Social Capital, Assets and Responses to Drought: Preliminary Observations from Interviews, South Wello and Oromiya Zones, Amhara Region, Ethiopia
| Author: | A. Peter Castro |
|---|---|
| Date: | September 2002 |
| Publication: | Madison and Addis Ababa: BASIS Greater Horn of Africa Program and the Institute for Development Research, Addis Ababa University |
| Link: | http://www.basis.wisc.edu/live/assets/assets0209a.pdf |
Much of Ethiopia’s
population continues to be vulnerable to severe shortfalls in their ability to produce or
purchase sufficient food to feed themselves throughout the year. The country’s Disaster
Prevention and Preparedness Commission in January 2002 reported that, “Chronic food
insecurity is still a significant, if not worse, problem in 2002 after consecutive years of asset
depletion due to attempts to compensate for crop loses” (DPPC 2002: 3). The Commission
estimated that more than five million Ethiopians need food assistance in 2002, with nearly
another two million people requiring close monitoring. More than one-tenth of them reside in
South Wello Zone of Amhara Region. Among this needy population, female-headed
households are recognized as especially vulnerable, given social, cultural, and legal
constraints in their access to, and use of, productive resources (Yigremew Adal 2001; Stone
2001). The BASIS-CRSP1 Greater Horn of Africa Program, in collaboration with the Institute for
Development Research (IDR) at Addis Ababa University, has been carrying out an integrated
study of the causes and consequences of food insecurity at the regional to intra-household
level in South Wello and Oromiya Zones. The project is using a multi-methods approach,
including a large-scale household survey, rapid community assessments, and case studies to
investigate the role of such key variables as livelihood strategies, income entitlement, social
capital, gender, market linkages, agro-ecological zonation, and drought. Experiences and memories about hunger and food insecurity varied among interviewees,
reflecting both inter- and intra-community differences in circumstances. Key variables
included the area’s agro-ecological zone, the availability of irrigation, and the availability of
food aid or other assistance.
