... 50

List of figures page

Figure 3.1: Location of the Study Based on National and Regional Setting…………………..23 Figure 4.2: Mud Wall and Grass Roofed and Mud Wall and Tin Roofed House of the Study Area………………………………………………………… 43 Figure 4.5: Hand Dug Wall (A) School (B) Health Post(C) of the Study Area……………….. 49

Acronyms AUCPAIDP: African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance Displaced Persons BGRSGCAB: Benishangul Gmuz Regional State Government Communication Affairs Bureau EPRDF: Ethiopian People Revolutionary Democratic Front EDRE: Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia FGD: Focus Group Discussion FTC: Farmers Training Center GTP: Growth and Transformation plan HH: Households KII : Key Informant Interview LHP: Livestock Health Post MASL: Meter Above Sea Level MoARD: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development MDGs: Millennium Development Goals NGOs Non Governmental Organizations OBWGCAO: Oda BuldigluWoreda Government Communication Affairs Office PF: Plasmodium Falsiphurim RRC : Relief and Rehabilitation Commission SBGR: States of Benishangul Gumuz Region TGE: Transitioning Government of Ethiopia TPLF: Tigary Peoples Liberation Front TUL: Total Livestock Unit SPSS: Statistical package for the Social science UNHCR: United Nation High Commissioner for Refugees WPE: Workers Party of Ethiopia

vii

ABSTRACT

The objective of this study was to analasis villagization programin changing the livelihood of the people in Oda Buldiglu Wereda, Asossa zone of Benshangul Gumuz Regional State .It was also assess the changes that were observed on the livelihood of the societies that were benefited from the program. The study used retrospective cross-sectional design and mixed research approach to carry out this study, since this approach invited to use all possible methods to address the research problems. In order to collect useful information which was used to conduct this study was collected through both from primary and secondary sources. Majority of the primary data was collected through key informant interview, focus group discussion and field observations; questionnaire was distributed for the household heads to get different infrastructural data, to check the number of infrastructural data gathered by questionnaire, field observation and interview were made. Secondary data was obtained from the office of Benishangul Gumuz Food Security Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Commission, Bureau and Office to get additional information about the quantity of different service built after and before villagization. The researcher used purposive sampling from the non-probability techniques of sampling and then simple random sampling from the probability sampling techniques was applied to select 302 sample respondents from the total households. The overall results of the study clearly indicated that villagization program played a great role in enhancing the average annual income of respondents from 1416 before villagization to 4487 after villagization, livelihood assets of the societies, and infrastructural development. Therefore, it was suggested that to enhancing the annual income, infrastructural development and to secure food security in rural lowland areas villagization is a very important tool and attempts should be done to for the effectiveness of the program.

Keywords : Villagization, Annual income, Socioeconomic Services, Livelihood Assets, Oda BuldigluWoreda

viii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background of the Study Resettlement by Emperor Haile-selassie and both resettlement and villagization by the Derge were of course attempted although ultimately failed. In any case, resettlement aims at redistribution of populations from resource deficit and overcrowded areas to resource rich but sparsely populated areas of the country (Terefe & Ignatius, 2012).

It is obvious that Ethiopia has been practicing both planned or spontaneous population resettlement and villagization since the Imperial Period, most probably in 1958. The resettlements have been carried out mainly as a response to extreme land degradation, recurrent drought and famine. The villagization and resettlement schemes, past and present, are implemented predominantly in the lowlands where population densities are low and unutilized lands are assumed to be found. The recent government sponsored resettlement and villagization schemes are more planned than the cases of the previous governments by which a huge investment is drawn to fulfill the plan (Messay, 2009). Ethiopia is experiencing an unprecedented increase in population size as a consequence of which it is becoming increasingly vulnerable to all the problems associated with an imbalance between population growth and resources necessary to sustain it. By and large, the rapid population growth particularly in rural areas has decreased the size of land holding leading to landlessness and deterioration of the environment which were considered as causes of migration and resettlement (Dieci and Viezzoli,1992 , Kloos,1989) cited in (Shumete, 2013). According to Kassahun(2000),the history of the country is mostly related to migration and resettlement process. Resettlement whether it is self- or government-sponsored started long ago. The first government sponsored resettlement took place during the imperial period. The year 2003 marked the revitalization of population relocation strategies of resettlement and villagization by the government of Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE). In a similar fashion, villagization scheme is aimed at collecting scattered households into selected nucleated villages to improve their access to social, economic and administrative services.

According to Alula(2005),beginning in 2003, the Ethiopian government launched a large-scale villagization and resettlement program with the objective to enable 2.2 million chronically food insecure people attain food security. So far, over 180,000 households have been resettled in more

1 than 100 villages. Official statements claim that the resettlement program is based on 4 pillars and 13 principles. The four pillars are voluntarism, availability of under-utilized land, consultation with host communities, and provision of minimum infrastructure. Partnership, community participation, transparency of program design, and development are some of the 13 principles. Authorities also argue that the New Coalition for Food Security in Ethiopia (the major food security strategy document, in which resettlement is a component) was developed in collaboration with partners (donors and NGOs) and based on inputs from communities in sending and receiving areas (Shumete, 2013).

Villagization is a rural-based strategy primarily aimed at gathering pastoral and semi-pastoral communities in Afar, Somali, Gambella and Benishangul-gumuz regions on a voluntary basis. It was planned to villagized about 1.5million people by 2013 and relocations started in 2010 (BGRG, 2010). The program involves bringing basic infrastructure, socio-economic and cultural transformation into newly constructed villages. Resources will be provided that ensures an appropriate transition to secure livelihoods. Such development projects usually involve financial support from organizations like The World Bank, as it is believed to be a strategy that can improve locals’ livelihood (Ambaye, 2013).

It aims at, besides supplying basic rural infrastructures and socio-economic services, helping them lead a sedentary way of life. Of course, its implementation particularly in Benishangul Gumuz Region has started since September, 2010 and was a part of Benishangul Gumuz Regional food security strategy designed in 2004 (BGRG, 2010). However, there has not been a study on positive socioeconomic impact of villagization program in the regional as well as local scales. This is the motive for taking up the current study at least in the study area in relation to villagization program. Particularly, there was no more study related to the impact of villagization program in Oda Buldiglu Woreda . No attempt has been done before to look into the socioeconomic impact happened inside the society as a result of villagization program over the course of years. Oda Buldiglu Woreda represents the eastern part of Benshangul Gumuz Regional State where planed villagization program has taken place since beginning some years ago. It was characterized by a distinct place by which any research was not yet conducted before related with the issue that makes this research study realistic.

1.2. Statement of the problem According to Dessalegn, (2003a) resettlement and villagization program in Ethiopia are closely linked to the deterioration of livelihoods of the rural population and the low agricultural productivity because of the lack of infrastructural development in the traditionally settled highlands and lowlands of Ethiopia. Resettlement and villagization (both planned and spontaneous) is a common strategy for achieving different socioeconomic objectives. In other words, to overcome all the problems happened because of lack of access to facilities and to improve the livelihood of the poor, villagization program has been regarded as one of the policy options especially for peripheral and most vulnerable area.

It is common that resettlement in Ethiopia in general and villagization program in the study area in particular was seriously practiced to change the life of the peoples. Therefore some evidences indicates that villagization brought change on the life of the societies making them access to infrastructure like school, health centers, transportation, potable water and others that help the community to live better life than before even though insignificant number of peoples are left from this program who are living in some remote parts of the country. But no one knows whether there was a change in the annual income and access to infrastructure of the societies or not in Oda Buldiglu Woreda. This was the problem that the researcher intended to carry out this research. It is with this reality in mind that Oda Bulidiglu Woreda was selected as a focus of this study. The research was initiated to assess the socio economic impacts of villagization program with special to Oda Bulidiglu Woreda ,Asossa zone from Benshangul Gumuz Regional State. It would also intend to explore the progressive positive impacts of the program in the area over the past years. 1.3. Objectives of the Study

1.3.1. General Objective The overall general objective of the study is to analysis villagaization program in changing the livelihood of peoples in Oda Buldiglu Woreda , Asossa Zone of Benshangul Gumuz Regional State. It was also assessed the changes that were observed on the livelihood assets of the societies that were benefited from the program.

1.3.2. Specific Objectives More specifically the study was attempt to: A. Examines the awareness of peoples to join or participate in villagization B. Identify the socio economic factors related to service provision in case of villagaization program. C. Point out their asset building capacity of the peoples compare to their original place. 1.4. Research Questions The main purpose of the study was to answer the following questions .The questions were drawn from the objectives stated above: 1. What are the socio economic factors that hinders in service provision in current villagization program in Oda Buldiglu Woreda ? 2. To what extent is the current villagization program improved people’s socio economic assets compare to the previous in Oda Buldiglu Woreda ? 3. How is the awareness of resettlers towards the current villagization program?

1.5. The significance of the Study The research that is conduct under the socioeconomic impacts of villagization program has the following importance. The study was shown the socioeconomic impacts observed on the resettlers as a result of villagization program in Oda Buldiglu Woreda . However, the existing empirical studies did not show the positive socioeconomic impacts of villagization program in enhancing the livelihood status of households. Definitely, it would provide a hint to the positive impacts observed on the societies as a result of villagization and give direction to the measurements taken to maximize the impacts to increase the livelihood of the resettler in the study area. Analyzing the socioeconomic impact of villagization program would be important to adopt a true strategy for implementing effective villagization program in the Woreda by knowing the awareness of the resettlers who had resettled before. In addition to this, the study would be used as a source of additional material for further study in the area who wants to conduct on the same issue i.e. socioeconomic impact of villagization program. Generally the study would benefit the officers who are working in food security and risk prevention preparedness office to have a good insight for villagization, one way of improving livelihood of peoples in the woreda and work hard to its effectiveness. It would also important

4 for the nongovernmental organization which works on avoiding poverty inside the country to established different infrastructures with minimum cost of transportation and a short period of time. This paper also indirectly important for the households because the woreda built different infrastructural services to the societies incase related with this program.

1.6. Scope and Limitation of the Study Spatially, the study was confined in Oda Buldiglu Woreda in Benishangul Gumuz Regional State with the intention of investigating the socioeconomic impact of villagization program. The temporal scope of the study was mainly started from September 2009 up to May 2009 until the completion of the data collection of this research. As the core concern of assessing the main socioeconomic impacts of villagization on the life of resettlers, here various socioeconomic attribute like the accessibility to socioeconomic services, the improvement of their assets, resettlers livelihood improvement in general and the contribution of villagization program were evaluated under the content scope of the study.

Since the above were the main scopes of the study, there were always certain delimitations in any research due to the limited availability of time and financial resources. the followings were some of the limitations of this study: first and foremost, the main limitation of the study were the fact that the absentee of written journals article and documents related with villagization program in Oda Buldiglu Woreda by the officers and other concerned bodies which plays a significant role in conducting a certain research. Another limitation was the unexpected refusal of some household members to respond to some of the questions, especially those illiterate one related to language barriers and expecting money in case. Some local people might also have cultural apprehension that something bad will happen if one counts her/his belongings

1.7. Organization of the Thesis This thesis is organized into five chapters. Chapter I was organized consisting of introduction, statement of the problem, objectives including general and specific objectives, research questions, limitations of the study, scope of the study, and organization of the thesis. Under chapter II different documents related conceptual literature like concepts of villagization, concepts of resettlement, population redistribution, empirical literature like history of villagization, villagization in Ethiopia, resettlement in Ethiopia, villagization in Banishangul Gumuz Regional State, Abuse of human rights with villagization in Benishangul Gumuz and

5 research gap were evaluated in advance and also review the work of others academia and research institutions to posit the study with the large context of scholarly literatures.

Chapter III was also gave detailed description of the study area like location of the study area climate topography land use land cover change, demographic profile of the study area, like age sex composition, religion, ethnic socioeconomic services, research design. Research approach, sampling techniques, sample size determination, methods of data analysis tools of data collection, sources of data like primary and secondary reliability and validity, ethical considerations and the way the data were capture and processed, the model employed to analyze the data and the procedures of their presentation.

Chapter IV concentrated mainly on background of the respondents, demographic characteristics of the respondents current socioeconomic status of the respondents, comparisons of socio economic status of the respondent after and before villagization, the housing conditions of the respondents, the livelihood income of the respondents, the livestock conditions of the respondents, infrastructural and public service conditions of the respondents, membership towards the community association of the respondents, factors influencing current income of the respondents and rigorous analysis and discussions related to the socio-economic impacts of villagization program. Chapter V which is the last chapter deals with the important conclusions that were found as a result of the application of different analysis and policy implications of the findings and recommendation made by the researcher depending on the findings that were done in the analysis part of the thesis, which were believed to be thought-provoking for stakeholders so as to use for bringing change on the problems.

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND THEORTICAL FRAME WORK 2. Conceptual Literature of the Study 2.1. Concepts of Villagization Villagization can be described as the concentration of the population in villages as opposed to scattered settlements (Oxford Dictionaries, 2017). Others have used the definition, the grouping of population in centralized planned settlements (Lorgen,1999) cited by (Mads,undated). Villagization program thereby promote the concentration of people in villages instead of continuing their lives in scattered and often temporary settlements. Villagization often changes the traditional ways of life to a certain extent, as most of the resettled have not been used to living in larger communities and often come from a nomadic or pastoral lifestyle.

According to Messay& Bekure (2011), defined it as the process of gathering scattered form of settlements into a predetermined center or site either voluntarily or forcibly. It involves establishing nucleated villages to deliver social, economic and administrative services intended to be implemented on a voluntary basis ( Guyu, 2012). However, there are diversified claims and reasons to carry out the program; from the government side the claim available is that villagization program will facilitate the delivery of services, such as health care, education, or marketing, to previously scattered populations. With the justification that it is 'for their own good' it is often imposed on rural populations. Moreover, in many countries of the world, most importantly, in Africa villagization has been taken as means to fight poverty and promote development.

Villagization can thus be considered as a resettlement policy, just like resettlement due to infrastructure projects, conflicts, drought, etc. As a resettlement program, villagization can be classified under more cited phenomena like development-induced displacement and resettlement. Villagization program are usually implemented in order to render the rural population more legible and controllable and as a rationalist, techniques and modernizing approach to development (DeWet, 2012). The core of villagization program is usually to change people’s ability to improve their current livelihoods by modern means. Hence, it has a close relationship with modernization theory .As a resettlement program, villagization also differs from the others, as it has the people in the program as the targets for development.

According to DeWet (2009) contrary, most other development induced displacement and resettlement projects often want to develop infrastructure, large hydro dams, etc., where the people that needs to be resettled are a bi product of the real developmental aim. This also means that the resettled population is the focus of the development policies, which often creates better starting points for them, as for the ones being moved due to other and unrelated development policies. The villagized are thereby often not only supposed to end up living under the same conditions and with the same possibilities, but actually living with improved conditions.

According to Guyu (2012), the concept of villagization may seem overlap with resettlement as many researchers used in literatures and it is frequently confused with 'resettlement' as the two policies often occur at the same time and may overlap even). Of course, there are points where they overlap and where they differ. For instance, authors Leeuwen (2000) asserted that villagization is different from resettlement and use the concept of villagization without mixing with resettlement. Moreover, although villagization is an aspect of resettlement, it involves the relocation of scattered dwellings and settling in mostly similar geographic and administrative units, the capacity of resettlers to readjust new environment is less complex than that in resettlement.

2.2. Development nexus Villagization According to Guyu(2012), development planning at national, regional or local levels and/or urban or rural areas needs selection of appropriate theoretical approaches and models. It is because these theories and approaches that serve as a foundation for selection of appropriate strategies that would be adopted and implemented Therefore, to facilitate the way for the analysis of different variables in the study, it is important to review some theoretical approaches and models that explain development. The belief that rural development cannot be brought without villagization scheme has dominated the development models and approaches of those nations that used to adopt villagization. Those models prioritized villagization are mostly associated with the minds of policy makers of many developing countries mainly African governments. According to Mhando (2011) cited in (moti2001), for instance, tries to explain how rural development without villagization would be jeopardy in Ujamma villages in Tanzania. Such a belief is of course ignoring the experience of some developments of rural areas around

8 the world without adoption of villagization programme. Moreover, centers selected for villagization are believed to act as a spring board for development.

The Ujamma villages in Tanzania, for example, were seen as the spring board upon which much change would emanate, thus enabling the attainment of higher production levels and the elimination of poverty could be achieved (Mhando,2011). For this developmental approach’s commitment and belief, Nyerere of Tanzania has put his provoking statement cited in the above section. But, the programme ultimately failed even in Tanzania due to inappropriate planning and implementation processes (Sakamoto, 2003), cited in Guyu (2012). The same was true in Ethiopia where resettlement and villagization schemes started, extensively implemented and ultimately failed during the Derg regime due to ill-planning and inappropriate implementation, mainly based on involuntary basis. Moreover, now days among different policies and programs designed to achieve development, through Five Years Transformational plan, Villagization program is one of the national policies formulated for collectivization of scattered population in pastoral areas in the country. Villagization is a rural-based strategy primarily aimed at gathering pastoral and semi-pastoral communities in Afar, Somali, Gambella and Benishangul Gumuz regions on a voluntary basis (BGRG, 2010). It aims at, besides supplying basic rural infrastructures and socio-economic services, helping them lead a sedentary way of life. Even though this villagization program has been used by the government as a means to an end up poverty and bring development(social, political, economic, and cultural development) by gathering together pastoral and semi-pastoral communities and providing them with basic infrastructural services.

According to shumete (2013), opponents of resettlement and villagization argued that the scheme was disruptive to agricultural production because the government moved many farmers during the planting and harvesting seasons. There also was a concern that villagization could have a negative impact on fragile local resources, particularly on water and grazing land; accelerate the spread of communicable diseases; and increase problems with plant pests and diseases. In early 1990, the government essentially abandoned villagization following the announcement of free market economy. Additional arguments against resettlement included charges of human rights violations, forced separations of families, and lack of medical attention in resettlement centers, which resulted in thousands of deaths from malaria and sleeping sickness.

2.3. Concepts of Resettlement The definition of resettlement or internal displacement can be derived from and African union convention for the protection and assistance of Internally Displaced Persons (AUCPAIDP, 2009) cited in (messay, 2012).Accordingly, resettlement refers to persons or group of persons who are forced to flee or voluntarily leave their place of habitual residence in order to avoid the man effect of natural and/or human made disasters and resettle within internationally recognized state borders. Resettlement is defined as the process by which individuals or a group of people leave spontaneously or un-spontaneously their original settlement sites to resettle in new areas where they can begin new trends of life by adapting themselves to the biophysical, social and administrative systems of the new environment .

In this context resettlement can be classified in to three: conflict, development and environmental induced displacement .Conflict induced displacement happened when people abandon their habitual areas in fear of either small scale clash or wide-ranging battles while development induced displacement happens when peoples are forced to leave their ancestral areas due to developmental projects and environmental induced happens sudden progressives change in the environment. Much has been said and theorized about the destructive nature of forced displacement and resettlement and involuntary villagization.

However, what is less clear is the voluntary aspect of the manner of displacement. In the resettlement literature the manner of displacement is conventionally categorized into two conceptual views. However the distinction between voluntary and involuntary has become more problematic given the desperate condition of the poor who oppose to resettle. The voluntary dimension of displacement seems linked to involuntary displacement because no one wants to leave the place of his/her birth and face separation from kin groups and relatives if it were not a force imposed on them by the power of poverty and lack of choice in life (Mellese,2005).

Several investigations have been carried out on the impacts of villagization program undertaken by different Ethiopian regimes. Resettlements have a declared objective of improving the life of the rural people affected by drought-induced famines, among others. However, failures of the relocation attempts of past regimes have been experienced. It seems that it is this issue that has been attracting the attention of researchers to examine the processes involved regarding past resettlement program. Studies undertaken were aimed at creating awareness among policy

10 makers, planners and implementers by way of recommending better approaches so that the previous mistakes are not repeated.

For instance, Misganaw (2012), indicate that the willingness and acceptance of the program by the resettlers is due largely because they became access to larger size of fertile farmland and conductive farming climate. The majority of resettlers became food self-reliant providing that free provision of fertilizer, improved seed, social services and food rations by the government. However, even though social services are below the expectation. According to Dessalegn(2005), poor site selection, poor targeting of the potential settlers, over ambitious principles, poor consultation, poor preparation and little regard for the host community and the physical environment consequently, risks rather than opportunities have characterized the implementation in the site.

These affect the socioeconomic status of the society at large. In the planning and initiating settlers clear and realistic information should be given to prospective settlers so as to avoid high expectations and practical failure in resettlement areas. Construction of all season roads should be given prime importance. This would give chances for the government to help settlers and host population in the wet season when the threat from different disease is high. Besides health institutions should be supported. As far as possible, health workers and medicines should be made available. Likewise, it is important to provide opportunities for sharing of ideas between host populations and settlers notably as to how to cope with malaria and other lowland diseases.

2.4. Population Redistribution by Villagization and Resettlement Population redistribution is the process of moving people from densely populated areas to more sparsely populated areas. However, one can learn from the experience of different countries such as Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Malaysia that this could have insignificant contribution to the intended relieving of population pressure, unless strategies are designed and developed to retain population transmigration within a country. When the resettlers move, immigration sometimes more than doubles. It is also futile unless effective family planning is exercised at the house of origin and destination in order to avert recurrence of the same problems after a few years. Therefore villagization is one part of population redistribution and official rationale is to promote rational land use, conserve resources, strengthen security, and provide access to clean water, health and education infrastructure

2.5. Empirical Literatures 2.5.1. History of Villagization Program in Africa Countries like Tanzania, Rwanda, and Mozambique and Ethiopia, all have a history that includes villagization. One of the most cited villagization program is Joseph Nyerere’s Ujamaa that was implemented shortly after Tanzania’s independence. In 1967, the Nyerere government launched the Ujamaa villagization program. The Ujamaa was socialized and based on self- improving the peasants in a collective form. The government thus guided and encouraged the peasants, but never initiated or forced the peasants to change their way of production and living. Hence, the program was more democratic and based on a voluntary bottom-up approach where peasants were the masters of their own progress. This feature was believed to have contributed to an initially successful villagization program (Kjekshus, 1977).

In November 1973, the Ujamaa villagization program took a sharp turn as it was published that by the end of 1976 all Tanzanian peasants had to live in villages. This proclamation naturally changed the voluntary character of the program to forced villagization and subsequently changed the support for it. It became a top-down government run program without consultation or possible influence from the resettled peasants on their new way of life and production (Kjekshus, 1977). Alterations in the preconditions the program initially had completely changed the outcome of Ujamaa in a very negative sense.The economic development that was supposed to be promoted lacked several underlying inputs, such as infrastructure, compensation, technology, etc., which the poor country was unable to provide (Kjekshus, 1977).

Technically, however, the program could be considered a success, as by 1976 13.5 million people, or almost the entire rural population, had been moved into the approximately 7,500 villages established as part of the program (Ergas, 1980). In 1973, the World Bank started to investigate why Tanzania continuously was hit so badly by food shortages. One year later it concluded that the main reason was not droughts, but the failure of the Ujamaa program, which had made the peasantry less productive than before (Ergas,1980). Today, even though the Tanzanian government has abandoned the 30 Ujamaa villagization program, many of the villages still exist and some have had positive developments after it once again became voluntary for people to stay in the villages and decide how they should be organized.

In Rwanda, a villagization program named Imidugudu started in 1997, as approximately 2.5 million refugee returnees arrived home after a period of war followed by the famous Rwandan genocide in 1994. The aim of the Imidugudu villagization program was to villagize all scattered communities in the country (van Leeuwen, 2001). As a quite recent villagization program, the Rwandan government had to distance the program from the former failed and criticized ones in the region (van Leeuwen, 2001). The rationale behind the Imidugudu was to ensure best possible land use planning for the rural population, as the returning refugees put pressure on the availability of land (van Leeuwen, 2001).

Like many other resettlement program international partners and NGO’s refrained from participation due to the reputation of these program but ended up participating indirectly (van Leeuwen, 2001). In regards to implementation, the Imidugudu like former villagization program faced its main problems. It was promoted as a voluntary program, but reports and stories of forced resettlement and resistance from the population quickly arose. Furthermore, reports Surfaced of bad planning, lack of infrastructure and social services in the villages. Consequently, and just like former program that the government had tried so hard to distance itself from, it was unable to cope with the local complexities in the areas of the villages and achieve its goals (van Leeuwen, 2001).

2.5.2. History of Villagization in Ethiopia Ethiopia has a long history of brutally displacing rural populations through resettlement and so called villagization programs during the former Derg regime and under the current government of the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front often publicized as intended to provide remote populations with better services and socio-economic infrastructure, or to improve food and water distribution, in most cases the programs failed the populations that they were supposed to help (Human Rights Watch,2012 ).

Displacement in the past has occurred primarily in two ways: resettlement from the highlands to the lowlands, and through villagization, defined as the clustering of agro-pastoral and/or shifting cultivator populations into more permanent, sedentary settlements. Past villagization programs were rife with problems: forced displacements of populations accompanied by serious human rights violations in which dissenting opinions were silenced by fear of retribution. A leading

13 scholar on villagization wrote in 1991 about the Derg-era programs the verdict on villagization was not favorable (Human Rights Watch, 2012 ). Thousands of people fled to avoid villagization; others died or lived in deplorable conditions after being forcibly resettled.… There were indications that in the short term, villagization may have further impoverished an already poor peasantry. The services that were supposed to be delivered in new villages, such as water, electricity, health care clinics, schools, transportation, and agricultural extension services, were not being provided because the Government lacked the necessary resources. Denied immediate access to their fields, the peasants were also prevented from guarding their crops from birds and other wild animals (Human Rights Watch,2012 ).

2.5.3. Villagization during the Imperial Period Ethiopia is in many ways a remarkable country. Yet for many only a country people have heard of, as a historical story with many tales and more recently of a famine prone country with a starving population. For centuries Ethiopia was a monarchy ruled by emperors who managed to keep European imperialist out of its territory and thus became the only African country that was never colonized (only its Eritrean province got colonized by Italy). The last of these emperors is also the most renown in the western hemisphere, Emperor Haile Selassie, who asserted the throne in 1930. In 1974 Haile Selassie was deposed and arrested by a committee of armed forces, later known as the Derg, who quickly filled the power vacuum. One year later Haile Selassie was (most likely) quietly murdered by the new regime (Clapham, 2001).

2.5.4. Villagization during the Derg Regime According to Prunier(2015), the overthrow of the emperor was also the beginning of the Ethiopian revolution led by the Derg. The Derg was a socialist military regime that initially wanted to reform the unequal landowning system with social reforms, but the regime turned out to be one of the most brutal social regimes ever seen. A popular movement as seen in many other states gaining their independence or socialist revolutions never supported the Derg’s evolution to power. The army was simply the only group able to fill the power vacuum that was left when Haile Selassie felled, as neither student, peasant nor urban groups had the ability to operate nationally like the army. Following attempts of power sharing were fought down by the Derg who then became the sole leaders of the country. After a hectic and bloody first few 32 years for the new regime, where several main characters were killed, the victorious figure was Lt. Colonel Mengistu Haile Mariam, who led the country until the regimes fall in 1991 (Prunier, 2015).

The claim of being a socialist revolution led by a communist party was highly contested both within and outside the country. They nationalized all industries, trade and land, which subsequently was given to the peasants, but remained the property of the state. The socialist terminology seems mainly to have been a tactical and short-term way to gain power and support. The regime’s hard fight down on civil socialist movements such as the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Front (EPRF) further underlines this (Prunier,2015).During the revolution the regime tried to install a communist regime like the Soviet of the time. It officially happened on the 10 years anniversary of the revolution were the new Workers Party of Ethiopia (WPE) was installed, which was more or less just another name for the same regime (Prunier, 2015).

2.5.5. Villagization in the 1980s In 1985 the government initiated a new relocation program known as villagization. The objectives of the program, which grouped scattered farming communities throughout the country into small village clusters, were to promote rational land use; conserve resources; provide access to clean water and to health and education services; and strengthen security. Government guidelines stipulated that villages were to house 200 to 300 households, with 100-square-meter compounds for each family (Assefa, 2005), cited in ( Shumete, 2013).

In 1985 Addis Ababa established a national coordinating committee to oversee the villagization plan's implementation. By March 1986, about 4.6 million people in Shewa, Arsi, and Hararghe had been relocated into more than 4,500 villages. Although the government had villagized about 13 million people by 1989, international criticism, deteriorating security conditions, and lack of resources doomed the plan to failure. Nevertheless, Mengistu remained committed to the villagization concept. Opponents of villagization argued that the scheme was disruptive to agricultural production because the government moved many farmers during the planting and harvesting seasons (Assefa, 2005), cited in (Shumete, 2013).

There also was concern that villagization could have a negative impact on fragile local resources, particularly on water and grazing land; accelerate the spread of communicable diseases; and increase problems with plant pests and diseases. In early 1990, the government essentially abandoned villagization when it announced new economic policies that called for free-market & the pressure on large-scale state farms was under attack by Western donors, who channeled their agricultural aid to the peasant sector. These donors maintained that experiences elsewhere in

Africa and in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union had shown that state farms were inefficient and a drain on scare resources.

2.5.6. Villagization during EPDRF After the severe famine of 1984 the regime was under attack from several sides where especially guerrilla fighters from the Tigray Peoples Liberation Front (TPLF) was remarkable and had aspirations all the way to Addis Ababa. The failed policies towards the peasantry had alienated them from the regime. So, when the fight against the TPLF in 1989 turned in to a conventional battle and the fall of the Soviet Union happened at ones, the Derg regime was in knees. In 1991 the TPLF, with support from other insurgency groups under their common flag: The Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), gained control over Addis Ababa and Lt Colonel Mengistu fled to Zimbabwe (Prunier, 2015) since 1991, the TPLF-led EPRDF has ruled the country.

The EPRDF consists of 4 regional parties: the TPLF, the Amhara National Democratic Movement, the Oromo People’s Democratic Organization and the South Ethiopia People’s Democratic Movement (EPRDF, 2016). The leading party thus consists of parties from 4 of the country’s 9 regional states. The front was created in 1989, only two years before the fall of the Derg and gave the strong TPLF a national-wide legitimacy, as the members of the front never truly challenge their leadership of the EPRDF (Tadesse,2015). The almost unchallenged leadership has since brought up several insurgency groups against the new regime (Feyissa, 2016). In short, the ideological ground pillars of the EPRDF has a predominant focus on self determination to the regional states of the country, popular administration, revolutionary democracy and a commitment to social and economic development based on the peasantry (Tadesse, 2015).

One can say that the new government had 3 main trajectories: decentralization of the state as a sort of ethnic federalism; democratization of politics with a multiparty electoral system; and liberation of the economy with a neo-liberal international approach (Vaughan, 2015). In1994, the government approved the constitution that created 9 regional states and 2 city administrations. All the regional states were based on ethnicity. The states gained a lot of autonomy in the constitution; even the right to succession was included. In 1995, the first democratic elections were held and the EPRDF and its supporters gained a large victory and thus formally became the

16 leading party of the new Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE). Even though the constitution gave a lot of autonomy to the regional states, there is no doubt that the TPLF has remained as the leading party in Ethiopian politics ever since the fall of the Derg (Tadesse, 2015).

Now, more than 2 decades after the EPRDF took control of Ethiopia a lot has changed in the country. Decentralization has had a massive impact on the architecture of the state, the economy has boomed and several sectors have opened up for investments. The country is still one of the poorest in the world, but it has seen large improvements and is one of the few countries in the world that might reach the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (The World Bank, 2015). Contemporary Ethiopia’s ideology can be described by the government’s commitment to revolutionary democracy and the developmental state. It is through the developmental state that the EPRDF sees and gains its legitimacy from the population. Even though the regime is no longer called a socialist regime, like under the Derg, the policies of the EPRDF have many poor objectives (Vaughan, 2015).

This state-led development is further seen in the government’s large development plans such as the Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP) from 2010-2015 and the current GTP II from 2015- 2020. So even though much has been decentralized by the EPRDF, all large-scale changes and developmental activities comes from the top. Furthermore, as the state enjoys more or less monopoly on decisions regarding distribution of resources and service delivery all the way down to Kebele level (lowest community level), it has a huge influence on people’s everyday life and can thus influence the population in both a positive or negative way (Vaughan, 2015). Critics see this approach as the fundamental problem with the country because the concentration of power is so tightly controlled (Vaughan, 2015).

It can be said that while the EPRDF government has improved and broadened ethnic and social access for the people compared to former regimes, but the political access has become less plural during their rule (Vaughan, 2015). This has also led to withdraw of political parties, first from the Transitioning Government of Ethiopia (TGE) and subsequently from the political scene, as the playing field for cooperation is almost none existent (Vaughan, 2015). The government received large criticism from the media they themselves had freed in 1992. Since most private

17 press turned out to be against the government’s policies it was later cracked down by fines, imprisonment, closures, etc. (Vaughan, 2015).

2.6. Viilagization for the Purpose of Militarization in Southwestern Ethiopia The relationship between the formation of these new communities and Ethiopia's military objectives has received considerably less public scrutiny. This is probably in large part due to the desire of most Western aid agencies not to involve themselves in the internal political affairs of the countries in which they operate. However, in light of the fact that villagization and various kinds of resettlement programs have a long history of employment as a military strategy (Vietnam, Guatemala and Cambodia, for example), and that Ethiopia maintains the largest standing army in Africa, with some 300,000 troops deployed within its own borders against more than a dozen different opposition movements, questions quite naturally arise about the possible relationship between relocation policies and military objectives for the regions affected by these policies(Steigngraber,1987). Probably no area of Ethiopia is more affected by resettlement and villagization than the southwest provinces of Wollega and Illubabor, which have been, and continue to be, the major receiving grounds for hundreds of thousands of highland settlers. At the same time, the indigenous populations are now being rapidly villagized (Steigngraber, 1987). Not incidentally, these provinces are also the battlegrounds between the Ethiopian army and two armed opposition groups: the Oromo Liberation Front whose partisans operate and control territory in the three westernmost districts of Wollega Province, and the Gambella People's Liberation Movement, which is active in the Gambella district of Illubabor Province Resettlement and villagization are tools of militarization in both senses of the term.

According to Steigngraber(1987), first they imbue the societies they create with military characteristics: regimentation of labor, top-down decision making, compulsory participation under threat of corporal punishment, surveillance, curfews. Second, these newly created communities are themselves used as military infrastructures and provide recruits for the army as well as for special militia forces responsible for locating and punishing suspected rebel collaborators. Armed militia groups comprised of residents of the resettlement camps in Wollega are now being used to implement villagization in the surrounding region and to execute and

18 torture political prisoners. In Gambella, Illubabor, settler militia groups were used to conduct reprisals against Anuak civilians after an armed uprising last spring.

2.7. Resettlement in Ethiopia 2.7. 1.Resettlement during the 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 and the Rift valley areas (Dessalegn, 2003). According to Pankhurst (2004), 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. 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).

2.7.2. Resettlement under the Derg According to Alula (2005), even though, the policy of encouraging voluntary resettlement went back to 1958, when the government established the first known planned resettlement in Sidamo it becomes a part of land reform policy accelerating resettlement after the 1974 revolution. Article 18 of the 1975 Land Reform Proclamation stated that the government shall have the responsibility to settle peasants or to establish cottage industries to accommodate those who, as a result of distribution of land remain with little or no land. Accordingly, in 1975/76 there were eighty-eight settlement centers accommodating 38,818 households. The government conducted most of these resettlement programs under the auspices of the Relief and Rehabilitation Commission (RRC) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (Alula, 2005) (cited in Shumete, 2013).

By 1982 there were 112 planned settlements populated by more than 120,000 people. The settlements were concentrated mainly in the south and southwest. In 1984, Addis Ababa announced its intention to resettle 1.5 million people from the drought-affected northern regions

19 to the south and southwest, where arable land was plentiful. According to Mulatu Wubne(1986), the government had resettled more than 600,000 people. More than 250,000 went to Wellega, about 150,000 settled in the Gambella area of Illubabor, and just over 100,000 went to Pawe, the largest planned resettlement in Gojjam and largely sustained by Italian financial support. In addition, another 78,000 went to Kaffa, Shewa, and western Begemder.

2.7. 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, the government 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) cited in ( Terefe &Melesse, 2014).

Table 2.1: Resettlement and Its Cost in Ethiopia (2003-2006).

Region Household heads Family size 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) cited in Terefe&Messele (2014).

According to Mesele (2005), 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.

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.

2.8. Villagization Program in Benishangul Gumuz Regional State According to the general information got from the region, the actual implementation of the villagization program has intensively started since February, 2011 although some woredas might begin earlier or later. The process of collectivizing people into a nucleated village is, therefore, suggested to consider the major principles of villagization such as voluntarism, participatory, consultation of the community, preparation and so on. Thus, the following sub-sections are devoted to analyzing the processes of implementation of the villagization program for the past two years (2010/11 and 2011/12) based partly on, annual reports of the region (Guyu, 2012).

2.8.1. Construction of Housing and Relocation of Selected Villagers One of the preconditions for successful implementation of villagization program is the preparation of housing for those households to be relocated. This was intended to be effective through the participation of communities at different levels (BGRG, 2010). In this regard, the plan of 2010/11 (2003 E.C) indicates 18,792 households that should have been villagized on a regional scale, but about 18,047 households (96.04%) of them were actually collected in 18 woredas , these households were planned to dwell in 90 selected villagization sites. 33%, 20%, 41.1% and 5.6% of these sites were selected in Assosa , Kamashi, and Metekel zones and Mao komo Special woreda respectively.

2.8.2. Social and Economic Institutions Establishing Social and economic institutions is one of the cores of the villagization program. These institutions should be constructed in new villages prior to actual relocation of households that were supposed to leave their areas. Equivalent number of water wells (both shallow hand- pulled and medium hand-pumps), health posts, primary schools, farmers training center (FTC), livestock health posts (LHP) and road were some of these infrastructures built during the first implementation period (2010/11 or 2003 EC) in the study region (BGRG, 2010).

2.8.3.Human Rights Abuses in theVillagization Process in Benishangul Gumuz The World Bank assessment in Benishangul Gumuz has also not been made public. Officials told Human Rights Watch that they visited 30 sites out of a possible 75 villages and a follow-up assessment was carried out in July 2011. The World Bank told Human Rights Watch that for

21 their initial assessment of the villagization process in Benishangul Gumuz they brought in a high-level delegation of World Bank experts on resettlement to assess compliance with World Bank’s Operational Policy on Involuntary Resettlement. The team did not find it necessary to trigger their involuntary resettlement safeguards under determining that villagization was voluntary. The World Bank would not publish the assessment but summarized their two key findings of their assessment (Human Rights Watch, 2012 ). The relocation of households under the Government of Ethiopia commune program in Benishangul-Gumuz appeared to be voluntary, and was not a direct consequence of Bank- assisted investment projects implemented in the region. Some Bank-supported projects in the region are being carried out contemporaneously with the Government of Ethiopia commune program, but do not provide direct support to its implementation.

As evidence of the program’s voluntary nature, officials cited the relatively small distances people were told to move; the fact that people had chosen to move, motivated by greater access to services; and that people were told they could return to their original homes. The assessments also concluded that the observations of villagers going out and getting their own building materials and building their own tukuls (traditional huts) was evidence of their buy-in toward the program( Human Rights Watch,2012 ).

2.9. Research Gap Several studies have been carried out about villagization program in Ethiopia including Mads Holm (2016), no place, Profs. Gudmundur Alfredsson (2015) university of Akureyri, Dr.Christy Cannon (199) London, Felix Horne (2012), consolutant to the Human Rights Watch, Gambella Ethiopia and Mandefror Amare (2016) Itang Gambella Ethiopia Guyu Ferede (2012) Dibate &Bulen woreda Benishangul Ethiopia, however, few of them explicitly focused on involuntary villagization program and the other study carry out the impact of voluntary villagization program related with household consumption expenditure, it didn’t consider the socio economic impacts of villagization on the top of this, none of them identified socioeconomic impacts of villagization program in the study area. Therefore, the researcher has been motivated to fill the gap observed at local level by studying the socioeconomic impacts of villagization program in Oda Bulidiglu Woreda Benishangul Gumuz Regional State western Ethiopia.

CHAPTER THREE: DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA AND RESEARCH METHOLOGY 3.1. Back ground of the study area and sample households 3.1.1. Location of the Study Area The study area, Oda Bulidiglu Woreda is one among the five Woredas of Assosa zone found in Benishangul Gumuz People’s Regional State. It is located 692 Kms West of Addis Abeba and 176 Kms Southeast of Assosa (the capital of the region). Geographically; it lies between 10 00’00’’ – 10 020’00” North latitudes and 34 050’00” – 35 020’00”East longitudes(see figure 3.1). Oda Buldiglu Woreda have bordered with Mengie Woreda to the Northwest, Sedal Woreda to the Northeast, Oromyia Regional State to the South, Mengie Woreda to the Northwest Bambasi Woreda to Southwest and Assosa Woreda to the West. It covers a total area of 1666.76 Km 2 and has 24 rural Kebeles administration and 1urban administration, (WFED, 2016).

Figure 3.1: Location Map of study area based on regional Setting. Source: Developed from Arc GIS (2017).

3.1.2. Climate

Mostly 75% the woreda falls under the Qolla traditional climate and there are temperate climate accounts (24%) and highland accounts (1%) of the total area of the land. Accordingly, the mean annual temperature of the woreda ranges in between 18 oC and 36 oC. The average annual rainfall ranges between 700-1753 mm, and the main rainy season in the woreda is from May to September (NMSA, 2016).

3.1.3. Topography The topographic nature of the woreda can be mostly characterized by ridged and full of ups and downs with hills and plateaus. The altitude ranges from 400 to 2350 m.a.s.l. Major water bodies in this woreda include river Boqa, Durbatse, Dalie and Buchi. The area is covered with red-brown, sandy with some ideal soils which are maintaining their fertility for a long period of time due to the afro-montane natural forest coverage until the area has been disrupted by consecutive villagization program, (OBWOoARD, 2016).

3.1.4. Land Use Land Cover in the Area . Potential cultivated land contain is around 526.69 km 2 and shared 31.6% of the total, the Wood land accounts around 466.7km2 and shared 28% of the total land of the woreda . Pasture land account around 238.68km 2 and shared 14.32% of the total land of the woreda and Shrub land accounts 150.01km 2 and shared 9% of the total land of the woreda . Settlement area accounts 94.67km 2 and shared 5.68%of the total land area of the woreda and the remaining, Cultivated land accounts 50.01 km 2 and shared 3%,of the total land of the woreda. Grassland accounts 33.33 km2 and shared 2% of the total land of the woreda , Forest land accounts 33.33 km 2,and shared 2% of the total land of the woreda , Rock and bare soil accounts 33.33 km 2 ,and shared 2% of the total land area of the woreda. Permanent crop land accounts 6.68 km 2 and shared 0.4% of the total land of the woreda and last others accounts 33.33 km 2 and shared 2% of the total land of the woreda respectively.

Table 3.1: Land Use Land/Cover of Oda Buldiglu Woreda

Land Use Type Area Coverage in (km2) Percentage of the Total Area Wood Land 466.7 28% Shrub Land 150.01 9% Cultivated Land 50.01 3% Grassland 33.33 2% Potential Cultivable Land 526.69 31.6% Permanent Crop Land 6.68 0.4% Forest Land 33.33 2% Rock and Bare Soil 33.33 2% Settlement 94.67 5.68% Pasture Land 238.68 14.32% Others 33.33 2% Total 1666.76 100% Source: (BGARDB 2016).

3.2. Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Study Area 3.2.1. Age and Sex Composition According to CSA(2010b), the population and housing census indicated that the woreda had a total population of 66,943 of whom 35,426 were male and 31,517 female populations respectively that were found a across 25 kebeles of the woreda . The economically active (16- 64 years old) are 49.6% of the total population, while economically inactive, children below 15 years are 47.3 %, and elders (65 years and above) were only 3.1%. Oda Buldiglu Woreda had a population density of 40.2 persons per square kilometer, which is greater than the regional average of 15.47 persons per square kilometer. The results of the census revealed that 1870 or 2.7 % were urban and 65073 or 97.3% were rural inhabitants.

3.2.2. Religion The religious composition of peoples in Oda Buldiglu Woreda showed that the majority, around 73.51% of the total populations of the woreda are the follower of Muslim religion, while 22 .3% protestant, 3.4% were Orthodox, followed by 0.5%, 0.2% traditional and catholic religion followers respectively and 0.09% were the followers of other religions (i.e. Jehovah’s waqefta, etc) (CSA,2010b).

3.2.3. Ethnic Group The ethnic groups in Oda Buldiglu Woreda are Berta, Amhara, Oromo, Tigrie, Gurage ,Gumuz. and Mao. The Berta people accounted for the largest proportion ethnic composition of the study area (CSA, 2010b). It is believed that those non-indigenous people, such as the Amhara, Oromo, Tigrie, Gurage people came to the area because of government employees, trade and to seek other job opportunities.

3.3. Social Services and Economic Condition The woreda has also various social services such as schools, health facilities, water, transport and communication. To bring rapid development of a society in all aspects, education is the most determinant and leading sector. In the woreda , there are 34 schools are found. There are 3 secondary school (Grade 9-10), and 26 primary schools, of which 9 are (Grade1-8), 4 are (Grade 1-6) and 13 are (Grade1-4). When we look at the numbers pupils enrolled each class level 709 pupils enrolled in grade 9-10, 2764 pupils were enrolled in grade 5-8, 4021 pupils were enrolled in grade 1-4, totally 7494 pupils were enrolled and attained their teaching learning process. In addition 6 alternative basic education centers were available. But there was no preparatory school in the woreda, (WFED, 2010). With regards to health services, there are 3 governmental health centers, 3 non-governmental health posts and 19 health posts of different size serving the existing community,(WFED, 2010). In order to identify common disease of the area, information was collected from health centers in the study area. When we came to transport access there is one gravel road that joins the woreda to the neighboring woredas of oromyia and there is no road network that connects kebeles inside the woreda . Telecommunication was only accessible only 6 kebeles from the 25 which were found in the woreda . Table 3.2: Occurrences of the Top Ten Diseases in the Study Area- (2010-16).

No Disease type Average No of peoples infected Percentage ( 2004-2008) 1 Malaria confirmed with PF 12,986 51.85% 2 Diarrhea non bloody 2735 10.92% 3 Malaria confirmed other than PF 1197 8.77% 4 Pneumonia 1802 7.2% 5 Typhoid fever 1376 5.49% 6 Acute febrile illness 1150 4.59%

7 Acute upper respiratory infection 785 3.13% 8 Hementhiasis 692 2.76% 9 Clinical malaria 672 2.68% 10 Diarrhea 649 2.59%

Source: Bulidiglu,Godere and Bedesa Health Centers (2016).

It has been observed that, about 51.85 % were due to malaria confirmed with PF. Thus, malaria was the major health problem in the study area. Next to malaria, diarrhea none bloody, malaria confirmed other than malaria were also prevalent. Water is another vital and basic facility for health and well being of individuals. The majority of the population of the woreda access water from multiple sources.

The sources of domestic water consumption supply are hand dug wells, shall well, deep well, spring, and rivers. There are 86 hand dug wells in the woreda (4 in urban and 82 in rural). Transport and communication is one of the social facilities which play an important role in the economic development of a town. Road transport is the only mode of transport that exists in the woreda and telecommunication, mobile service is also available only in some kebeles which were found following the main road in the study area, (OBWFED, 2016).

3.4. Research Design, Approach and Sampling Techniques 3.4.1. The Research Design

This research used a retrospective cross-sectional study type of research design involving the investigation of status of households during two periods of time i.e.before and after villagization. Hence, the socioeconomic and biophysical data for both the new and the original areas were required to proceed with this study. This involved looking in to the previous and the current socioeconomic status of the resettlers by bringing to light their historical information gathered retrospectively from the existing data sources. Above all it was mandatory to look in to the socioeconomic status of the resettlers in their area prior to the outset of villagization program and the current socioeconomic status of the resettled households. This was found to be beneficial to

27 look at the role of villagization program in enhancing the socioeconomic assets of the resettlers before and after villagization program.

3.4.2. The Research Approach I used mixed research approach to carry out this study, since this approach invites to use all possible methods to address the research problems. Even though the study applied mixed approach more infancies would was given for quantitative approach without forgetting the qualitative one. In order to collect useful information which was used to conduct this study was collected through both from primary and secondary sources.

Majority of the primary data was collected through field observations. To check the number of infrastructural data exist in the study area which were established after villagization program gathered by questionnaire and interview. Questionnaire was distributed for the household heads to get information’s like age, sex, land holding size, fertility of the land, number of assets, household size, ways of ploughing land, numbers of socioeconomic services and distance from their settlement. Informal in-depth interviews with two officers and other selected households to get change in asset value of household from time to time and livelihood improvement observed as a result of the program, kebele administrator to know the awareness of the respondents in their new site. 302 sample household heads was randomly selected from the resettlers. All the sample household heads were filled the questionnaire which was prepared by the researcher to gathered different information necessary for the study. Secondary data was obtained from the office of Benishangul Gumuz Food Security Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Commission, Bureau and Office to get additional information about the quantity of different service built after and before villagization.

3.4.3. The Sampling Techniques Sampling allows one to obtain a true representative picture about the population, without studying the entire population (Greet, undated).Therefore to determine the truthfulness about a population the researcher used purposive sampling from the non-probability techniques of sampling, because the researcher selected 3 kebeles out of the 25 kebeles of the woreda to which villagization program was primarily taken place, then simple random sampling from the probability sampling techniques was applied to select 302 respondents from the total population. Every 1237 households of three kebele had equal chance being selected.

Perhaps the most frequently asked question concerning sampling is what size sample do I need? The answer to this question is influenced by a number of factors, including the purpose of the study, population size, the risk of selecting a bad sample, and the allowable sampling error (Glenn, 2012). As Table 3.3 reveals that 56 male and 55 female totally 111 respondents were selected from the first kebele, this accounted 36.76% of the respondents.Whereas 43 and 70 male and female respondent respectively were selected from the second kebele which were accounted 37.42% of the respondent. Then at the end 38 and 40 male and female respondents were selected respectively from the third kebele, and totally accounted 25.82% of the total respondent.

Generally 137 male and 165 female totally 302 respondents were selected from 1237 amount of households from the three kebeles proportionally to represent the total population by applying simple random sampling technique by which, it gave equal chance of being selected to the total households lived in each of three kebeles.

3.5. Sample Size Determination There are several approaches to determining the sample size. These include using a census for small populations, imitating a sample size of similar studies, using published tables, and applying formulas to calculate a sample size and this is preferred by the researcher. Yamane (1967), cited in Glenn (2012) provides a simplified formula to calculate sample sizes. This formula was used to calculate the sample sizes, the formula is: n = Where n is the sample size, N is the population size, and e is the level of precision. When this formula is applied to the above sample with 95% confidence level and P = 5 Therefore n = = 302 . These 302 numbers of households of the sample were then distributed to the three Kebele with proportion to the total population a kebele , i.e.  Abango Kebele has 456 number of population, therefore n = = 111  Belanjaro Kebele has 471 number of population, therefore n = =113  Beleganda Kebele has 312 number of population, therefore n = = 78

And samples from each Kebele were selected by using random sampling

Table 3.3: Selection of Sample Households

Sample Population Size Total House holds Sample Households Percentage Kebele’s of Samples Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total House holds Abango 921 1032 1953 232 224 456 56 55 111 36.76% Belanjaro 873 741 1614 177 292 469 43 70 113 37.42% Belieganda 596 767 1363 154 158 312 38 40 78 25.82% Total 2390 2540 4930 563 674 1237 137 165 302 100%

Source: From the Kebele Adminstration Offices of Sampled Kebeles (2016).

3.6. Sources and Tools of Data Collection In the study, both quantitative and qualitative data were used to answer the research questions. The sources of data include primary as well as secondary.

3.6.1. Sources of Primary Data Primary data are data obtained from survey, observation, or interview collected to address the problem currently under investigation. Primary data was collected by the researcher directly from study participants to address those specific questions. Data also collected by in-person or telephone interview, survey, and observation. In addition primary data was collected through household survey, focus group discussions (FGDs), key informant interviews (KIIs) and direct field observation.

A. Household Survey Household survey was the main tool used to gather the necessary data from the target respondents. To undertake this survey based on the close and open ended questions were designed for this study. Generally, the questionnaire was developed in English, on the issues related with households’ background information including sex, age, marital status and family size, settlers awareness towards villagization, socioeconomic assets livelihood strategies, and sources of income membership to community associations and then the questionnaire having the

30 above major elements was prepared by the researcher and, was directly distributed to 302 the respondents.

There were assistants that collected the questionnaire; these were my students who were learned in grade 10 th and lived in those three kebeles. I trained 10 of them first how to collect the questionnaire and the way that they gave information about the questionnaire for the respondents how to fill the necessary element in addition to the direction on the first page of the booklet to the households. Then I gave 30 questionnaires for eight of them and 31 questionnaires for two of them to distribute across the respondents and they came with the total booklets within five days of interval. However, prior to the distribution of the questionnaire a pre-test survey was undertaken and accordingly possible revision on the questionnaire was made in such a way that both the respondents could understand and the assistants could easily gave direction to respondents when they asked them to explain more about it. The survey was conducted by the researcher with three selected kebele .

B. Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) Focus group discussions are important to generate detailed information on group dynamics and allow a small group of respondents to be guided by a skilled moderator and to focus on the key issues of the research topic (Mwanje, 2001). FGDs were held to generate qualitative data so as to supplement the data collected quantitatively. The discussion was held based on the voluntary of the participants and on the appropriate time the participants agreed. Some qualitativ e primary data also collected through Focused Group Discussion (FGD) by preparing focused group discussion guide. One Focused Group Discussion was carried out having 6 members with the intention of Capturing socio-economic services and sustainable livelihood provision infrastructural data for the study. The discussants, the kebele administrators (one person) selected purposively from the three kebeles , woreda officers selected based on service i.e. work for long period (2 persons) and household heads based on simply random method one, one from each kebele (3 house hold heads, 1 female and 2 males), who lives in kebeles have expected to give better information.

C. Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) Key informant interview were held during primary data collection. This was because to collect general information from different angles related with socioeconomic impacts of villagization

31 program especially data like awareness of the resettler, the socioeconomic assets built for the resettlers. The selected key informants were households who lived in each of the three kebeles , Woreda government officials who were responsible in directing and managing the program and Woreda’s agriculture and rural development office head. The interview was carried out by the researcher with the aim of making further investigations on the basis of the information received from the respondents. A key informant interview was carried out with 8 individuals. First the researcher used lottery method to select which group of household belongs to which kebele , and then the researcher applied purposive sampling technique to select elder to get pure comparative information’s and religious leader to get feasible informants from each kebele. At the end the researcher selected 2 male elder households, 2 religious leaders households from the 2 nd kebele , and 2 females elder households from the 3 rd kebele to get right information. The woreda administrator representative and agricultural office head were selected to get information related with awareness and socioeconomic status of resettles and other secondary data (more of quantitative) was gathered through questionnaire for the study. Other sources like published research papers and documents of government offices were extensively used to got numbers of resettlers each year and their assets gained as a result of the program.

D. Direct Field Observation Observation can be used as a supplementary technique to collect data and cross check the collected data by other means (Robson, 1995). Similarly, it gives an opportunity to observe realities directly in the research area. Therefore, in this study direct field observation was held by the researcher to observe the socioeconomic and demographic as well as livelihood asset like the housing type, infrastructures built for the resettler after villagization and the living conditions of the settlers in the area under study and some photos were taken from the sites of household to verify to what extent the saying was really true.

3.6.2. Sources of Secondary Data Secondary data are pieces of information that have already been collected for a different purpose, but which were relevant to the researcher problems. Secondary data types are for example collected by sources such as statistical offices used. Secondary data are useful for addressing a number of research questions EDQAF (2016). In this study, secondary data were obtained from published and unpublished materials that were Books, Journals, project reports, reports of other

32 research works on the issues of villagization and its impact on livelihood of resettlers. In addition to these, review of documents in the region, zone, and Woreda levels were so vital in accessing data that was able to show changes occurred in the study area.

Advantages of using secondary data are low cost, less effort more timely breadth of data available, data collection process is informed by expertise and professional that may not available to smaller research projects. One major advantage to using secondary data is because that data were not collected to answer specific research questions EDQAF (2016).In addition to the above sources Magazines, organizational and institutional research results, like Human Right Watch Reports, Government Progress Reports and Plans have been used as secondary data sources. These sources were used to analyze historical and periodic information on the plan and implementation of villagization program. 3.7. Methods of Data Analysis

As indicate above primary data were gained from different sources and the secondary data (quantitative) obtain mainly from, Benishangul Gumuz Region Food Security and Risk Reduction and Preparedness Buearu, Oda Buldiglu Agriculture and Rural Development Office, journals annual reports , published research papers and document of governmental offices. These quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics by the help of Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 20.

As a result, the percentage to compare the socioeconomic status of resettlers before and after villagization, frequency table to show the awareness of resettlers and bar graphs to show the comparision in using socio economic services were used to analyze the result . Besides, to examine the average difference in their asset of the resettlers like livestock and crop production before and after villagization program (physical asset), the difference exist in infrastructural service before and after villagization program, t-test from the parametric tests Z- value, P- value and chi-square test were used. The qualitative data gathered through focus group discussion, interview and observation would be summarized and some of the primary data (qualitative) was analyzed and interpreted qualitatively.

3.8. Reliability and Validity of Checks Reliability and validity are the most important and basic techniques of any research measurement procedures. The reliability and validity of the instrument and methodology deal with the quality

33 of data and appropriateness of the methods used, (Messay,2012). At its most general level, reliability refers to the consistency or dependability of a measurement technique, (Andrich, 1981; Leary, 2004). More specifically, reliability is concerned with the consistency or stability of the score obtained from a measure or assessment technique over time and across settings or conditions (Anastasi&Urbina, 1997; White &Saltz, 1957).

If the measurement is reliable, then there is less chance that the obtained score is due to random factors and measurement error. Measurement error is uncontrolled for variance that distorts scores and observations so that they no longer accurately represent the construct in question. Scores obtained from most forms of data collection are subject to measurement error. Essentially, this means that any score obtained consists of two components. The first component is the true score , which is the score that would have been obtained if the measurement strategy were perfect and error free.

The second component is measurement error , which is the portion of the score that is due to distortion and imprecision from a wide variety of potential factors, such as a poorly designed test, situational factors, and mistakes in the recording of data (Leary,2004).Although all measures contain error, the more reliable the method or instrument, the less likely it is that these influences will affect the accuracy of the measurement. Although reliability is a necessary and essential consideration when selecting an instrument or measurement approach, it is not sufficient in and of itself.

Validity is another critical aspect of measurement that must be considered as part of an overall measurement strategy. Whereas reliability refers to the consistency of the measure, validity focuses on what the test or measurement strategy measures and how well it does so (Anastasi&Urbina, 1997).

In case of validity, first extensive related literatures on the problem under study were intensively reviewed this helped the researcher to develop a good insight while constructing the instruments that can address the research objectives. Then, the data collection instruments were constructed under the close guidance of with the objectives. Next to this, pilot surveys were carried out on 31 randomly selected respondents to pre-test the instrument. The pre-test enabled the researcher to check the questionnaires and to minimize errors due to improper design elements, such as legibility, formatting and logical sequences. Accordingly, all the necessary editions and

34 modifications were made on the questionnaires depending on the feedbacks, obtained from a pilot survey.

To check the consistency of scores, reliability test was made using Cronbach’s Coefficient of Alpha. Based on the result, the reliability coefficient of the instrument was found to be 0.948 which is greater than 0.7 and reliable. To keep the reliability during the qualitative research processes, the researcher were made a good interaction with the research participants. Finally, triangulation of the data gathering tools was executed by using KII, FGDs and field observations

3.9. Ethical Consideration One of the main concerns in conducting research, which collect ideas from different individuals to the study, is ethical considerations for the research subjects. The researcher should have to be so much confidential to keep their idea whatever they said. The researcher planned to get the consent of household questionnaire survey respondents, focus group discussants and key informants. They were also aware of about the objectives and outcomes of the research quite adequately. They informed that their personal information were kept confidentially that were not publicized or given to any third party without their full willingness in case they need arises.

These were vividly expressed in the forward part of the questionnaire booklet. Both researcher and the enumerators informed the respondents that their responses were kept utmost confidential level. Beyond the ethics on human subjects, research ethics also considers acknowledgement of data generated by others and appropriate citations of scholarly research outputs, books, websites, and any other related documents in order to assure intellectual and scientific integrity of the researcher. By recognizing this, the researcher were try to cite and acknowledge all the information taken from scholarly literatures and data generated by other individuals or organizations.

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

4.1. The Respondents Background Information A total of 302 resettled households were included under the questionnaire. 111 respondents from Abango Kebele , 113 respondents were from Belanjaro Kebele , and 78 respondents were also from Beleganda Kebele . The total respondents from each Kebele filled the questionnaire properly because of the strategy I used to collect important information. A total of 8 key informants were interviewed; they were from 2(two) religious leaders from Abango Kebele , 2(two) male elder from Belanjaro Kebele and 2(two) female elder households from Beleganda Kebele, Woreda administrator and agriculture office head. In addition, 1(one) focus group discussions with 6(six) members, with 2(two) professional from Oda Buldiglu Woreda agriculture offices department of food security disaster prevention and preparedness, 3(three) 1(one) female and 2(two) male household from the three kebeles were selected with simple random sampling.The characteristics of the surveyed resettled households are depicted below. Table 4.1 Shows the Percentage Distribution of Respondents by Sex. Sex of sample house hold Frequency Percentage

Male 137 45.4 Female 165 54.6 Total 302 100 Source: Kebele Administration Office of Samples kebeles (2016). Therefore as we have observed from the Table 4.1 greater than 50% of the respondents i.e.54.6% are female respondents and less than half percent which is 45.4% are male respondents, why this is happened is that polygamy is common in the area and one male respondents have greater than one wife and helpful to how much number female and male respondent were participated in this research.

4.2. Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents Among the 302 respondents about 45.4% (137 respondents) and 54.6% (165 respondents) were male and female headed respondents respectively. When we look the sample respondents in kebele wise Belanjaro Kebele , the largest proportion having 43 male and 70 female totally 113

36 shared 37.42% of the total respondents whereas, Abango was the second selected sample Kebele having 56 male and 55 female totally 111 shared 36.76% of the total respondents. Beleganda was the third selected sample kebele of the study area having 38 male and 40 male totally 78 shared 25.82% of the total respondents of the sample respondents.

Age wise 81% of the respondents were found in between the age group of 18-45 and only 19% of the respondents were found to be older than this age i.e. in the age group above 46. The larger proportion of adult age of respondent heads could be for the fact that the villagization was taken place on adults, which most resettlers are adults and adults were moved to their new villagization area. Almost all except one percent (3 persons) of the 302 respondents were married. Probably this could be that being divorced or widowed may not be common to new settlers in the area. Table 4.2: Demographic Characteristics of the Selected Respondents. Demographic characteristics Sex of HH head Male Female Total No. % No. % No. % 18-45 116 84.7 129 78.2 245 81.1 Age of HH head 46-65 21 15.3 36 21.8 57 18.9 Total 137 100 165 100 302 100 Married 136 99.3 163 98.8 299 99.0 Marital status of HH head Others 1 .7 2 1.2 3 1.0 Total 137 100 165 100 302 100 3-9 96 70.1 112 67.9 208 68.9 HH Family Size >9 41 29.9 53 32.1 94 31.1 Total 137 100 165 100 302 100 Literate 63 45.9 59 35.75 122 40.4 Education level of HH head Illiterate 74 54.1 106 64.25 180 59.6 Total 137 100 165 100 302 100

Source: Computed Based on Data Obtained from Field Survey, (2017).

Many of the respondents in the study area have large family size. About 69% and 31% of the respondents’ have family size in the range 3 – 9 persons and 10 and above persons respectively. Even the families of younger age have at least one child or one another dependent on them. Adult education services does not seem given in the area. Many of the respondents actually 54.1 percent of male heads and 64.25 percent of female heads are illiterate or didn’t get a chance of any type of education.

“…One individual from the key informant interviewee said that education was one of the major problems which were not yet solved still today in our Kebele. He said look the females they were still working traditionally because of knowledge and male also they use traditional tools to plough their land and get low amount of production; this was a clear indicator of illiteracy”. 4.3. Current Socioeconomic Status of the Respondents Farmland size does not seem a shortage in the area. About 38% of the respondents have a farmland size in the range between 0.1 hectare and 2 hectares. Whereas about 61% of the respondents have annually cultivate farm land size that is larger than 2.5 hectares which was enough farm land size to cultivate crops for family consumption acquired after villagization. Table 4.3: Size and Fertility Status of the Land Possessed by the Selected Respondents. Sex of HH head Farm Land Size and Fertility of Male Female Total Respondents No. % No. % No. % 0.1 - 2 Ha 53 38.7 63 38.2 116 38.4

2.5 - 5 Ha 80 58.4 95 57.6 175 57.9 Farmland Size >5 Ha 4 2.9 7 4.2 11 3.6 Total 137 100 165 100 302 100

Fertile 86 62.8 97 58.8 183 60.6 Fertility Status Moderate 51 37.2 68 41.2 119 39.4

Total 137 100 165 100 302 100

Source: Computed Based on the Data Obtained from Survey, (2017).

Many of the respondents who were resettled on a virgin land are working on a fertile land. About 61 percent and 39 percent of the respondents are cultivating a very fertile and moderately fertile land. The proportion of fertile allotted male respondents is greater than that of the land possessed female respondents by about four percent. Coming to the way settlers are cultivating the land many of them does not seem to adopt modern technologies and apply fertilizer. Their preference to the traditional oxen/tools ploughing and not applying fertilizer could be associated to the lack of access to modern farming tools like tractors and fertilizer or the natural fertility of the land and lack of awareness how much these tools were

38 important to brought change on their production amount. Only 5 person’s use rent tractor to plough their land and 43 respondents apply fertilizer. About 60% of male and female respondents plow their land by oxen and more than 84% of the respondents do not apply fertilizer for cultivating their land. About 39% of male respondents and 38% of female respondents seem to have no access to ox for ploughing and they use traditional tools to cultivate different crops.

“…The Kebele administrator in the focused group discussion tells that, farmers didn’t accepted to apply modernized farming inputs like fertilizer and using tractor they totally reject using fertilizer except few farmers because of their low understanding of it, they consider fertilizer have negative impact on the soil and not used again without it . Only some individuals’ use rent tractor to plough their land but they didn’t accepted buying tractor with collaboration”.

Table 4.4: Use of Tools and Fertilizer to Cultivate Land Possessed by the Selected Respondents.

Farm Tools and Uses of Fertilizer of Sex of HH head the Respondents Male Female Total No. % No. % No. % Types of Farm Tractor 2 1.5 3 1.8 5 1.7 Tools used for Oxen 82 59.9 99 60 181 59.9 Ploughing Traditional 53 38.7 63 38.2 116 38.4 Tools Total 137 100 165 100 302 100 Yes 16 11.7 27 16.4 43 14.2 Uses of Fertilizer No 121 88.3 138 83.6 259 85.8 Total 137 100 165 100 302 100 Source: Computed Based on Data Obtained from Field Survey, (2017).

The selected respondents were asked whether or not respondents had information about their movement to a new area and about their feeling to resettle in the area.

Table 4.5: Sources of Information and Feelings of Respondents about Villagization Program. Respondents Awareness Towards Villagization Sex of HH head Program Male Female Total No. % No. % No. % Have You Been Well Yes 135 98.5 159 96.4 294 97.4 Informed about the Program No 2 1.5 6 3.6 8 2.6 before Moving from your Total 137 100 165 100 302 100 Origin Media 12 8.8 2 1.2 14 4.6 Source of Information about government official 121 88.3 161 97.6 282 93.4 the Program Others 4 2.9 2 1.2 6 2.0 Total 137 100 165 100 302 100 Voluntarily 128 93.4 153 92.7 281 93 How Did You Come to this self-organized 9 6.6 12 7.3 21 7.0 Settlement sites Total 137 100 165 100 302 100 Accept it 6 4.4 13 7.9 19 6.3 immediately Your Feeling When You rejected it first and 93 67.9 119 72.1 212 70.2 Were Asked to Resettle convinced by officials latter didn't feel anything 38 27.7 33 20.0 71 23.5 Total 137 100 165 100 302 100 Source: Computed Based on the Data Obtained from Field Survey, (2017). More than 97% (294) of the respondents were informed about the villagization plan and 93 percent of the respondents got this information from government officials working around them. About 93% and 7% of the respondents have respectively witnessed to the researcher that they were volunteers and self-organized to resettle in the new area respectively.

“…The officer in the focused group discussion assures that most of the resettler was not accept immediately to resettle, after consecutive discussion with them, they convinced to resettle. But there are also resetler neither rejected nor accepted to resettle what we call he said “Yemaymokew yemayberdew” type simply they move when they seen other resettled”. The other discussants also support the above idea as follows: “…The other discussant i.e. the kebele administrator also supports the idea of the officer and he said we devote much of our time to convince the households to resettle to the new area and at the end they accept and move to the present area. But there were peoples who accept directly to resettle even though there number was very small”.

4.4. Comparison of Socioeconomic Status of the Respondents before and after Villagization

The socioeconomic status of the respondents was measured in terms of their housing conditions, the main source of income, livestock size they have possessed, and the mean annual income they were earning before and after villagization. The difference in such socioeconomic status of the respondents before and after villagization were compared and their significance difference was tested using z-statistics for proportions of each category of qualitative variables and t-statistics for comparing means of quantitative variables as discussed.

About 66% and 81% of the respondents were living in a mud wall with grass roofed huts before and after villagization respectively. About 34% of the respondents were living in hut with walls without mud and with grass roofed before they were moved to their new area. In the new settlement area about 19% of the respondents were able to construct houses with mud wall and corrugated iron sheets. But there were also around 34% respondents who were lived in wall without mud and grass roofed house before the villagization program. This percent was changed and totally became zero after the villagization program was applied. 4.4.1. The Housing Condition of Respondents Table 4.6: Types of House Owned by the Respondents before and after Resettlement. Before or After Villagization Z-Value P-Value House Types of the Respondents Before After Villagization Villagization Count % Count % Mud Wall and -4.1411 0.049 Grass Roofed 199 65.9 244 80.8 What Type of Wall without 11.1434 0.01 House do You Mud and Grass 103 34.1 0 0 Owned in the Roofed Previous Site Mud Wall and -8.0101 0.023 Tin Roofed 0 0 58 19.2 Total 302 100 302 100 Source: Computed Based on the Data Obtained from Field Survey, (2017).

Housing conditions may depend on the culture, environment and climate of the rural areas the respondents were living before and after the villagization. Regardless of this the housing conditions in the new settlement area seem to better than the old settlement of origin. As indicated the larger z- values and the very small level of error (p-value) less than 0.05 (%), the proportions of settlers in housing condition categories before and after villagization are significantly different from each other to the error level less than 0.05.

That is for each category of housing conditions we concluded that respondents who lived in mud grass roofed houses before and after villagization is not the same and conclude that the proportion of respondents in mud grass roofed huts before villagization (66%) and after villagization (81%) are significantly different to each other to the error level less than 5%. The proportion of respondents with only grass-roofed huts before villagization (34%) and after villagizatioon (0%) is obviously and very significantly different from each other actually to error level less 1%. Similarly there is a very significant difference (to the error level about 2% only) between the proportion of respondents with tin-roofed houses before villagization (0%) and that of respondents with tin-roofed houses after villagization (19.2%).

A B

Figure 4.2: Mud wall and grass roofed houses (A) and Mud wall and tin roofed house (B) (source: Photo Taken from Filed Observation, 2017)

Figure 4.2.(A) reveals the mud wall and grass roofed house that resettlers used to live before and after villagization and (B) is the mud wall and tin roofed house that mostly constructed after viilagization and used as modern living hose today.

4.4.2. The Livelihood Income of the Respondents The proportion of respondents with different categories of livelihood before and after villagization were compared each other. About 6% and 57% of the respondents were living by farming before and after villagization respectively. This difference (about 51%) could be associated to the shortage of tools and awareness in the previous settlement of origin.

These proportions were significantly different from each other to the error level less than 1%. Though not as large as Surviving with farming, the proportion of respondents survived dominantly by animal production, by selling forest and forest products and by off-farm activities before and after villagization was significant to the error level less than 0.05.

Table 4.7: Main Livelihood Source of the Respondents. Settlement/Site Sources of Livelihood Z - P - Before After Value Value Villagization Villagization

Count % Count % What Were the Main Farming 18 6.0 171 56.6 -13.4 0.01 Sources of Livelihood Animal Production 47 15.6 28 9.3 2.344 0.05

Forest and Forest 79 26.2 20 6.6 6.485 0.032 Product Off farm Activities 158 52.3 83 27.5 6.232 0.035

Total 302 100 302 100

Source: Computed Based on Data Obtained from Field Survey, (2017).

The proportion of respondents who were surviving by animal production, by selling forest and forest products and by off-farm activities before villagization is about 16%, 26% and 52% respectively. Whereas The proportion respondents who were surviving by animal production, by selling forest and forest products and by off-farm activities after villagization is about 9%, 7% and 28% respectively. As Table 4.7 reveals that most of the respondents around 52.3% which is more than half were surviving their live by using off farm activities but farming was the list, that only 6% of the respondents were leading their live.

But the reverse is true after the villagization program was carried out means that 56.6% of the respondents were leading their live with farming. One thing we understood here is agricultural activities were improved from time to time and that, off farming activities are still the important economic activity that the respondent used as a source of livelihood in the area. Using forest and forest product as a source of income is totally different before and after villagization with 0.05 error level significant value means that using forest and forest as a source of livelihood was gone to replace by farming through time. “… Some informants said that off farming activities are still important sources of even though difficulties are there to practices”.

The mean number of livestock (oxen, cows, goats, and donkeys) possessed by respondents and mean annual income from different sources (crop production, sell of fruits and vegetables, and selling livestock) respondents were earn earning before villagization and after villagization were compared. As shown in the Table 4.8 reveals respondents’ livestock possession and mean annual income has been greatly improved after villagization. On average respondents’ possession of oxen/cows, goats, donkeys or total livestock size (TLU- Tropical Livestock Unit) before villagization was as low as 0.4 cows/oxen, 4.82 goats, 0.62 donkeys and 1.2 TLU. Compared to these, respondents possession of livestock in the new settlement area was as high as oxen/cows (2.26), goats (7.46), donkeys (1.01) and TLU (3.5). All of these figures before and after villagization were significantly different from each other actually to the error level less than 1% or to almost 100% confidence.

4.4.3. The Livestock Condition and Annual Income of the Respondents Table 4.8: Comparison of Mean Financial Capital and Physical Assets of the Respondents before and after Villagization. Livelihood Asset of Respondents Mean N S CV (%) Corr(r) Sig t-value Pair 1 Numbers of Oxen and Cows .40 302 .859 216.287 .790 .000 - before Villagization 19.334 Numbers of Oxen and Cows 2.26 302 2.266 100.351 after Villagization Number of Goats before 4.82 302 3.073 63.687 .698 .000 - Pair 2 Villagization 16.535 Numbers of Goats after 7.46 302 3.832 51.338 Villagization Numbers of Donkeys before .62 302 .718 115.262 .700 .000 - Pair 3 Villagization 10.499 Numbers of Donkey after 1.01 302 .897 88.484 Villagization Total Livestock Unit before 1.2 302 1.4 117.6 .895 .000 - Pair 4 Villagization 21.723 Total Livestock Unit After 3.5 302 3.0 85.5 Villagization Average Annual Income .283 .000 - Pair 5 from Crop Production in Birr 127.2 302 225.6 177.5 21.201 before Villagization Average Annual Income from Crop Production after 1537. 302 1199. 78.0 Villagization 4 3 Average Annual Income .880 .000 - Pair 6 from Sales of Fruits and 265.6 302 308.5 116.1 11.765 Vegetables before Villagization Average Annual Income from Sales of Fruits and 378.3 302 350.7 92.7 Vegetables after villagization Average Annual Income .719 .000 14.704 Pair 7 from Livestock Sale before 1023. 302 1407 137.5 Villagization 2 Average Annual Income from Livestock Sale after 2571. 302 2557. 99.5 Villagization 2 8 Total Annual Income before 1416 302 1864. 131.7 .702 .000 18.122 Pair 8 Villagization 6 Total Annual Income After 4486. 302 3938. 87.8 Villagization 9 6

Source: Computed Based on Data Obtained from Field Survey, (2017).

The improvement seen after villagization was not only the livestock size of the respondents, it was also on the mean annual income of the respondents. Before villagization, farmers were annually earning only about 127 Birr from crop production, 266 Birr from sales of fruits and vegetables, 1023 Birr from sales of livestock and about 1416 Birr total income. Regardless of the highly inflated Ethiopian Birr over the past 2-4 years , farmers income from the respective sources after villagization was grown to be as high as 1537 Birr from crop production, 378 Birr from sales of fruits and vegetables, 2571 Birr from livestock sales and about 4487 Birr from all sources. These big mean income differences are very significant actually to the error level less than 1% but such big financial differences between before and after villagization should also considered with the big inflation happened in the country’s economy in the last 2-4 years.

4.4.4. The Infrastructural and Public Service Condition of the Respondents The settlers in the new area were also asked about public services (clean water supply, number of health centers, and schools) available in the previous settlement of origin and in the new settlement area. As the Table 4.9 below shows the settlers were better served in their new settlement area than they were served in their settlement of origin with different public services listed above.

Spring water was one of the sources of potable water to about 41 % of households in their old settlement area and about 38% of the respondents in their new resettlement area. After villagization, 62% of the respondents were supplied with potable water from hand dug wells. The supply of health service especially in the new settlement area seems very limited. About 26% and 63% of the respondents witnessed they didn’t get access to health post in previous settlement (before villagization) and in the new resettlement area (after villagization) respectively.

“… Key informants in all three kebeles, tells me that even though much amount of the settler got water from hand dug well, there were still peoples who use drinking water from spring which is not well protected and cured timely because of unbalance of peoples numbers with the number of hand dug wells. They said that this is not the only problem that we face in case of drinking water but also there were a dry up of hand dug well water sources during the winter season particularly march-may if there is no rainfall during these months”.

Table 4.9: Types of Water Sources, Health Services, Schools and Overall Health Situation in the Origin of Settlement and New Resettlement Village. Settlement/Site Drinking Sources of Water Before After Z-Value P-Value Villagization Villagization

Count % Count %

Spring 124 41.1 114 37.7 0.8327 0.54 What is the Source of Your Drinking Hand Dug 0 0.0 188 62.3 -16.522 0.01 Water Well Ponds/Rivers 178 58.9 0 0.0 15.8863 0.01

Total 302 100 302 100 0 78 25.8 191 63.2 -9.25121 0.02 How Many Health Posts Exist 1 224 74.2 111 36.8 9.25121 0.02

Total 302 100 302 100 Worst 180 59.6 0 0.0 16.013 0.01

Bad 122 40.4 0 0.0 12.3645 0.01 The overall health service situation Not Changed 0 0.0 42 13.9 -6.71854 0.04

Good 0 0.0 179 59.3 -15.9496 0.01

Better 0 0.0 81 26.8 -9.67186 0.02

Total 302 100 302 100 0 191 63.2 0 0.0 16.7132 0.01

How Many 1 111 36.8 191 63.2 -6.51031 0.04 Schools Exist 2 0 0.0 111 36.8 -11.6616 0.01

Total 302 100. 302 100

Source: Computed Based on Data from Field Survey, (2017)

As informed by all respondents, the quality of health service in the old settlement area was bad and worst. Besides about 26% of the respondents witnessed that the quality of the current health service provided in the new settlement area is good or better than it was used to in the old

47 settlement area. About 63% of the respondents didn’t have access to school in the old settlement area they have come from. But now in the new settlement area all of the respondents get access to at least one school for their children learning. As indicated by the less than 0.05 (p-value) level of error, the proportions of respondents in each category of the public services for before and after villagization are significantly different from each other.

A B C

Figure 4.5: Hand dug well (A) Schools (B) and Health Post (C) of the Study Area. Source: Photo Taken from Field Observation April (2017).

Figure 4.5.Reveals, Figures A is the hand dug well that the resettled societies used to fetch water, Figure B reveals elementary school (1-4) that pupils learn and Figure C reveals the health post that resettlers used.

4.5. Membership towards the Community Association of the Respondents About 41% and 32% of the respondents before and after villagization respectively used to participate and now are participate in religious activities. In their settlement of origin farmers didn’t have saving practices in micro-financial institutions. Now they seem starting saving in such institutions as reported by 16% of the respondents. Participating in cooperatives seems to be the practice used to be in the old settlement before villagization. Proportions of respondents’ participation in each category of community associations are significantly different from each other to the error level less than 5%. This tells that respondents change is not limited to socioeconomic conditions but also in their participation in community affairs.

4.6. Factors Influencing Current Income of Respondents in the Study Area To see which factors and to what extent affect the total mean income of households/settlers in the area, the total income coming from sales crops, vegetables and livestock was regressed against their current demographic (sex, age, marital status, place of residence) and socioeconomic factors (education, labor force, use of technologies and fertilizers etc).

Table 4.10: Membership Status of Respondents before and after Villagization

Settlement/Site Community Associations of the Z-Value P-Value Before After Respondents Villagization Villagization

Count % Count %

Religious 123 40.7 95 31.5 2.37222 0.047

Saving 0 0.0 48 15.9 -7.2211 0.032 Membership to Cooperatives 19 6.3 0 0.0 4.42912 0.042 Community Associations Other 0 0.0 159 52.6 14.6905 0.01

Free from any 160 53.0 0 0.0 14.7532 0.01

Total 302 100 302 100

Source: Computed Based on Data Obtained from Field Survey (2017)

4.7. Implications of Villagization for Sustainable Rural Development Basically the aim of population villagization is to ensure sustainable supply of basic socioeconomic services such as education, health, water, credit facilities, agricultural inputs, etc and other infrastructures such as electric power, telephone and road that facilitate rural development. An aspect of such sustainable rural development indicators is ensuring food security sustainability in the villagization sites. In this regard, the result of this study reveals that villagization program has laid some hope for future development of rural communities if handled well.

The services mentioned above were established in villagization sites although there were still deficiencies. Some areas have had urban form as I observed from my survey following the villagization program as a result their livelihood systems have been altering into urban form showing diversification in their livelihood systems. Schools, health facilities, agricultural extension inputs and workers, etc have appeared in the area which the villagers had never seen in their former villages. This implies that the villagization program, if managed properly, will have a positive contribution to further rural developments in a sustainable manner.

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1. Major Findings and Conclusion This study was conducted in Benishangul Gumuz People’s Regional State particularly in Oda Bulidiglu Woreda . It is one of the areas where villagization program was carried like other parts of the region. The majority of the respondent’s around 55% were female and Male constitutes nearly 45% of the sample respondents, around 81% of the respondents were found in the age group 18-45. With regard to marital status 99% was married at the time of survey the remaining 1% others. Greater proportion around (68.9%) of the respondents a family size 3-9 and the rest 31.1% had a family size above. Most of the households around 59.6% or 180 respondents were illiterate, they can’t read and write.

They have fertile and moderately land 60.6% and 39.4% respectively, the farm land size of the households 38.4% for0.1-2 hectare, 57.9% for 2.5-5 hectare and 3.6% greater than 5 hectare. Only 5 person’s use rent tractor to plough their land and 43 respondents apply fertilizer. About 60% respondents plow their land by oxen and more than 84% of the respondents do not apply fertilizer for cultivating their land. About 39% of male respondents and 38% of female respondents seem to have no access to ox for ploughing. More than 97% (294) of the sample respondents were informed about the villagization program and 93 percent of the respondents got this information from government officials working around them.

About 93% and 7% of the respondents respectively have witnessed to the researcher that they were volunteers or self-organized to resettle in the new area. Regarding of the housing condition before villagization 0% of the respondents were lived in mud wall and tin roofed house, this percent were directly changed to 19.2% and respondents who lived in wall without mud were directly changed from 34.1% to 0%. Mud wall and grass roofed house also increased from 65.9% to 80.8%. About 6% and 57% of the respondents were living by farming before and after villagization respectively. This difference (about 51%) was associated with the shortage of farm tools in the previous settlement of origin. The proportion respondents who were surviving by animal production, by selling forest and forest products and by off-farm activities before villagization was about 16%, 26% and 52% respectively. Whereas The proportion respondents who were surviving by animal production, by selling forest and forest products and by off-farm activities after villagization was about 9%, 7% and 28% respectively. On average farmer’s

50 possession of oxen/cows, goats, donkeys or total livestock size (TLU- Tropical Livestock Unit) before villagization was as low as 0.4 cows/oxen, 4.82 goats, 0.62 donkeys and 1.2 TLU. Compared to these, household’s possession of livestock in the new resettlement area was as high as oxen/cows (2.26), goats (7.46), donkeys (1.01) and TLU (3.5).

The mean annual income of the respondents before villagization, farmers were annually earning only about 127 Birr from crop production, 266 Birr from sales of fruits and vegetables, 1023 Birr from sales of livestock and about 1416 Birr total income. Regardless of the highly inflated Ethiopian Birr over the past 4 years, farmers income from the respective sources after villagization was grown to be as high as 1537 Birr from crop production, 378 Birr from sales of fruits and vegetables, 2571 Birr from livestock sales and about 4487 Birr income gain annually from all sources. These big mean income differences was very significant actually to the error level less than 1% but such big financial differences between before and after villagization should also considered with the big inflation happened in the country in the last 4 years.

Spring was one of the sources of potable water to about 41 % of respondents in their old settlement area and about 38% of the respondents in their new settlement area. After villagization, 62 % of the respondents were supplied with potable water from hand dug wells. The supply of health service especially in the new settlement area seems very limited. About 26% and 63% of the households witnessed they didn’t get access to health post in previous settlement (before villagization) and in the new settlement area (after villagization) respectively. 26% of the respondents witnessed that the quality of the current health service provided in the new settlement area is good or better than it was used to in the old settlement area.

Around 63% of the respondent said they haven’t access to school before villagization program but the reverse is true after villagization program. Before villagization farmer didn’t have the culture of saving practice rather some around 41% of the respondents were participated in religious associations but after villagization around 16% of the respondents were saved in micro finance institutions. The objective of this study was to assess the main socioeconomic impact of villagization on the livelihood condition of settler population in Oda Bulidiglu Woreda . In light of this, the findings of the study indicated that villagization program had impact on both socioeconomic and livelihood assets which intern had significant impact on livelihood outcome of settler population. To the settlers their livelihood has shown a significant improvement after

51 villagization as compared to before villagization. This change was manifested by different manner in the study. For instance, basic livelihood assets especially number of oxen and cows, goats and donkey, the capital asset gained from sales of different sectors the socioeconomic services like number of schools, health posts and water establishments were much higher than after villagization than before villagization.

Therefore, this assured that the majority of the settlers at the study area were lived in mud wall and grass roofed and mud wall plus tin roofed house after villagization. It could be seen that the major source of livelihood for the majority before villagization was off farm activities and after villagization was changed to farming. The betterment of the livelihood of the settlers has attained at the expense of the livelihood assets, including the fertile land. In the long run without proper institutional support, the observed level of betterment of livelihood may deteriorate and fail to secure the livelihood of settlers in the future. Even though the program has an improvement to the settlers livelihood in terms of asset creation and income generation.

To sum up the villagization program in Oda Bulidiglu Woreda was characterized by the betterment of the livelihood of the settlers even if, the level differs across respondents as compared to the living condition of settlers at their area of origin. 5.2. Recommendations Based on the finding of the study, the following points were recommended to make villagization program effective and to promote the living conditions of settlers.  Using forest and forest product as source of income has not totally solved, around 3%of the respondents still used forest and forest product as an additional source of income and it can cause environmental consequences by facilitating deforestation and has its own contribution to global warming. Thus, promotion of other livelihood strategy as petty trade or micro-enterprises and the use of alternative energy sources should be given priority attention as part of environmental protection interventions. Therefore the woreda soil conservation and environmental protection office should give due attention in replacing by other means of activity.

 According to the finding 80.8% of the respondents are still living in mud wall and grass roofed house which are susceptible for wild fire and intense rainfall. Thus to overcome these problems the woreda administration in collaboration with the regional state, and other concerned bodies should play a great role in changing the housing condition of the resettlers.  Access to credit is one of the problems that the settlers didn’t access properly in the study area. However, settlers were unable to access saving and credit institutions in the Woreda mostly they organized with religious institutions only. Therefore, there is a need to enhance financial capital through the promotion of rural small-scale saving and credit institutions that are accessible to the settlers.  As the researcher proofed with analysis and gained information from respondents in the study area, agriculture was not well organized and not supported by mechanized farming tools which are vital and appropriate source of livelihood not only in the study area but also in the country level. Therefore this sector should be supported and improved by fulfilling the necessary inputs like farmers training center mechanized farming tools.  Awareness about villagization program is also another problem that settlers didn’t gain at the beginning of the program. This is typically the work of food security, risk protection and preparedness department in agricultural office that should do properly to create awareness for the resettlers.  Finally, this research is limited to the socio economic impact of villagization program on the livelihood of the settlers the other aspects of the settlers was not studied. Hence, the study calls for further research in the area of other, cultural and political because these are very sensitive today that every one complains today.

References

Alula Pankhurst (2005). Resettlement Planning Lesson from Success and Failure: Experiences from Eleven Sites in Four Regions. Research Project Workshop, FSS: Addis Abeba Ethiopia Ambaye Weldegebriel (2013). Land Rights and Expropriation in Ethiopia. Diss. Royal Institute ofTechnology(KTH)Retrievedon2017fromhttp://kth.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:66 6017/FULLTEXT01.pdf. Anastasi,A.&Urbina, S.(1997). Psychological testing (7 ed ).Englewood Cliffs, NJ: prentice Hall England. Andrich, D.(1981).Stability of response, reliability and accuracy of measurement. Educational and psychological measurement, 41, 253-262. Asfaw Tilahune(2005).Improving Understanding the Dynamics of Resettlement. A case Study of Idirs Resettlement scheme Qafta HumeraWoredaTigrayRegion.Tigray,Ethiopia. BGBoECLA(2016).Benishangul GumuzBerau of Environmental Conservation and Land administration.Unpuplished Annual Report. Assosa, Ethiopia. BGRG (2010).Benishangul Gumuz Regional Government’s Villagization Programme Implementation Guideline; September, 2010, Assosa; Translated from the Amharic Version,Assosa, Ethiopia. BGRGFEDB(2012).BenishangulGumuz Region Government Finance and Economic Development Bearu.Population and Housing Census Report. Assosa, Ethiopia. BGRSGCAB (2013).Benishangul Gumuz Regional State Government Communication Affairs Bureau.Facts About Benishangul Gmuz,( Annually published Bulletin). Asossa, Ethiopia. Clapham Christopher (2015).The Era of Haile Selassie . In Understanding Contemporary Ethiopia:Monachy,Revolution and the Legacy of Meles Zenawi, London. C.R.Kothari (2004). Research Methdology Methods and Techniques 2 nd Revised Edition NEWAge International Publisher, FormerPrincipal,College of CommerceUniversityof Rajasthan,Jaipur (India). CSA (2010). Centeral Stastical Authority the 2007 Population and Housing Census of Ethiopia: Results from Benishangul gumuz Region Statistical Report. Addis Ababa.

De Wet, Chris(2012).The Application of International Resettlement Policy in African Villagization Projects. Human Organization . P: 395-406. De Wet, Chris (2009). Why Do Things Often Go Wrong in Resettlement Projects? In Moving People in Ethiopia: Development, Displacement & the State, by Alula Pankhurst & François Piquet, 35-48.Woodbridge: James Currey. Dessalegn, Rahamto.(2003).Resettlement: The Tragedy of Population Relocation in the 1980’s ,FSS Discussion paper No.11. Addis Abeba. Forum of Social Studies. DessalegnWorkneh(2005).The post 1991 Resettlement planning and Adminstration and the Changing pattern of People Access to Local Resources. The case of Kenaf Site ,Western Oromiya Unpublished paper Presented on Research Project workshop 19,Dec,2005.Addis Abeba: Form for Social Studies. EDQAF (2016).Ethiopian Data Quality Assessment Framework.Training manual Addis Abeba Ethiopia. Ergas Zaki (1980).Why Did the Ujamaa Village Policy Fail?Towards A Global Analysis. Journal of Modern African Studies . Uganda. FSCB (2003).New Coalition for Food Security in Ethiopia, Food Security Program: Monitoring and Evaluation Plan. Addis Abeeba. FeyissaGirma(2016 ).In Pursuit of Democracy Addis Fortune 16. January 2016.http://addisfortune.net/columns/in-pursuit-ofdemocracy/(retrieve on June12 2017) Greet Molehbergh (undated).Interuniversity Institute for Biostatistics and Statstical Bioinformatics Katholieke Universit it Leuven & Universiteit Hasselt, Belgium. Gelnn, D.Israel (2012). Determining sample Size: (Gainesville, F132611/2012) University of Florida. Guyu Ferede(2012).Voluntary Villagization for Transforming Semi-pastoral Communities in Benishangul Gmuz Region North Western Ethiopia. Challenges and Local Development indicators.Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa. (Volume14, No.5, 2012). Addis Abeba University. Heather Powell et’al.(2008).Mixed Method Research in School Psychology. A mixed Methods investigation of Trend in the Literature.(Psychology in school, vol 45(4), 2008), Johns Hopkins Medical Institution.

Human Rights watch (2012).Waiting here for Death. Forced Displacement and Villagization in Ethiopia, Gambela Region.(January,16,2012). Kassahhun,B.(2000).Resettlement A strategy for Vulnerable Group In Zenwork Tadesse(ed) preceding of inaugural workshop of Form for Social Studies,(FSS),Addis Abeba. Kjekshus Helge(1977).The TanzanianVillagization Policy Implementational Lessons and Ecological Dimensions.Canadian Journal of African Studies. Leary M, R.(2004).Introduction to Behavioral Research Methods. Boston: Allyn&Bacon Lorgen Christy (1999). The Experience of Villagisation: Lessons from Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Tanzania. London: Oxfam GB, January 1999. Mellese Madda(2005).Challenges of Inadequate Preparation and the Dilemma of Voluntary Displacement. The Case of Intera-zonal Resettlement in Wolayta (SNNPR) Unpublished Paper Presented on Research Project Workshop 19,Dec, 2005, Addis Abeba Forum for social studies.Clarion University of Pennsylvanian, Clarion Pennsylvanian. Messay Mulugeta(2009).Challenges and Opportunities of Voluntary Resettlement Scheme in Ethiopia. A case from Jiru Gemechu Resettlement Village, Nonno, District, Centeral Ethiopia; Journal of sustainable Development in Africa,( Volume 11,No.3 ,pp-84 2009) clarion University. Messay Mulugeta(2012).Resettlement and Food Security Nexus in Ethiopia.A Case Study from Nonno District.Germany LAMBERT. Messay,M.& Bekure ,W.(2011).The Impact of Resettlement Schemes on Land-use/Land-cover Changes in Ethiopia : A Case Study from Nonno Resettlement Sites, Central Ethiopia; Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, Vol. 13, No. 2, PP.269-293; Clarion University. Mhando,L.(2011). Tanzania and the Geopolitics of Rural Development: The Return of Neoliberalism; Journal of Emerging Knowledge on Emerging Markets, Vol. 3, 2011, Art 26; An ICA Institute publication, Pennsylvania State University, USA; Accessed at http:// digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/jekem/vol3/iss1/26 Misganaw Iticha (2005). Resettlement Dynamics. The case of Golollee No Resettlement Scheme west Shewa Zone of Oromyia Regional State,(unpublished MA Thesis). Addis Ababa University.

Mnanje,J.(2001).Quality Research Process and Social Science Research Methodology Module 2.OSSREA, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia. Moti Mosisa(2014)Politics of Development and Resettlement in Ethiopia: Is it Villagization or Land grabbing?The case of Gambella Regional State. Addis Abeba University Ethiopia ,

Gambella. Muluneh W/Tsadik(2003).Impact of Population pressure of land use /land cover Change, Agricultural System and Income diversification in west Gurage land, Ethiopia. Department of Geography.Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim. NMSA(2016).National Metrological Service Agency. Rainfall and Temperature Record of Oda Bulidiglu Woreda. Assosa, Ethiopia. OBWFEDO(2016).Oda Bulidiglu Woreda Finance and Economic Development Office. Unpuplished Annual Report Buldiglu, Ethiopia. OBWMEO(2013).Oda Buldiglu Woreda Mining and Energy Office,2013/14 Fiscal 10 Month Plan Implementation Report, Introduction May,2024, Buldiglu;Translated from Amharic version. OBWGCAO(2015).Oda Buldiglu Woreda Government Communication Affairs Office 2015/16 Annual General Plan Implementation report, Introduction. June (2016), Buldiglu Translated from Amharic Version. OBWOoARD(2016).Oda Buldiglu Woreda Office of Agriculture and Rural Development. Bulidiglu, Ethiopia Oxford Dictionaries (2017). Oxford Dictionaries. 2016. Paunkhurst, A.(2004). Long Term Implication of Resettlement in Ethiopia in: Paunkhrst A and F.pigeut(eds) people,space and the state : migration , Resettlement and Displacement in Ethiopia, pp12-32 Addis Abeba. Addis Abeba University. Prunier,G.&Éloi,F.(2015).The Ethiopian Revolution and the Derg Regime. InUnderstanding Contemporary Ethiopia: Monachy, Revolution and the Legacy of Meles Zenawi . London: C. Hurst & Co. Robson,C.(1995).Real World Research for Social Scientist and Practitioner Researcher. Cambridge Massachusetts, USA.

Shumete Gizaw(2013).Resettlement The post-Resettlement Assessment in Biftu Jalala Resettlement site, Revising the Paradox of Resettlement in Ethiopia,(EJBE,vol.3 No 1/2013). Dilla University. Steingraber,S.(1987). Resettlement and Villagization Tools of Militarization in SW Ethiopia: Cultural Survival Quarterly Issue 11.4 December 31, 1987. Tadesse Medhane (2015).The Tigray People's Liberation Front in Understanding Contemporary Ethiopia: Monarchy, Revolution and the Legacy of Meles Zenawi , London: C. Hurst & Co. Ltd. Terefe, Z. &Ignatius, M.(2012). Resettlement and sustainable Food Security: A Comparative Study of Inter-Zonal and Intra-Zonal Resettlement Schemes and Host Communities in Dawuro Zone, Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Region, Ethiopia, Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, Vol.14, No. 2, PP. 125 – 149. Terefe, Z. &Melessse, A.(2014).The Contribution of Rural Resettlement to the Livelihood of Settlers in Ethiopia: A Case of Essera District Resettlement Scheme in SNNPR vol-4, No-5 2014, Addis Ababa; Ethiopian Civil Service University. The World Bank(2015). Involuntary Resettlement Sourcebook: Planning and Implementation inDevelopmentProjects. Washington:23.September2015.http://www.worldbank.org /en/ country/Ethiopia/overview (retrieved 30 March 2016). Vaughan Sarah (2015). Federalism Revolutionary Democracy and the Developmental State, 1991-2012. In Understanding Contemporary Ethiopia: Monarchy, Revolution and the Legacy of Meles Zenawi . London: C. Hurst & Co. Ltd. Van Leeuwen,Mathijs(2001).Rwanda's Imidugudu program and earlier experiences with villagisation and resettlement in East Africa.The Journal of Modern African Studies .Tanzania. White,B. &Saltz,E.(1957).Measurement of reproducibility. Psychological Bulletin, 54, p 81-99

Appendix-1 Table 2.6: Size of Livestock Possessed by Settlers before and after Villagization

Sex of HH head Male Female Total Periods Livestock type Amount No. % No. % No. % 0 116 84.7 131 79.4 247 81.8 1-3 18 13.1 27 16.4 45 14.9 Oxen and 4-6 3 2.2 7 4.2 10 3.3 Cows >7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Total 137 100.0 165 100.0 302 100.0 Goats <5 97 70.8 113 68.5 210 69.5 6-10 36 26.3 43 26.1 79 26.2 Before Villagization 10-20 4 2.9 9 5.5 13 4.3 Total 137 100.0 165 100.0 302 100.0 Donkeys 0 68 49.6 74 44.8 142 47.0 1 65 47.4 81 49.1 146 48.3 >1 4 2.9 10 6.1 14 4.6 Total 137 100.0 165 100.0 302 100.0 TLU Mean 1.08 1.29 1.19 Oxen and 0 37 27.0 57 34.5 94 31.1 Cows 1-3 61 44.5 77 46.7 138 45.7 4-6 34 24.8 22 13.3 56 18.5 >7 5 3.6 9 5.5 14 4.6 Total 137 100.0 165 100.0 302 100.0 Goats 1-5 41 29.9 53 32.1 94 31.1 After Villagization 6-10 76 55.5 88 53.3 164 54.3 >10 20 14.6 24 14.5 44 14.6 Total 137 100.0 165 100.0 302 100.0 Donkeys 0 33 24.1 45 27.3 78 25.8 1 86 62.8 97 58.8 183 60.6 >1 18 13.1 23 13.9 41 13.6 Total 137 100.0 165 100.0 302 100.0 TLU Mean 3.72 3.34 3.51

Source: Computed from Data Obtained from Field Survey (2017)

Appendix-2 Questionnaire for Resettled Households on Socioeconomic Impact of Villagization in Oda Buldiglu: Good Morning/ Afternoon Sir/Madam? I am Yayut Befekadu Alemneh, a post graduate student in Adama Science Technology University in Department of Geography and Environment studies.curently, I am writing my thesis on The socioeconomic Impact of villagization program in Oda Buldiglu Woreda, Benishangul Gumuz Regional State west Ethiopia . You have been selected to fill this questionnaire. The responses you give are valuable and will be held in utmost confidentiality and will be used only for the analysis of this research. You will not be identified by name in any case. If you accept to participate in this research, you will be doing so voluntarily and there will not be any monetary returns. You are also free to refuse to respond to any questions you do not feel comfortable answering or to withdraw from the research all together. Thank you in advance for your cooperation! 1. Background Information 1.1. Sex of HH head [circle] : 1= male; 2=female 1.2. Education level of HH head: 1=literate 2= illiterate 1.3. Age of HH head: 1=18-45 2=46-64 1.4. Marital status of HH head: 1= married 2=Divorced 3=widowed 4=single 5=others specify 1.5. Religion of HH head: 1=Muslim 2=orthodox 3=protestant 4=catholic 5=others 1.6. HH Family Size: 1=3-9 2 ≥10 1.7. Job/occupation of the household 1=daily laborer 2=agriculture 3=petty trade 4= schooling 5= off farm activity 2. Settlers awareness towards the villagization Program 2.1. Were you well informed about villagization before moving from your origin? 1= Yes 2=No 2.2. If yes for Q 2.1, source of information about the program? 1=media; 2= government officials 3=previous settlers 4=others 2.3. If yes for Q 1.1, what was your feeling when you were asked to resettle? 1=Accepted it immediately; 2= rejected it first and convinced by officials later; 3= didn’t feel anything; 4=others 2.4. How did you come to this settlement sites? 1=voluntarily; 2=involuntarily; 3=self organized; 4=others,

2.5. How did you assess the site selection of the villagization areas? 1= highly inconvenient, 2 =inconvenient, 3= don’t know, 4= moderately convenient 5= highly convenient 3. Health Facilities 3.1. Did you have human health facilities in the previous and new villagization sites? In the previous location in the new settlement 1= yes; 2=No 1= Yes; 2=No 3.2. Awareness of household on health services in the previous location is------and new Settlement sites is------(use codes: 5=strongly agree, 4= Agree, 3=neutral, 2=disagree, 1=strongly disagree) 3.3. The overall health service situation in the new and pervious location? 5= better 4= good; 3= not changed; 2=bad; 1= worst 4. Education Facilities 4.1. Did you have education facilities in the previous and new settlement sites? In the previous location In the new resettlement site 1= Yes; 2=No 1= Yes; 2=No 4.2. How many schools exist (put the no in the blank) -1=0, 2=1, 3=2----- in the previous location and ------in the new settlement site 4.3. Awareness of HH on education service is------in the previous and new settlement site is------(fill in the blank) codes: 5= excellent, 4= very good, 3=neutral, 2=good, 1=bad 4.4. The overall education service situation in the new and pervious location is ------and ------respectively (fill in the blank) 5= better; 4= good; 3= not changed; 2=bad; 1= worst 5. Housing and Related Facilities 5.1. What type of house do the household owned in the new location? (Fill the codes) Before villagization ------After villagization ------1 = Mud walls and grass roofed; 2 = Grass walls and grass roofed; 3 = Mud Walls and tin roofed; 4 = Cement walls and tin roofed; 5 = others, specify 5.2. Did you have access to clean and protected drinking water? In the previous new resettlement sites 1= Yes; 2=No 1= Yes; 2=No 5.3. If your answer is not”0” for Q 8.3, what is the source of your drinking water? (fill the code)

Before villagization ------After villagization ------1= springs, 2=Traditional well; 3=Ponds/river; 4= 6. Livelihood Strategies 6.1. What were the main sources of livelihood now------,------,------,------and before villagization ------,------,------,------?(put multiple answers possible) 1= farming (crop, fruits and vegetable production); 2 = Animal Production (Livestock /Poultry/Bee Keeping/) 3=Forest and Forest Products 4 = off farm activities(sales of fire wood/charcoal; hunting animals; rent of land and pack animals; sales of labor- agricultural wage, etc.), 6.2. Please rank the sources of livelihood in Q 8.1 according to their importance? Before villagization 1st--- 2nd -----3rd -----4th After villagization 1st ---2nd ---3rd ----- 4th 6.3. Land fertility status? Use code: 1=Fertile; 2= moderately fertile; 3= Infertile; 4= Others 6.4. Farm land size of the house hold 1= 0.1-2hecta 2= 2.5-5 hecta 3= >5 hecta 6.5. Did you use fertilizer? 1= yes 2= no 6.6. What tools did you use to harvest crops? (Fill codes in the blank) Before villagization ------After villagization ------Use codes: 1= tractor; 2= Oxen; 3= Traditional hand tools; 4= others 6.7. How do you see the crops, fruits and vegetables productivity in the new settlement area as compared to the previous location? Before villagization ------After villagization ------Use the code- 1=very low; 2=low 3= unchanged; 4= high; 5= very high 6.8. Animal production Animal type the HH have Before(No) Afte(No) villagization villagization Oxen and cows Goats and sheep Mules and donkeys Bulls and calf Chickens Bee hives Others

6.9. Uses of livestock: Use Codes-Multiple Answers Possible-: 1=Food (Meat, egg, milk, etc.); 2= ploughing; 3= sale; 4=transportation, 5=o 6.10. Source of income and (yearly estimate) Amount income generated in birr Sources of income Before villagization After villagization Income from crop production Income from sales of fruits and vegetables Income from livestock sale Income from off farm activities Income from nonfarm activities Total income generated 7. Infrastructure Related Questions ( put the codes in the box ) 7.1. Improvement in infrastructure and social service facilities before and after villagization program (use codes):1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3= neutral; 4= agree; 5 =strongly agree Facilities /Social Services Exist Before After Villagization Villagization Health institutions expanded (health posts, clinics, health centre)

Distribution of schools increased (primary, secondary)

Electricity established

Telephone services introduced and expanded

Safe drink water supplied

All weather Road constructed

Market access improved

Religion institutions expanded

Permanent toilet facilities established Farmers training centre established and functioning

8. Membership to community associations

8.1. Did your family members participate in any formal associations in the new location? The Year before villagization now after villagization 1= Yes; 2=No 1= Yes; 2=No 8.2. If yes for Q12.1, the name of the associations? Use codes-multiple answers possible- Before villagization ------After villagization ------1=Religious; 2=Iddir/Iqub; 3=Saving; 4=Cooperatives; 5=Others, Specify: 8.3. If yes for Q 12.1, what benefits did you gain by being membership of such associations? Use Codes: 1= Income increased; 2= labor and social support; 3= credit used; 4=recognition in the community 5= others 9. General comments 9.1 Please list down the major problems associated with villagization program in your locality that needs special attention? ______. 10.2 What possible solutions do you recommend? ______.

Thank you for your cooperation

Appendix- 3 Dear respondent, My name is Yayut Befekadu Alemneh. I am a postgraduate student at Adama Science and Technology University,in Department of Geography and Environmental Studies.Currently, I am writing my thesis on The socioeconomic Impact villagization program in Oda Buldiglu Woreda , Benishangul Gumuz Regional State west Ethiopia. You have been selected purposively from different experts in Woreda Agricultural Bureau, and Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Office. The responses you give are valuable and will be held in utmost confidentiality and will be used only for the analysis of this research. You will not be identified by name in any case. If you accept to participate in this research, you will be doing so voluntarily and there will not be any monetary returns. You are also free to refuse to respond to any questions you do not feel comfortable answering or to withdraw from the research all together. Thank you in advance for your cooperation Focus group discussion Guide: To be administered to Focus Group Discussants 1. . What is your view on villagization program held in the woreda over the last 5 years? 2. Can you tell me your experience about the socio-economic impacts of villagization program in the woreda over the last 5 years? 3. Is the livelihood of the societies changed or not? If it is changed what do you think the reason for this change? 4. Is there any type of infrastructure that highly improved year to year because of the program within the last five years? What measurements you took to detect the change? 5. Based on your experience, what are the implications that can assure the change exist on the livelihood of the societies over the last 5 years? 6. What is the major livelihood changes observed on the peoples in Oda Bulidiglu Woreda ? 7. . Please explain the general relationships between villagization program and livelihood enhancement in the Woreda over the last 5 years? 8. Do you think that villagization program has positive impact on the livelihood of the societies? If yes what are those impacts?

Appendix- 4: Interview Guide Dear respondent, My name is Yayut Befekadu Alemneh. I am a postgraduate student at Adam Science and Technology in Department of Geography and Environmental Studies. Currently I am writing my thesis on the socio economic impact of villagization program in Oad Bulidiglu Benshangul Gumuz Regional State west Ethiopia. You have been selected purposely from the different Kebeles . The responses you give are valuable and will be held in utmost confidentiality and will be used only for the analysis of this research. You will not be identified by name in any case. If you accept to participate in this research, you will be doing so voluntarily and there will not be any monetary returns. You are also free to refuse to respond to any questions you do not feel comfortable answering or to withdraw from the research all together. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Interview Guide: Administered to Resettled households 1. What are the major changes that you found after the villagization program? 2. . Do you think your livelihood is changed totally incase related with villagization program 3. Can you tell me the major positive impacts of villagization program observed in your kebele ? 4. Please mention what will be the consequence of your income to your Livelihood? 5. Do you think that infrastructures are built after villagization? If yes what are those infrastructures? 6. How many times do eat per day before and after villagization program? 7. How can you see the relationship between villagization and food security in your kebele ? 8. 10. What types of economic activity you mostly practice and the type of crops you produce mainly?