Afar Research Report Setup

Socioeconomic Development in
Afar Region
Achievements, Gaps, and Priorities
February 2021
i
Ethiopian Economics Association
Ethiopian Economic Policy Research Institute (EEPRI)

Socioeconomic Development in Afar Region
Achievements, Gaps, and Priorities
Degye Goshu
Mengistu Ketema
Semeneh Bessie
Aemro Tazeze
Dawit Teshale
ii
Copyright 2021 by Ethiopian Economics Association (EEA)
All rights reserved.
ISBN – 978-99944-54-80-8
Printed in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia’

February 2021.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,

or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic,
magnetic, tape mechanical, photocopying recording or otherwise, without
the prior written permission of the Ethiopian Economics Association.
The analysis and policy recommendations of this Report do not necessarily

reflect the views of the Ethiopian Economics Association, its Executive
Committee or its members. The Report is the product of the team of experts
in the Ethiopian Economic Policy Research Institute and external
consultants and advisors.
This study is financed by the Bureau of Finance and Economic

Development of the Afar National Regional State.
Inquiries should be addressed to:
Ethiopian Economics Association

P. O. Box 34282
Tel: 011 645 32 00, 3329, 3041
Fax: 011 645 30 20
e-mail: [email protected]
Website: http://www.eea-et.org
iii
Foreword
The Ethiopian Economics Association (EEA) is a non-profit, non-

partisan and independent professional association established in 1991 with the
primary aim of promoting development of the economics profession, contributing
to policy formulation and implementation process of Ethiopia through research,
training and capacity strengthening, public dialogue forums and publications, and
publicity activities. The EEA has been actively involved in economic research
and training, organizing international and national conferences, and round table
discussions, and disseminating knowledge through various publications.
Ethiopia is committed to realize the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) to end extreme poverty and hunger in all its forms by 2030. It has also set
targets and other related commitments of attaining the Low-middle-income status
by 2025 and to realize the 2063 agenda of the African Union. However, the country
is lagging behind in terms of some key socioeconomic and development indicators.
Our population has grown steadily, with significantly increasing
urbanization and proportion of people now living in urban areas. Our economy is
becoming increasingly interconnected and globalized. However, Ethiopia and its
regional states have not witnessed sustained socioeconomic growth and
development as part of the new globalized economy. Regardless of the various
opportunities arising from globalization and technological advancement, Ethiopia
is rather challenged by multiple constraints and obstacles in its effort to realize
economic welfare and development.
Development is multidimensional covering multiple dimensions
measured by different indicators such as income and consumption expenditure,
economic growth, education, livelihoods, health, access to basic facilities, equity,
freedom, gender equality, good governance, peace, justice and human rights,
participation, self-determination, and sustainability, to mention a few. This
research report investigates and measures some of the most important
socioeconomic development indicators, evaluates their achievement levels, and
identifies gaps and priorities for designing evidence-based policy-making and
implementation in Afar National Regional State.
For various reasons investigated in this study, Ethiopia in general, and
Afar regional state, in particular, is not ensuring growth, development, and
welfare as much as expected. The country and its regional states are repeatedly
shocked by recurrent droughts, and have recently experienced increasing and
iv
intractable conflicts and instability, leading to greater population displacement.

Agricultural productivity, food production, and natural resources have been
adversely affected by climate change and variability with significant impact on
food systems and rural livelihoods. Human, natural and financial resource
constraints coupled with leadership capacity and governance problems have
diluted effects of development efforts designed to achieve multidimensional
welfare in Afar region.
To curve such development challenges and to realize multidimensional
welfare and equity to the population, the Region has designed and implemented
several and consecutive development policies and strategies in the last couple of
decades. However, development planning presumes identifications of available
resource bases, capacities, constraints, opportunities, and gaps in the context of
available regional, national and global shocks and trends. In line with this, the
Ethiopian Economic Policy Research Institute (EEPRI) of the Ethiopian
Economics Association (EEA) has undertaken different studies aiming at
supporting regional states and federal institutions in their effort to design and
implement policy interventions requiring scientific evidence suitable to policy-
making and implementation.
This research report is expected to help the Region in designing and
implementing a vibrant and evidence-based socioeconomic development policies
and short-term and long-term development plans for realization of the overriding
development needs. It particularly enables to realize targeted and effective policy
interventions in all aspects of socioeconomic development, including agricultural
and pastoral development, health and education, industrial development, good
governance, and access to basic facilities in the Region. The report will also serve
as a benchmark for undertaking other research activities and designing
socioeconomic development interventions in other regional states and institutions
in Ethiopia.
Tadele Ferede (PhD)

President
Ethiopian Economics Association (EEA)
v
Acknowledgments
A number of institutions and people have played key roles throughout the
development of this study. The Ethiopian Economics Association (EEA) would
particularly like to acknowledge the Bureau of Finance and Economic
Development (BoFED) of the Afar Regional State for its unreserved effort to
successful completion of this study. The EEA is also grateful to Mr. Mohammed
Hassen (Head of the BoFED) and Mr. Sualih Seid for their unreserved effort to
initiate and design this study. The EEA acknowledges the support form
facilitators of the study in various sectors of the Region (Mr. Ousman Ebrahim
and Mussa Dersa) for their substantial contribution in supporting data collection
required for the study.
Respondents from different administrative zones, woredas, and
representatives of various social groups (religious, youth and women, civic
societies, etc.) are also much appreciated by the EEA for their contribution in
giving real and relevant data. The EEA is also grateful to the research team
undertaking this study and devoting their scientific and professional expertise to
successfully complete the study with the required quality standards. The EEA
would also like to extend its gratitude to other staff members actively involved in
supporting effectiveness of this study project.
vi
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AF Alkire-Foster
CAHWS Community Animal Health Workers
CSA Central Statistical Agency
DAP Di-Ammonium Phosphate
Das Development Agents
DASP Distributive Analysis Stata package
DFID British Department for International Development
DHS Demographic and Health Survey
EEPRI Ethiopian Economic Policy Research Institute
EVI Enhanced Vegetation Index
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization
FGDs Focus Group Discussions
FTCs Farmers Training Centers
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GTP Growth and Transformation Plan
KIIs Key Informant Interviews
LSMS Living Standards Measurement Study
LVI Livelihood Vulnerability Index
MII Multidimensional Inequality Index
MoARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
MPI Multidimensional Poverty Index
OPHI Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative
PASDEP Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development to End Poverty
PCA Principal Component Analysis
PIPs Policies, Institutions and Processes
RBoFED Regional Bureau of Finance and Economic Development
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SDPRP Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction Program
SLA Sustainable Livelihood Approach
SLF Sustainable Livelihood Framework
UNDP United Nations Development Program
USAID United State Agency for International Development
USD United States Dollar
vii
Table of Contents
Foreword ........................................................................................................................ iv
Acknowledgments ..........................................................................................................vi
Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................................vii
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................ viii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................... x
List of Figures ...............................................................................................................xii
List of Appendix Tables .............................................................................................. xiv
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... xv
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1
2. Conceptual Frameworks ...................................................................................... 5
2.1. Sustainable Livelihood Framework ........................................................... 5
2.2. Multidimensional Welfare Measurement .................................................. 7
3. Dataset and Methods .......................................................................................... 10
3.1. Dataset ........................................................................................................ 10
3.1.1. Primary data ........................................................................................... 10
3.1.2. Secondary data ....................................................................................... 12
3.2. Valuation of Livelihood Capitals .............................................................. 13
3.3. Resource Base and Asset Indices .............................................................. 17
3.4. Optimizing and Aligning Livelihood Strategies ...................................... 19
3.5. Measuring Poverty and Equity................................................................. 20
3.5.1. Economic welfare .................................................................................. 20
3.5.2. Multidimensional poverty ...................................................................... 22
3.5.3. Multidimensional inequality .................................................................. 24
4. Description of the Region ................................................................................... 26
4.1. Location ...................................................................................................... 26
4.2. Livelihood Zones ........................................................................................ 26
4.3. Demography ............................................................................................... 27
4.4. Agroecology ................................................................................................ 30
4.4.1. Agro-ecological zones ............................................................................ 30
4.4.2. Weather and climate .............................................................................. 31
4.4.3. Land cover .............................................................................................. 32
4.4.4. Topographical features .......................................................................... 33
4.5. Soil Conditions ........................................................................................... 33
4.5.1. Soil type and quality ............................................................................... 33
4.5.2. Soil constraints ....................................................................................... 34
4.6. Agriculture ................................................................................................. 35
4.6.1. Livestock production .............................................................................. 35
4.6.2. Crop production ..................................................................................... 36
viii
5. Livelihood Analysis ............................................................................................. 39

5.1. Livelihood Capitals .................................................................................... 39
5.2. Asset Pentagons ......................................................................................... 41
5.3. Sustainability of Livelihoods ..................................................................... 41
5.4. Vulnerability of Livelihoods ..................................................................... 43
5.4.1. Sources of vulnerability ......................................................................... 43
5.4.2. Livelihood vulnerability index (LVI) ..................................................... 44
5.4.3. Coping strategies .................................................................................... 46
5.5. Livelihood Strategies ................................................................................. 47
5.6. Livelihood Outcomes ................................................................................. 50
5.7. Performance of Sectors ............................................................................. 51
5.8. Constraints and Obstacles to Development ............................................. 52
6. Poverty and Equity ............................................................................................. 54
6.1. Access to Basic Services and Facilities ..................................................... 54
6.2. Nutrition and Child Growth ..................................................................... 54
6.3. Housing ....................................................................................................... 56
6.4. Sources of Energy ...................................................................................... 59
6.5. Economic Wellbeing .................................................................................. 59
6.5.1. Patterns of poverty ................................................................................. 60
6.5.2. Prevalence and depth of poverty ............................................................ 61
6.5.3. Elasticity of poverty ................................................................................ 61
6.6. Multidimensional Deprivation .................................................................. 62
6.6.1. Education ............................................................................................... 64
6.6.2. Health ..................................................................................................... 64
6.6.3. Expenditure ............................................................................................ 64
6.6.4. Living condition ..................................................................................... 65
6.7. Regional Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) ................................... 66
6.8. Multi-dimensional Inequality ................................................................... 69
7. Development Trends and Gaps .......................................................................... 71
7.1. Agricultural and Pastoral Development .................................................. 71
7.2. Education Sector Development ................................................................ 75
7.3. Health Sector Development ...................................................................... 87
7.4. Investment, Informal Sectors, and Unemployment ................................ 91
7.5. Budget and Expenditure ........................................................................... 94
7.6. Revenue ...................................................................................................... 97
8. Conclusions and Policy Implications ................................................................. 99
References ................................................................................................................... 103
Appendix ..................................................................................................................... 107
ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Distribution of respondents by zones and woredas in the Afar region 10

Table 2: Checklist of administrative zones and woredas for primary data
collection ........................................................................................... 11
Table 3: Distribution of the LSMS samples across zones and areas of residence
in Afar Region ................................................................................... 12
Table 4: Capital dimensions and asset indicators .............................................. 18
Table 5: Definition and measurement of welfare dimensions and indicators for
regional MPI ...................................................................................... 23
Table 6: Population density in Afar and Ethiopia .............................................. 28
Table 7: Comparison of demographic features of households between Afar
region and Ethiopia ............................................................................ 29
Table 8: Comparison of households’ agro-ecology between Afar and Ethiopia 31
Table 9: Comparison of some household geovariables between Afar and
Ethiopia.............................................................................................. 32
Table 10: Major land cover class within approximately 1 km buffer ................ 32
Table 11: Comparison of terrain roughness between Afar and Ethiopia ........... 33
Table 12: Predominant soil types of land plots .................................................. 34
Table 13: Soil constraints and intensity of the problem to crop production ...... 35
Table 14: Livestock holding and diversity in Afar region ................................. 36
Table 15: Farm plots and input use .................................................................... 36
Table 16: Causes of crop damage ...................................................................... 38
Table 17: Importance of livelihood capitals by administrative zones ................ 40
Table 18: Vulnerability of livelihood capitals by administrative zones............. 45
Table 19: Interdependence/correlation of livelihood strategies in Afar Region 49
Table 20: Access to basic services and facilities ............................................... 54
Table 21: Child health and anthropometric measures in Afar region ................ 55
Table 22: Housing ownership status .................................................................. 56
Table 23: Materials from which walls of the main dwelling is made ................ 56
Table 24: Materials from which floors of houses are made ............................... 57
Table 25: Materials from which roof of the house is made ............................... 58
Table 26: Number of rooms owned (excluding toilet and kitchen) ................... 58
Table 27: Main source of light and cooking fuel ............................................... 59
Table 28: Levels and distribution of poverty by place of residence .................. 61
Table 29: Elasticity of total poverty in Afar region ........................................... 62
Table 30: Mean index of deprivation by place of residence in Afar region....... 63
Table 31: Spatial distribution of poverty in Afar region .................................... 67
Table 32: Decomposition results of the MPIs by indicators/ dimensions using
the Shapley approach ......................................................................... 68
Table 33: Spatial distribution of inequality among the poor and relative
contribution of dimensions (%) ......................................................... 70
x
Table 34: Zonal comparison of activities related to crop production and input
use, 2018/19 ....................................................................................... 73
Table 35: Zonal comparison of educational variables at primary school levels,
2018/19 .............................................................................................. 80
Table 36: Involvement in informal sectors and unemployment rates, 2018 ...... 93
xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF) ........................................... 5

Figure 2: Dimensions and indicators of the MPI for Afar Region ....................... 8
Figure 3: Pentagon of assets for visualizing changes in asset status.................. 15
Figure 4: Livelihood zones in Afar Region ....................................................... 27
Figure 5: Relative importance of livelihood capitals in Afar region.................. 39
Figure 6: The top 15 livelihood assets/capabilities/activities in the Afar region40
Figure 7: Pentagon of importance of livelihood capitals ................................... 41
Figure 8: Pentagon of livelihood sustainability ................................................. 42
Figure 9: Top 15 important source of vulnerability of livelihoods in Afar region
......................................................................................................... 44
Figure 10: Vulnerability of livelihood capitals and assets ................................. 45
Figure 11: Relative importance of coping strategies to asset vulnerability ....... 46
Figure 12: Intensity of adoption of livelihood strategies in Afar region ............ 47
Figure 13: Relative levels of perception on livelihood impacts of development
interventions..................................................................................... 51
Figure 14: Development performance of sectors and subsectors in Afar region52
Figure 15: Challenges and constraints of development interventions in Afar
region ............................................................................................... 53
Figure 16: Patterns of poverty in the Afar region .............................................. 60
Figure 17:: Zonal distribution of poverty in the Afar region ............................. 61
Figure 18: Relative levels of deprivation rate for the 10 poverty indicators...... 63
Figure 19: Density curves of intensity of multidimensional deprivation ........... 66
Figure 20: Distribution of veterinary clinics and animal health posts by Woreda,
2019.................................................................................................. 72
Figure 21: Distribution of veterinary clinics and animal health posts by Zone,
2019.................................................................................................. 72
Figure 22: Area allocated for crop production (ha) by woreda, 2019 ................ 73
Figure 23: Distribution of CAHWS and Das by Woreda, 2019 ........................ 74
Figure 24: Trend of numbers of FTCs, Veterinary Clinics, and irrigation
schemes ............................................................................................ 75
Figure 25: Distribution of primary schools by woreda, 2018/2019 ................... 76
Figure 26: Distribution of student enrollment in primary schools by woreda,
2018/2019 ........................................................................................ 77
Figure 27: Proportion of female students in primary schools by woreda,
2018/2019 ........................................................................................ 78
Figure 28: Population to primary school ratio by woreda, 2018/2019 .............. 78
Figure 29: Proportion of female students in grades 9-12 by woreda, 2018/19 .. 79
Figure 30: Number of private and public primary schools in Afar region ......... 81
Figure 31: Number of primary school teachers in Afar region .......................... 81
Figure 32: Number of secondary schools in Afar region over years ................. 82
Figure 33: Distribution of schools by zones, 2018/2019 ................................... 82
xii
Figure 34: Secondary school students’ enrollment, 2018/2019 ......................... 83

Figure 35: Gender balance of secondary school teachers in the Afar region ..... 84
Figure 36: Secondary school teachers with diploma qualification .................... 84
Figure 37: Secondary school teachers with first degree in Afar region ............. 85
Figure 38: Number of preparatory schools in Afar region ................................. 86
Figure 39: Preparatory school students’ enrollment in Afar region ................... 86
Figure 40: Number of preparatory school teachers in Afar region .................... 87
Figure 41: Number of hospitals in the Afar region, 2018/2019 ......................... 88
Figure 42: Number of clinics in the region, 2019/2019 ..................................... 89
Figure 43: Number of health centers in the region, 2018/19 ............................. 89
Figure 44: Number of health posts, 2018/2019.................................................. 90
Figure 45: Distribution of health infrastructure by zones, 2018/2019 ............... 90
Figure 46: Trends of health facilities across different years .............................. 91
Figure 47: Number of investors operational in the region by sector .................. 92
Figure 48: Trends of paved roads in Afar region (km) ...................................... 93
Figure 49: Trends of budget allocation for Afar region (thousand ETB) .......... 94
Figure 50: Distribution of total annual budget by woreda, 2018 ....................... 95
Figure 51: Distribution of budget to population ratio (Birr), 2018 .................... 96
Figure 52: Regional expenditures by categories (thousand ETB) ..................... 96
xiii
List of Appendix Tables
Appendix Table 1: Importance and role of livelihood assets ................ 107

Appendix Table 2: Sustainability of livelihood assets ........................... 108
Appendix Table 3: Sources of vulnerability of livelihoods ................... 110
Appendix Table 4: Intensity of asset vulnerability ................................ 111
Appendix Table 5: Evaluation of livelihood impacts of development
interventions in the last five years .......................... 113
xiv
Executive Summary
Background
Since 2002, the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia has embarked

on implementation of successive development plans that have focused on
addressing macroeconomic developmental concerns in multidimensional
perspectives. Despite its remarkable and fast economic growth and development
overall, the country’s development effort has also been adversely affected by
social, cultural, economic and environmental constraints.
Policies and development strategies designed at national level are
expected to be adopted across all regional states within the country with the
existing socioeconomic contexts. The Afar Regional State has been playing its
role in terms of implementing these development policies, strategies, and
programs in the context of the pastoral and agro-pastoral societies predominant
in the region. It has been working on improving the livelihoods of pastoralists and
agro-pastoralists throughout the region covering key sectors including education,
health, infrastructure, revenue, and women and youth affairs. It has also been
trying to build up institutional capacities at different administrative levels of the
region.
The major objective of this study is to assess the achievements of the
region and the gaps in its socio-economic development efforts as well as identify
development priority areas for future strategic planning and policy interventions.
Despite its huge natural, physical and human capital resources, the region has
remained one of the least developed, food insecure, and impoverished regions of
the country. There has been little investigation of this paradox, making it
necessary to begin by undertaking an assessment of the resource base, livelihoods
and strategies, major achievements, development priorities, and trends and gaps
at different levels. These can help the region to draw lessons for the formulation
of regional strategies to improve the livelihoods of pastoralists and agro-
pastoralists for future planning. It will also help to identify priority areas for the
Federal Government’s support and generate new and reliable empirical evidence
on the intervention options required to establish durable and sustainable socio-
economic development in the region.
xv
Methodology
Based on the nature of the study area, this study has employed two basic
and relevant conceptual frameworks: The Sustainable Livelihood Framework
(SLF) and the Multidimensional Welfare Analytical Framework. Both primary
and secondary data were obtained from various sources. Primary data was
collected using five Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and 90 Key Informant
Interviews (KIIs), selected across all zones in the regional state. In addition, field
surveys and observations were undertaken to understand current livelihood
patterns and distributions, and socio-economic development achievements. The
secondary data required for the study were gathered from published and
unpublished official sources including the third wave of Living Standards
Measurement Study (LSMS) on Ethiopia. Using the SLF, various methods of data
analysis, including valuation of livelihood capitals and resource base, and asset
indices were computed. In measuring multidimensional welfare, the Alkire-
Foster (AF) methodological analysis was used; to estimate multidimensional
inequality (MI) and identify its possible sources of inequality, the Araar MI index
was utilized.
Key Findings
The major findings of this study are summarized here under separate
categories.
Regional status
1. Because of its hot climatic conditions, the density of the population is
relatively sparse; 69% of the land area has a population density of less than
50 persons per square kilometer, compared to a national average of 19.1%.
2. Only 42.3% of the population are literate, 13.6% lower than the country as a
whole. Households in the Afar region have relatively larger size than
elsewhere.
3. There are only three agro-ecological zones in the Afar region and the majority
of households reside in the arid (48%) and semi-arid (49%) zones where
pastoralism is the only livelihood option; only 3.3% live in the warm semiarid
zone where there is sufficient irrigation water from Awash River to boost
crop production to ensure food supply in the Region and in the country at
large.
xvi
4. The mean annual temperature is far higher (27 degree Celsius) and annual
precipitation very low compared to the national average. Overall elevation
(628.8 m above sea level) and climate means the annual mean rainfall (423.6
mm) less than half the national average (858 mm).
5. Land cover or vegetation in Afar region is either non-existent or very low
compared to the national average. Wide areas are primarily covered by shrubs
(36%) or open or close to open land where pastoralism is widely practiced in
search of pasture for livestock.
6. Topography of the areas where households reside is dominated by mid-
altitude plains (52%), with limited high-altitude plains (19%), or low plateau
(15%). These plains are suitable for irrigated agriculture if access to irrigation
water is secured.
7. The Afar region is dominated by vertisol, characterized by dominant soil-
forming processes including cracking and mass movement of materials due
to shrinkage and swelling of clay during dry/wet cycles, causing expansion
and contraction. Its poor water retention capacity, coupled with recurrent
droughts and erratic rainfall are a major constraint for the 63% of households
which reside in these areas.
8. If there is sufficient irrigation water, the soil quality in Afar region is
predominantly good (as validated by 68.5% of the households) compared to
national average soil quality (50% fair). Irrigation agriculture is the primary
option for crop production in such areas.
9. Evaluation of the major soil constraints (related nutrient availability, nutrient
retention capacity, rooting condition of plants, oxygen availability to plants,
excess salts, soil toxicity, and workability of soils) indicate the prevalence of
many soil constraints for crop and livestock production in the region. Crop
production with or without irrigation water requires measures of soil
treatment and improved soil management practices.
10. Cattle, shoats and camel are the major livestock holdings. There are about 1.5
million cattle and 0.11 million camels owned by 160 and 78 thousand
households, respectively. These are the largest in the country next to those of
South Omo area and Somali region. On average, livestock holding per
household in the Afar region is 6.8 cattle, 15 goats, nine sheep, and 2.2 camel,
far higher than the national averages (3.6 cattle, 3 goats, 2.3 sheep and 0.3
camels).
xvii
11. The physical appearance of the land is an important natural factor

determining relevance of agricultural production. Croplands in the Afar
region, largely, are flat (91%) compared to the whole country (56%). The
proportion of irrigated cropland is about 50.5%.
12. Use of chemical fertilizer by farm households is 14%, which is four times
lower than the national estimate. The use of other inputs for crop production
is also very low.
13. There are multiple causes of crop damage most related to agro-climatic
conditions. The level of crop damage in the Afar region is about 73.7% of
the potential output, far higher than national estimates (48%). Crops in Afar
region can also be damaged by shortage of rain with incidences of drought
(88.4%), significantly higher than incidence at the national level (61%).
Livelihoods
14. Results of livelihood analysis show that all the five livelihood assets are
relevant in the Region. Human capital is relatively most important followed
by natural and physical capita. Financial capital was the least important in
the region.
15. All livelihood capitals have moderate importance (index below 0.4-0.6) and
with the exception of physical capital, there was no significant difference in
the importance of livelihoods among the different zones of the region.
16. There are limited livelihood assets and capabilities evaluated for their role
and importance in contributing to the livelihood of the population. These
include camels, shoats, information, communal land, cattle, education, and
use rights to land. Others have low or very low importance in forming the
livelihood of the population, indicating the region has a very limited range
of livelihoods, making it difficult to establish sustainable and resilient
livelihoods.
17. The importance of livelihood assets in the region shows the overall role of
livelihood capitals is 0.52, suggesting that the overall importance of
livelihood capitals is below moderate (0.60). As the least important
livelihood capital is financial capital, it indicates that financial income and
related sources of livelihoods are limited.
xviii
Sustainability and vulnerability of livelihoods

18. Sustainability of livelihood capitals aggregated from all livelihood assets,
capabilities and activities do not significantly vary across administrative
zones. Almost all livelihood capitals are not sustainable (below 0.5 index),
with human and financial capitals being the most unsuitable livelihood
capitals for the region.
19. About 27 potential sources of vulnerability of livelihood assets were
evaluated by respondents, indicating the intensity of prevalence of all
sources of livelihood vulnerability occurred often (index above 0.67). The
top five important sources of vulnerability in the region were
price/inflation, drought, increasing temperature, scarcity of water, and
human disease. All the five livelihood capitals were found to be vulnerable
or moderately vulnerable to various trends, shocks and seasonal changes
(LVI > 0.5), physical capital being the first (LVI=0.61). The overall
vulnerability of livelihoods in the region was about 0.56, with the level of
vulnerability of physical capitals being relatively higher, followed by
natural and human capitals. The top six vulnerable assets in the region were
camels, cattle, and shoats, transport and health services, and food.
Livelihood and coping strategies

20. The most widely adopted coping strategy for securing livelihoods in Afar
region is local conflict resolution mechanism (index=0.77=high). Coping
strategies with a moderate role include local institutions, collective action
and water harvesting. Due to the harsh agro-ecology, the adoption of
irrigation farming, livelihood diversification, and suitable marketing
strategies for livestock and crop products, could have particular importance
to secure livelihoods in the region.
21. Pastoralism and goat production are relatively the most widely adopted
livelihood strategies while camel and sheep production are the other
preferred options. Other means of livelihood including nonfarm activities,
sedentary farming, trade business and wage from employment, are rarely
practiced. The region needs to give due focus to create nonfarm employment
opportunities, decide on the optimal choice between sedentary/mixed
farming and pastoralism, and the creation of other business activities.
22. There are no wider options or strong linkages of livelihood strategies
pursued in the region. Complementary strategies include pastoralism for
xix
livestock production including camels (0.48), goats (0.34), and sheep

(weak). There is a strong case to widen livelihood options by enhancing
nonfarm activities, trade, business, and employment opportunities.
Livelihood outcomes
23. Evaluation of 17 suggested positive livelihood outcomes of socio-
economic development interventions in the last five years show
dissatisfaction with their negligible livelihood impacts. A majority of
respondents did not agree on any positive impact from interventions related
to housing, equity, or natural resource utilization, though those relating to
good governance, road and communication infrastructure, health,
employment, peace and order, and education, were perceived to have had a
positive livelihood impact.
24. The top five indicators evaluated for their improved livelihood outcomes
were income, financial services, equity (distribution), public services, and
housing. With the exception of peace and order, socio-economic
development interventions were evaluated to have a low level of livelihood
outcomes on all indicators. The results generally suggest that socio-
economic development interventions in the region produced low or
unsatisfactory livelihood outcomes in many aspects.
Performance of sectors
25. Except for peace and security (with high performance), all the sectors
produced low and/or very low performance (index below 0.6) over the last
five years. The top five sectors with moderate performance (index between
0.4 and 0.6) were peace and security, education, health, agricultural and
pastoral development, and women and children. Investment and
development of natural resources had exceptionally low performance
(index below 0.4).
26. The top five challenges and constraints adversely affecting the success of
socio-economic development in the region were corruption (high),
shortage of appropriate technology, budget constraints, shortage of
capital, inflation, and drought.
xx
Living condition
27. The population in the Afar region had relatively low access to major
services and facilities. They were particularly and relatively poorer in
accessing urban centers, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, and
human and veterinary health/medical services.
28. Ethiopia is very poor in housing and related facilities, but the Afar region
is particularly poor in terms of quality of housing. About 73% of the
population lived in private housing of very poor quality. The greatest
proportion lived in houses made of poor materials (91%) like wood and
mud (32.5%), wood and thatch (27.6%), and other materials (30.7%).
These were far higher than the national averages. Only a small proportion
of the population (2.4%) lived in houses made of stone and cement (1.5%)
or blocks (0.9%).
29. Floors of houses in Ethiopia are generally of very poor materials like mud
and/or dung, but nearly all house floors in the region were of exceptionally
poor materials. Only a very small proportion of the population lived in
houses with floors of quality materials (like cement).
30. A very low proportion of the regional population lived in roofs of houses
made of corrugated iron sheets (46%), far below the national average
(67%). The majority lived under roofs of thatch (7.5%), wood and mud
(18.5%), plastic canvas (9.3%), or other poor materials (18.9%).
31. On average, about 66.6% of the population lived in a single room,
regardless of the relatively higher average household size (6.3 in Afar; 5.9
In Ethiopia), compared to 42% for the country as a whole. About 33.1% of
the population lived in houses with two rooms. Housing poverty in the
region was relatively serious, requiring particular focus and policy
intervention designed to improve housing and related living conditions to
enable the population to tolerate the harsh climate and weather conditions.
32. The Afar region is better off in terms of energy sources for lighting. About
90% of the population had access to standard sources of lighting including
electric meters, solar power, or generators. Access to energy sources for
cooking was relatively higher (about 89%) than the national access rate
(78%).
xxi
Nutrition and child growth

33. Children’s access to food and their growth situation in Afar Region was
analyzed and compared with the national average in Ethiopia. The average
weight of children under five in Afar Region was relatively lower (14.1 kg)
than the national average (14.9 kg), though they were nearly similar in
height (97.7 cm).
34. The prevalence of stunting of children under five, due to lack of access to
nutrition was higher (38.1%) than the national average (32.8%), suggesting
that significant proportion of children under the age of five were too short
for their age.
35. The percentage of children under five who are underweight in the region
was also higher (39.2 %) than the national average (24.7%), indicating that
large proportion of children under the age of five were small for their age.
Economic wellbeing
36. Poverty was relatively more prevalent in semi-urban areas of the region.
This was different from the poverty situation elsewhere in Ethiopia where
semi-urban areas are expected to be relatively better-off compared to their
rural counterparts. This clearly suggests the need to design policy
interventions to reduce poverty in the small towns of the region where
poverty was worse than in rural areas.
37. Poverty incidence in Gabi Rasu of Afar region was far higher than the
situation in Awsi Rasu. Indeed, there was substantial difference in the
poverty situation across administrative zones of the region. This calls for
the need to reduce the spatial poverty differential using relevant policy
interventions to ensure equitable growth and redistribution in the region.
38. Both the incidence and depth of monetary poverty were far lower in the
Afar region (5.4% and 1.5%) compared to the national average (22.1% and
6%). The spatial distribution of poverty by place of residence was nearly
similar across the region, compared to the situation elsewhere in Ethiopia
where rural poverty was twice as high as in urban areas.
39. Elasticity of total poverty with respect to average expenditure growth was
very high. A unit percentage growth in real consumption expenditure
reduces poverty incidence by 4.6% and 10.2% in the rural and semi-urban
areas of the region, respectively. This level of elasticity is relatively very
high compared to poverty elasticity in Ethiopia (2.45 and 1.5%). The total
xxii
regional growth elasticity of poverty is also higher (-5.1%) compared to the

national average (-2.2%). This level of poverty elasticity suggests the
responsiveness of potential poverty reduction interventions to alleviate
poverty in the region.
40. Elasticity of poverty with respect to consumption inequality was also
relatively high compared to the national average. A unit percentage growth
in inequality increases the total incidence of poverty by about 5.4% and
1.9%, respectively, in rural and urban areas of the region. The elasticity of
poverty due to inequality was exceptionally low (1.9%) in urban area of the
region, but, overall, poverty was more elastic due to inequality (5.9%)
compared to a national average of 4.7%.
Multidimensional deprivation
41. The incidence of deprivation for the 10 indicators of multidimensional
deprivation was significantly different. Living conditions of the population
related to access to standard sources of cooking fuel (98.5%) and clean
floors of housing (96.1%) were the highest levels of deprivation in the Afar
region. Deprivation in education (shown by child school attendance and
years of schooling) and health (captured by health care and food security)
were relatively lower in the region.
42. The mean index of deprivation in schooling was 42%. As expected,
deprivation in years of schooling decreased with increasing urbanization
from 58.9% in rural areas to 49.4% in urban areas.
43. The mean index of deprivation in school attendance of school-aged children
was about 36.8%, suggesting that the great majority of children were not
attending school. Deprivation in school attendance unexpectedly increased
with increasing urbanization from 30.2% in rural areas to 50.5% in urban
centers.
44. The mean index of deprivation in health care of the population was 64.6%
suggesting that majority of the population did not consult any medical
practitioner within the last year.
45. The mean index of deprivation in food was 29.4% where a significant
proportion of the population had faced difficulty in satisfying their food
needs, suggesting that their health was adversely affected by food shortage
and poor nutrition. Food insecurity significantly increased with increasing
xxiii
urbanization from rural (24.7%) to urban centers (41.9%). Unlike rural

areas, urban centers in Afar region are characterize by food shortage.
46. Absolute poverty, determined by using annual real consumption
expenditure per capita, was ETB 14758. The percentage of individuals
falling below this absolute poverty line was 5.4% (considered income
poor).
47. About 52.4% of the population was deprived of electric light from standard
sources where the greatest majority was rural residents (72.2%). There was
no deprivation in electricity for the urban population of the region.
48. About 20.1% of the population was deprived of private telephone services;
27.2% was the deprivation rate among rural residents.
49. About 38.2% of the entire population and over half of the rural population
(52.7%) were deprived of safe drinking water. There was no deprivation
of the urban population for safe drinking water.
50. Proportion of the population living in a house with dirt floor was very high
(95.0%). The great majority of the population in the region were house
poor, living in houses with unclean floor, rising to 98.5% for the rural
population.
51. About 97.7% of the population were poor in terms of sources of cooking
fuel. All rural residents (100%) and 91.6% of urban population used poor
sources of coking fuel, dung, wood and/or charcoal.
Multidimensional poverty
52. The incidence of multidimensional derivation in the region was 83.4%, but
rural residents were relatively highly deprived (96.6%) compared to their
urban counterparts (56.3%).
53. About 96% of the population was multidimensionally deprived of the 10
weighted poverty indicators, but the prevalence of multidimensional
poverty is increasing with increasing urban growth. Rural areas relatively
contributed 72% to the incidence of multidimensional poverty in the region.
Because they were on average deprived in terms of 96% of the weighted
indicators, the population in the region were deprived in 55% of the total
potential deprivations they could experience overall. Like the incidence of
multidimensional deprivation, the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI)
increased with increasing level of urban growth from 52% in rural areas to
63% in urban areas.
xxiv
54. The incidence of non-monetary poverty, estimated with three non-

monetary dimensions of wellbeing (education, health and living condition),
was 81.9%, 14% lower than the overall MPI (98%). Similarly, the non-
monetary MPI was 55%, which was 16% lower than the overall MPI. Non-
monetary MPI was higher in urban areas compared to counterparts in rural
areas, indicating that non-monetary poverty was increasing with urban
growth. Incidence of monetary poverty was low (5.4%), far lower than the
other two multidimensional measures. The results generally suggest that
income poverty in Afar region was significantly reduced and relatively
lower than other forms of poverty.
55. The contribution of the four dimensions to the total MPI, in order of
importance, are income, health, education and living condition with
significant and comparable contributions. Education contributed 14.3% and
14.8% to total head count ratio in absolute and relative terms, respectively.
This was the third largest contribution (next to health) to incidence of total
MPI. Similarly, the relative contribution of education to the total MPI was
16.2%. Compared to child school attendance, years of schooling
contributed more to education poverty.
56. Health ranked second in its contribution to total MPI in both absolute and
relative terms. It relatively contributed 19.8% to total MP incidence.
Similarly, the relative contribution of health to the total MPI was 22.1%.
Compared to health care, food insecurity contributed more to health
poverty.
57. Over half of the total multidimensional poverty in the Afar region is
attributable to consumption poverty. It contributed 52.4% and 46.2% to the
incidence and the MPI, respectively.
58. In relative terms, living condition contributed 13% to incidence of MD
deprivation and 15.5% to MPI. Access to telephone and safe drinking water
had relatively larger contributions to the total MPI, with cooking fuel and
flooring contributing relatively lower to poverty.
Multidimensional inequality
59. The relative multidimensional inequality index (MII) in the region is 0.282.
MII in the region did not significantly vary by areas of residence (rural-
urban). The non-monetary MII, estimated by excluding the income
dimension of wellbeing, was 0.152, significantly lower than the overall MII
xxv
(0.282). On the other hand, the monetary inequality was 0.248 with little
variation by place of residence.
60. The total MII, decomposed to the welfare dimensions, indicate that the
primary source of inequality was identified to be income (or real
consumption expenditure) with 60.2% contribution to the regional MII. The
other three dimensions (education, health and living condition) had nearly
comparable contributions to the total MII, respectively, with 14.8%, 14.7%
and 10.3% relative contributions. The population of the region is more
likely to face equity problems mainly arising from the difference in income
or consumption expenditure.
61. The highest source of non-monetary inequality in the region was education
(37.8%) followed by health (36.9%) and living condition (25.4%). Non-
monetary inequality due to education and health generally decreases with
increasing level of urbanization. However, the contribution of living
condition to non-monetary MII rather increased with increasing
urbanization, suggesting that urbanization in the region was not
accompanied by improved basic urban facilities and services.
Agricultural and pastoral development

62. The region is expected to expand animal health facilities together with
necessary utilities required for effective functioning of these physical
facilities. In terms of distribution of veterinary clinics and health posts,
Chifra woreda took the lead followed by Dalol, Dubti, Amibara, Dalifag,
and Uwa woredas in that order. Argoba woreda was the least in terms of
number of veterinary clinics and animal health posts followed by Bidu
woreda.
63. The region needs to work on equitable distribution of animal health-related
facilities among its woredas on the basis of available livestock resources,
proximity to markets, etc. Furthermore, focus group discussion participants
reported that many of the available veterinary clinics and animal health
posts were not providing the required functions owing to absence of the
required utilities like electricity, water, medical supplies, and the like. It is,
therefore, necessary to work on fulfilment of necessary utilities (water,
electricity, medical supplies, etc.) required to run the clinics and health
posts.
xxvi
64. Awsi Rasu has relatively a greater number of veterinary clinics and animal
health posts followed by Kilbet Rasu and Hari Rasu in that order. Given
the fact that the Region in general is known for its livestock population, the
available number of veterinary clinics and animal health posts are
inadequate.
65. Though the Region is known for its livestock production, crop production
is also practiced in some parts of the region. Use of irrigation facilities has
been expanding and currently about 10,000 hectares of land are under
irrigation. The region is suitable for crop production with irrigation and
22.4% of the total area of the region could be devoted to crop production
activity. However, use of improved agricultural inputs such as chemical
fertilizer, pesticides, and fungicides remain minimal compared to the
national average.
66. In terms of area allocated to crop production, Aba’ala woreda took the lead
followed by Aysaita, Afambo, and Argoba woredas. In terms of land
allocated to crop production, total production, and number of households
using agrochemicals, Awsi Rasu leads, followed by Kilbet Rasu, Gabi
Rasu, Hari Rasu and Fantena Rasu in that order.
67. Dubti woreda had the highest number of development agents (Das)
followed by Amibara woreda while Chifra took the lead in terms of
Community Animal Health Workers (CAHWS) followed by Amibara and
Aba’ala woredas. Amibara woreda was in a better position both in terms of
the number of CAHWS and of DAs. Woredas like Aba’ala which are
reported to have more land allocated to crops, had a smaller number of
development agents. This is an indication that revision of the placement of
CAHWS and development agents based on livestock and crop coverage
may be required. The number of farmers/pastoralists training centers has
been increasing over the last decade in the region. However, the number of
veterinary clinics has been nearly constant over years.
Education sector development

68. In the last 20 years, expansion of education in the Afar region played a
significant role in terms of improving the welfare of the community.
Responses from Focus Group Discussions (FGD) revealed that education
was the most important sector contributing to better development
performance in the region. In connection to education sector development
xxvii
plans, distribution of primary schools by woreda revealed good progress

though more focus was required to assure equity and quality problems.
69. Success in the education sector was underlined by the expansion and
distribution of public and private primary schools in the region which also
showed improvement in terms of secondary school student enrolment.
70. One caveat was the number of female teachers with first degree
qualification - far less than that of male teachers. Another was that the
number of preparatory schools in Afar region was much lower than the
targets set for the end of the First Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP
I) period, though there were, however, subsequent improvements. This was
an indication that the regional government had given some attention to
expanding preparatory schools.
71. Though overall student enrolment is increasing at primary level, the share
of female students’ enrolment remains very low with some variation among
different woredas and zones. Some show a shortage of primary schools.
Health sector development

72. The top 10 diseases in the region in 2019/20 were acute fever illness (AFI),
malaria, pneumonia, diarrhea, acute upper respiratory infection, malaria
without laboratory confirmed, typhoid, urinary tract infection, malaria
confirmed by lab, and dyspepsia (or indigestion) in that order.
73. In the last 20 years, there has been notable achievement and attention to the
health sector by the regional and the federal government. The number of
hospitals and health posts have been relatively fairly distributed among the
five administrative zones; however, the absence of health professionals,
especially for midwifery, is still a serious problem. Other challenges
include health facility infrastructure such as beds, access to roads, and
shortages of medical supplies, drugs, and equipment.
74. About 24.1% of the health facilities in the region are currently non-
functional for various reasons, basically related to the absence of the basic
utilities including electricity, water, latrine service, laboratory facilities,
etc. More focus is required to fulfil the required facilities for effective
functioning of the available health facilities and for expanding new
facilities into inaccessible areas.
xxviii
Budget and expenditure

75. The regional budget has been continuously increasing year to year. When
budget allocation among woredas is considered, the highest budget per
capita was 3,335 Birr for Awash and the smallest was 614 Birr for Chifra
woreda. The per capita budget distribution appears uneven with some
woredas better off than others.
76. While no equal budget to population ratio is expected, it is advisable to
revisit the formula for budget distribution among the different woredas
taking into account population size, relative proximity to basic
infrastructure, and available resources. Overall, recurrent and capital
expenditures have been increasing from year to year, but expenditures on
roads, education, health, and agricultural and rural services have shown
little improvement for the past decade.
77. The region should now make significant increases in poverty-targeted
expenditures (on health, education, roads, and agriculture) give due focus
to developing roads (especially rural roads), agriculture, health, and
education infrastructure.
Revenue
78. The region’s development is expected to be financed mainly by tax revenue
collected from the people. However, the performance of non-tax revenue
collected from tourism and hospitality for the period 2010 to 2018 was
found to be insignificant; in 2010, for example, amounting to less than 200
million.
79. There has been gradual improvement in revenue generation. In 2018, total
revenue reached about 911 million ETB, a significant improvement, but
still minimal in comparison with regional expenditure.
xxix
1. Introduction
Improving food security and eradicating poverty are among the main
elements of the development agenda of Ethiopia, the second most populous
country in Africa. The Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction Program
(SDPRP) which extended from 2002/2003 to 2004/2005, the Plan for Accelerated
and Sustained Development to End Poverty (PASDEP) from 2005/2006 to
2009/2010, the First Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP I) (2011-2015), and
the Second Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP II) (2015-2020) are some of
the country’s previous development programs and plans centered around
improving food security and reducing poverty. Equally, however, the country’s
development efforts have been confronted with a number of challenges including
chronic malnutrition, extreme poverty, rapidly growing and young unemployed
urban populations, civil and political conflict, and intensifying droughts (Feed the
Future, 2018). While drought and other disasters, such as floods, are significant
triggers for shocks, more important are the factors which create and/or increase
vulnerability to these shocks and which undermine livelihoods, including land
degradation, limited household assets, low levels of technology, lack of
employment opportunities and population pressure (MoARD, 2009).
It is important to recognize that amid rapid population growth, climatic
and land pressures, commodity price spikes and other challenges, significant
progress has been made. There have been improvements in responding to extreme
food insecurity (Cochrane and Tamiru, 2016), and aggregate yields have
increased substantially (CSA, 2016b). Over the past twenty years or so, Ethiopia
has also made significant progress in improving health, nutrition, education, and
other human development indicators. Life expectancy has risen dramatically,
while the percentage of population living in poverty and hunger has fallen by a
third in the decade before 2015 alone (Anderson and Farmer, 2015; Hickel, 2016).
The overall incidence of poverty declined from 45.5% in 2000 to 23.5% in 2016,
but while the urban headcount poverty declined from 36.9% in 2000 to 14.8% in
2016, rural poverty alone declined from 45.4% to 25.6% in the same period
(UNDP, 2018). This provided a clear indication that poverty is predominantly a
rural phenomenon in Ethiopia. Equally, though there have been gradual
reductions in poverty levels, food shortages are still high. In 2016, 10.36% of
households suffered food shortages (CSA, 2016a). Income inequality as
measured by the Gini coefficient remained low and stable over the past two
1
decades at around 30% (UNDP, 2017). Access to universal primary education

reached 100%, health coverage 98%, access to potable water 65%, and life
expectancy 64.6 years (UNDP, 2018).
Prevalence of undernourishment declined from an average of 39.7% for
the years 2004-2006 to 20.6% for years 2016-2018 (FAO et al., 2019) though this
still means one person in five is undernourished, an alarming statistic. About
11.4% of the population had access to safely managed drinking water, 41.1% had
at least basic drinking water services, and 7.3% basic sanitation services in 2017.
The general trend over time showed gradual improvements.
The national literacy rate was 53.32% in 2016. In terms of access to basic
services, 32.83%, 14.23%, 52.41, 16.4%, 40.17% of the population were at less
than one-kilometer distance from telephone service, post office, drinking water,
food market, and all-weather roads respectively in 2016. Likewise, about 11.22%,
10.16%, 17.53%, and 12.30% of the population could access agricultural
extension services, veterinary services, a police station, and microfinance services
at less than one kilometer in 2016 (CSA, 2016b). In terms of GDP per capita, the
value at constant 2011 international price (purchasing power parity) was USD
1617.3 in 2016, USD 1724.5 in 2017, and USD 1794.3 in 2018. Again, the trend
showed good improvement.
Levels of the wellbeing of the community are linked with the resource
base and asset portfolio at the disposal of households, the community, regions,
and the country at large. Because of differences in the resource base, livelihood
capabilities, assets, and levels of implementation of strategies set at federal level,
aggregate improvements of welfare at national levels might not have trickled
down to the regions.
Following the remarkable achievements of the first Growth and
Transformation Plan (GTP I) in terms of real GDP growth, infrastructural
development, social development and capacity building at all levels, the
government of Ethiopia formulated the second GTP (GTP II) covering the period
from 2015/16 to 2019/20. GTP II had the aim of serving as a springboard towards
realizing the national vision of becoming a low middle-income country by 2025,
through sustaining a rapid, broad-based and inclusive economic growth; and to
accelerate economic transformation and the journey towards the country’s
renaissance. Under the auspices of this national plan, regional governments were
expected to customize and contextualize the strategies outlined in the GTPII to
contribute to regional and national targets. Afar Regional State played its part in
2
terms of implementing these policies, strategies, and programs in the context of

pastoral and agro-pastoral societies that predominate in the region.
The Afar regional state covers about 8.4% of the total geographical area
of the country but has less than 2% of the population underlining how sparsely
populated it is. However, the region contains about 63.5% of Ethiopia’s camel
population, 2.9% of the cattle, 13.6% of sheep, 25.6% of goats, and 4.6% of
donkeys in 2019 (CSA, 2019b). It is basically pastoral and agro-pastoral, and only
contributed 0.07% of the total grain production of the country in 2019 (CSA,
2019a).
The regional government has been working on improving the livelihoods
of pastoralists and agro-pastoralists through implementation of various policies,
strategies, and programs across all its administrative zones and woredas, covering
various areas of intervention including education, health, infrastructure, revenue,
and women and youth affairs. It also tried to build up the institutional capacities
of the relevant offices at regional, zonal, woreda, and kebele levels. In
implementing these and related activities, the region committed resources through
the Regional Bureau of Finance and Economic Development with the expectation
that livelihoods would ultimately be improved and socio-economic development
goals achieved.
Realization of all these expectations requires an assessment of the
resource base, livelihoods and strategies, major achievements, development
priorities, trends, and gaps at different levels. It is particularly important to help
the region draw lessons for the formulation of regional strategies for improving
the livelihoods of pastoralists and agro-pastoralists in the future. It would also
help to pinpoint focus areas for the federal government to support the region
where necessary. In this regard, this study generated new and reliable empirical
evidence on the intervention options required to establish durable and sustainable
socio-economic development in the region.
The general objective of this study was therefore to assess the major
achievements and gaps in socio-economic development endeavors and to identify
development priority areas for the region’s future strategic plan and policy
interventions.
3
Specific objectives of the study were to:

1. evaluate the resource base and livelihood capabilities, assets, activities and
living conditions in the region for possible design and implementation of
homegrown economic reform of the country;
2. construct asset indices and identify the priority livelihood assets and asset
indicators required to estimate the necessary resource base and asset
accumulation;
3. establish sustainable and resilient livelihood strategies for durable socio-
economic growth by integrating the four pillars of development (economic,
social, institutional and environmental) and provide clear perspectives to
conduct sustainable livelihood analysis of the region;
4. identify factors constraining the adaptation of sustainable livelihood
strategies and outcomes/ achievements and to recognize the factors that
reduce vulnerability of the target population by aligning the resource base,
policy focus, and sustainable livelihoods relevant to design appropriate
policy interventions; and
5. assess and measure the multidimensional welfare situation in the region.
4
2. Conceptual Frameworks
Afar regional state is one of the merging, major pastoralist regions in Ethiopia.
Its 96.7 thousand km2 area is characterized by an arid and semi-arid climate. It
has a population of 1.8 million of which 81% are rural residents depending on
pastoral and agro-pastoral livelihood systems. Based on the nature of the study
area, this study employed two basic frameworks with greatest relevance for socio-
economic development analysis: The Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF)
and the framework of Multidimensional Welfare Analysis.
2.1. Sustainable Livelihood Framework
The British Department for International Development (DFID) defines

livelihood as a concept comprising the capabilities, assets and activities required
for a means of living. A livelihood is said to be “sustainable when it can cope
with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities
and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource
base” (DFID, 2000). The SLF is presented in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF)
Source: DFID (2000).
5
Though the DFID sustainable livelihood approach (SLA) is mainly

designed to eliminate poverty in poor countries, there are ways of adapting this
framework to the specific contexts of countries and objectives based on six core
principles: people-centered, holistic, dynamic, building on strengths, macro-
micro links, and sustainability.
The first step in the SLA is to investigate the living conditions of the
target population through a livelihood analysis and to understand the livelihood
options. These will provide the basis for planning, prioritizing, monitoring and
evaluation. The second step is to identify any limiting factors which hinder the
adaptation of sustainable livelihood strategies and the outcomes or achievements
and to recognize the factors that reduce vulnerability.
Though there have been no specific sequence or methods of livelihood
analysis developed, the SLF frames the tools or provides checklists to understand
and conduct livelihood analysis. It specifies the five main elements of the
framework:
1. Vulnerability context framing the external environment in which people
exist;
2. Livelihood assets (or strengths/capitals/capabilities/activities) on which
livelihoods are built;
3. Policies, institutions, and processes determining access to assets, terms of
exchange between assets, and returns to livelihood strategies;
4. Livelihood strategies; and
5. Livelihood outcomes (achievements or outputs of livelihood strategies).
The SLA is a good way of integrating the four pillars of development

(economic, social, institutional and environmental) and provides a clear
perspective to conduct Sustainable Livelihood Analysis before and after
development interventions. However, because the SLA is a holistic approach, it
requires a huge amount of primary and secondary data covering different
segments of the target population for differentiated livelihood analysis. If some
groups of the target population are omitted from the analysis, improvement in the
livelihoods of a specific group may result in a negative effect on the livelihoods
of others, leading to a dilemma of prioritization.
Generally, the application of SLF to this study has enabled us to generate
empirical evidence on, but not limited to, the following development issues in the
region:
6
• Evaluation of the regional resource base and establishment of sustainable

and resilient livelihoods;
• Identification of priority capital assets and livelihood strategies to be
optimally pursued;
• Identification of types and intensity of vulnerability of resources;
• Alignment of priority assets and a policy focus for sustainable and durable
socio-economic development; and
• Assessment of gaps in the resource base and identification of appropriate
policy design to account for differentials in such socio-economic
development.
2.2. Multidimensional Welfare Measurement
The basic challenge in welfare analysis is the approach adopted and the
methods of measuring welfare. Poverty with its multiple dimensions and
approaches has been one of the primary research areas of development
economics. There are different theories on poverty analysis, of which the
dominant ones are the welfarist school, the basic-needs school, and the capability
school. Appropriate development intervention and targeting requires concrete and
reliable empirical evidence on the prevalence, intensity and sources of the welfare
measures.
In the last decade, the multidimensional concept of welfare analysis has
undergone substantial progress in terms of explaining and measuring poverty.
One significant factor has been the development of the global Multidimensional
Poverty Index (MPI) by Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative
(OPHI) since 2010. The global MPI uses 3 dimensions and 10 indicators of
poverty drawing on the Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) dataset. Unlike
the global MPI, this study employed a multidimensional method of poverty and
inequality analysis adapted to the context in Afar Regional State, using a dataset
collected from its residents.
The most important task in the construction of a regional MPI is the
selection of welfare dimensions and indicators relevant to the real contexts in the
region. Unlike the global MPI with three dimensions (education, health and
standard of living) and 10 indicators, the Afar regional MPI considers four
dimensions (education, health, income/expenditure, and living conditions) and a
different set of 10 indicators. It uses equal weight for dimensions and the same
7
cut-off point used by the global MPI (33.3%). Accordingly, a person is considered
MPI poor if s/he is deprived in at least a one-third of the weighted indicators.
To account for the limitations arising from the data constraints
experienced in the global MPI and to adapt to national and regional contexts, this
study utilized the Living Standards Measurement Survey (LSMS) dataset and
identified four dimensions (education, health, income and living conditions) and
10 indicators relevant to the regional context (Figure 2). All dimensions and all
indicators within a dimension are given equal weight.
The study includes income as one welfare dimension for the regional MPI
for Afar, captured by real consumption expenditure per capita. Income is
becoming an important part of designing a national MPI for countries. It has so
far been included as a dimension in three national MPIs (Armenia, Ecuador and
Mexico) and in the Latin American region as proposed by Santos and Villatoro
(2016). To avoid overlapping measurements, other indicators used to capture
income-related indicators (like assets included in the global MPI) were excluded
in this study.
Figure 2: Dimensions and indicators of the MPI for Afar Region
Source: Authors’’ design (2019).
8
The other new dimension included in the regional MPI is living condition
with five indicators. This dimension mainly includes basic services (electricity,
telephone, water, flooring/housing, and cooking fuel) and their inclusion in the
regional MPI has so far been applied by all countries and regions constructing
their national/regional MPIs (Santos, 2019; Santos and Villatoro, 2019).
Depending on the extent of provision of basic services in the regional
development programs, these basic utilities were validated for their relevance in
explaining the MPI.
Generally, the application of an MPI framework to this study enables us
to generate relevant empirical evidence on, but not limited to, the following
development issues:
• Preparation of socio-economic development achievements;
• Documentation of welfare profiles;
• Identification and definition of income/expenditure patterns;
• Measurement of monetary and non-monetary multidimensional welfare
and its distribution, prevalence and intensity by population subgroups;
• Measurement of multidimensional inequality (monetary and non-
monetary) and its distribution, prevalence and intensity by population
subgroups;
• Identification of sources of multidimensional poverty for possible policy
interventions; and
• Identification of major socio-economic development achievements, gaps
and intervention points for designing relevant development measures.
9
3. Dataset and Methods
3.1. Dataset
This socio-economic development study required investigation of both

primary and secondary data obtained from various sources in the region and beyond.
3.1.1. Primary data

Primary data were collected by using focus group discussions (FGDs)
and key informant interviews (KII) with adequate and representative coverage of
livelihood zones across the region. The regional distributions of primary data
were based on the number of administrative zones and woredas (Table 1).
Overall, 90 key informants from 39 woredas in five administrative zones and
major social groups (community leaders and civic societies) were selected. Five
FGDs were conducted at zonal level to identify and rank livelihoods. Selected
key informants were trained for one day on the concept of the study and
livelihoods in the region.
Table 1: Distribution of respondents by zones and woredas in the Afar region

Number of Number of Number of
Administrative level
woredas KIIs FGDs
Awsi Rasu 12 42 1
Kilbet Rasu 9 20 1
Gabi Rasu 8 13 1
Fantena Rasu 5 8 1
Hari Rasu 5 5 1
Total 39 90 5
The research team also conducted preliminary field surveys and

observations in the five administrative zones and the selected woredas. These
enabled us to understand the real livelihood patterns and distributions and socio-
economic development achievements in the region. Cases observed during field
observation also served to narrate the existing welfare situation and to link them to
results of the entire study. The list of administrative zones and woredas is indicated
in Table 2.
10
Table 2: Checklist of administrative zones and woredas for primary data

collection
Zone/Woreda Zone/Woreda
Awsi Rasu Gabi Rasu
1. Asaita 1. Awash-Fentale
2. Dubti 2. Amibara
3. Afambo 3. Dulecha
4. Elida’ar 4. Gawane
5. Mille 5. Hanruka
6. Chifra 6. Galealu
7. Ada’ar 7. Argoba special woreda
8. Garani 8. Awash city administration
9. Kuri Fantena Rasu
10. Asaita city administration 1. Golina
11. Dubti city administration 2. Ewa
12. Semera-Logia city administration 3. Awra
Kilbet Rasu 4. Yallo
1. Aba’ala 5. Teru
2. Dalol Hari Rasu
3. Barahle 1. Dawe
4. Erebti 2. Telalak
5. Magale 3. Dalifage
6. Afdera 4. Samurobi
7. Konaba 5. Hadele’ela
8. Bidu
9. Aba’ala city administration
The trained key informants were asked to evaluate the livelihoods

prevalent in their respective woredas. The livelihoods, including crop production
(maize, sorghum, cotton, vegetable, fruits, etc.), livestock production (camels,
cattle, shoats) and non-farm activities particularly in towns and cities of the
region, were ranked by key informants in order to construct sustainable
livelihoods. Focus group discussions were conducted in each zone to identify the
major livelihoods in their respective zones and ranked for prioritization of
resources.
11
3.1.2. Secondary data

The secondary data regarding the socio-economic development
indicators over time required for alignment of the regional development goals and
objectives with national goals and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of
the United Nations (UN) are of primary importance. The data was collected from
published and unpublished official sources.
In addition to above secondary data, the third wave of Living Standards
Measurement Survey (LSMS) (2015/16) for Ethiopia was widely utilized. The
LSMS is the country representative, multi-topic dataset of different levels
(individual, households, farm plots, etc.) collected by Central Statistical Agency
(CSA) of Ethiopia in collaboration with the World Bank. It covers nine regional
states and two administrative towns with 4954 households and over 23,000
individuals across the country in 290 rural and 143 urban (43 small towns1 and
100 large towns) enumeration areas (CSA, 2017).
The sample in LSMS for the Afar Region covers a total of 659 individuals
(86.3% rural residents) distributed across two administrative zones, nine woredas,
and four towns (Table 3). These samples provided useful insights about trends,
prevalence, intensity, distribution, gaps, sources of development, and the welfare
situation in the region.
Table 3: Distribution of the LSMS samples across zones and areas of

residence in Afar Region
Administrative zones Share
Areas of residence Total
Awsi Rasu Gabi Rasu (%)
Number of sample woredas 5 4 9 23.1
Number of sample towns 2 2 4 -
Rural samples 392 177 569 86.3
Samples from small towns 24 29 53 8.0
Samples from large towns 37 0 37 5.6
Total samples, Region 453 206 659 100.0
Source: Compiled from data in LSMS (2016).
1
A small town (termed as semi-urban in this study) is defined by CSA as a town with the
population of less than 10,000. Large towns include all other urban areas with the
population of above 10,000 (CSA, 2017).
12
The LSMS dataset was used here for investigation of the following issues:
• Household and individual characteristics (demography, health, education,
food security, access to water and sanitation, employment and occupation,
mobility, access to financial services, consumption and expenditure
patterns, asset holdings, shocks, housing, etc.).
• Community level analysis (housing, clothing, community services, social
network, mobility, religious practices, land use, access to road and transport
facilities, employment opportunities, farm and off-farm practices, shocks,
development interventions, business activities, etc.);
• Geo-variables (land cover, agro-ecological zones, rainfall, elevation,
wetness index, terrain, nutrient availability, plot characteristics, etc.);
• Livestock production (livestock type and holding, marketing of livestock,
livestock rearing practices, water access for livestock, animal disease,
veterinary services, use of animal products, etc.);
• Crop production (inputs, outputs, farm technologies, etc.); and
• Post-harvest analysis and post-planning (farm type, crops produced, crop
yield, cultivated land, crop damage, crop sales, etc.).
In addition to this secondary data at household, individual and

community levels, different sets of socio-economic data were also collected at
woreda, zonal and regional levels. This secondary data included time series and
cross-sectional data on different sectors and subsectors of agriculture,
manufacturing and services. Some of these data requirements included, but were
not limited to:
• Socio-economic data for the most recent years (education, health, access to
basic services, agriculture, infrastructure, construction);
• Budget expenditure by sectors and subsectors;
• Revenue generation and distribution by source; and
• Socio-economic development achievements for most recent years.
3.2. Valuation of Livelihood Capitals
The importance of access, or entitlement to assets, and the factors

determining this, is generally dealt with by Sustainable Livelihood Framework
(SLF`) models through analysis of Policies, Institutions and Processes (PIPs)
13
(Farrington et al., 2002). It can also be analyzed in the wider context within which
livelihood strategies are pursued. Institutions, policies and legislation within the
livelihood framework shape livelihoods. They operate at all levels and effectively
determine access (to capital, to livelihood strategies and to decision-making
bodies and sources of influence); the terms of exchange between different types
of capital; and returns (economic and non-economic) to any given livelihood
strategy (DFID, 2000).
Identification of the relative importance of the livelihood capitals in the
region and indictors determining access to such capitals are important information
for the formation of sustainable livelihoods for durable socio-economic
development in the region. The relative importance of capitals in this study was
evaluated by key informants at different administrative levels of the region using
the UNDP’s tool developed with modifications on the scale of valuation (UNDP,
2017). Unlike the three ordinal scores used by the UNDP, scores with five ordinal
scales were used in this study. Key informants from different sectors and levels
in the target population were asked to value the five livelihood assets
qualitatively. Informants ranked each livelihood asset (human, financial,
physical, social/political, and natural) according to their perception of relevance
to the formation of sustainable livelihoods in the region or zone in which they
were working. They attached ordinal values: 1 if not sustainable, 2 if less
sustainable, 3 if sustainable, 4 if more sustainable, or 5 if most sustainable (the
largest rank indicating the more desirable alternative or greater importance).
The greater the range of the scores among the different groups of key
informants, the more sensitive the scoring is to changes over time and to the
effects of development interventions (UNDP, 2017). Little difference in the
ranges of rankings made by respondents in different groups is an indication of the
stability of assets in the formation of sustainable livelihoods over time.
Accordingly, the most important livelihood capitals or welfare
dimensions relevant to the formation of sustainable and resilient livelihoods in
the region were identified and livelihood profiles compiled. Based on the asset
valuation results, livelihood profiles were documented from which asset
pentagons could also be constructed. The asset valuation results served as a
baseline for comparison of the changes in livelihood assets and the associated
outcomes in the target population after implementation of development
interventions. These findings can serve as the bases for designing relevant
development interventions in the region.
14
The pentagon of capital assets serves as a visual presentation of

information on assets. The pentagon grid can be used as a schematic
demonstration of existing variations in regarding capital access. Because the
availability of different assets changes constantly, the shape of the pentagon
changes accordingly (Figure 3). If the triangle tip of a shape within the pentagon
moves towards or away from the external line labelled H (Human capital), for
instance, it is an indication of weaker emphasis given to this capital. However, if
the internal shape forms a regular pentagon, it shows that a development
intervention gives equal weighting to all forms of capital.
Figure 3: Pentagon of assets for visualizing changes in asset status
Source: UNDP (2017).

Note: F=Financial, H=Human, N=Natural, P=Physical, S=Social/Political.
Livelihood assets
Livelihood assets refer to the resource base of the community and of
different categories of households. In Figure 3, we have a pentagon that stands
for different types of assets available to the local people - human, natural,
financial, physical and social. These assets are interlinked. The livelihoods
approach is concerned with people. It seeks to gain an accurate and realistic
understanding of people’s strengths (assets or capital endowments) and how they
endeavor to convert these into positive livelihood outcomes. The approach is
founded on a belief that people require a range of assets to achieve positive
livelihood outcomes; no single category of assets on its own is sufficient to yield
15
all the many and varied livelihood outcomes that people seek. This is particularly
true for poor people whose access to any given category of assets tends to be very
limited. As a result, they have to seek ways of nurturing and combining what
assets they do have in innovative ways to ensure survival.
Human capital: Human capital represents the skills, knowledge, ability to work
and good health that together enable people to pursue different livelihood
strategies and achieve their livelihood objectives.
Social capital: In the context of the sustainable livelihood framework, social
capital is taken to mean the social resources upon which people draw in pursuit
of their livelihood objectives. Social resources are developed through networks
and connectedness that increase people’s trust and ability to work together and
expand their access to wider institutions; through membership of more formalized
groups which often entails adherence to mutually-agreed or commonly accepted
rules, norms and sanctions; and through relationships of trust, reciprocity and
exchanges that facilitate cooperation, reduce transaction costs and may provide
the basis for informal safety nets amongst the poor.
Natural capital: Natural capital is the term used for the natural resource stocks
from which resource flows and services useful for livelihoods (e.g. nutrient
cycling, erosion protection) are derived. There is a wide variation in the resources
that make up natural capital, from intangible public goods such as the atmosphere
and biodiversity to divisible assets used directly for production (trees, land, etc.).
Within the sustainable livelihood framework, the relationship between natural
capital and the Vulnerability Context is particularly close. Many of the shocks
that devastate the livelihoods of the poor are themselves natural processes that
destroy natural capital (e.g. fires that destroy forests, floods and earthquakes that
destroy agricultural land) and seasonality is largely due to changes in the value or
productivity of natural capital over the years.
Physical capital: Physical capital comprises the basic infrastructure and producer
goods needed to support livelihoods. Infrastructure consists of changes to the
physical environment that help people meet their basic needs and be more
productive. Producer goods are the tools and equipment that people use to
function more productively. Among the components of infrastructure usually
seen as essential for sustainable livelihoods are: affordable transport; secure
shelter and buildings; adequate water supply and sanitation; clean, affordable
energy; and access to information (communications).
Financial capital: Financial capital denotes the financial resources that people use to
achieve their livelihood objectives. There are two main sources of financial capital:
16
• Available stocks: Savings are the preferred type of financial capital

because they do not have liabilities attached and usually do not entail
reliance on others. They can be held in several forms: cash, bank deposits
or liquid assets such as livestock and jewelry. Financial resources can also
be obtained through credit-providing institutions.
• Regular inflows of money: Excluding earned income, the most common
types of inflows are pensions, or other transfers from the state, and
remittances. In order to make a positive contribution to financial capital,
these inflows must be reliable. While complete reliability can never be
guaranteed, there is a difference between a one-off payment and a regular
transfer on the basis of which people can plan investments.
3.3. Resource Base and Asset Indices
Asset and poverty indices are two approaches to measuring two faces of
welfare. The asset index is a measure of intensity of asset accumulation based on
asset endowment data (or access to resources), whereas the poverty index is a
measure of poverty based on intensity of asset deprivation. In order to understand
the basis for asset distribution in the region, the various types and levels of
structures (public, private, civic) and processes (policy, legislation, institutions,
culture) that affect access to livelihood assets were analyzed. For possible
development interventions, access to major livelihood assets, strategies and
decision-making bodies, and sources of influence were investigated.
The asset index is used to measure the level of asset accumulation based
on people’s access to assets. Construction of asset indices requires proper
identification and measurement of reference indicators for each livelihood asset.
Since it was hardly possible to get an exhaustive list of assets in the region to
conduct livelihood analysis, it was important to identify components of the
livelihood dimensions that were of particular importance to livelihoods in the
region. Depending on the level of asset endowments, different sets of indicators
were identified to conduct livelihood analysis among differentiated social groups.
To estimate asset indices in this study, a set of 36 livelihood
asset/capabilities/activities deemed relevant to Afar Region were proposed (Table
4). The table describes the livelihood assets/capabilities/activities identified as
indicators of livelihood in the region. Respondents were asked to attach binary
values as 1 if the indicator was easily accessible/ available, 0 otherwise.
17
Table 4: Capital dimensions and asset indicators

Livelihood
Livelihood Assets/Capabilities/Activities
Assets/Capabilities/Activities
Natural capital (N) Physical capital (P)
Access to land for crop production Camel stock
Access to land for grazing Cattle stock
Security of property rights to land Shoat stock
Versatility of resources Crop/grain stock
Natural forests Clean and affordable energy
Clean rivers/waters Private telephone services
Adequate and safe drinking water
Minerals for mining
and sanitation
Resources for tourist attraction Clean and secure housing
Human capital (H) Affordable health services
Educational level Affordable public/private transport
School attendance (enrolment) Access to irrigation water
Adequate and nutritious food Financial capital (F)
Access to information Wage from employment
Public awareness on their public rights, policies
Income from trade business
and regulations impacting their livelihoods
Social/Political capital (S) Credit access
Membership in organizations Saving in banks
Membership in committees or collectives Saving in livestock
Membership in local administration councils Presence of formal financial services
Existence of influential public organizations Remittances
Existence of influential rules, norms or laws
Liquidity of savings
impacting community development
Source: Proposed by authors (2019).
A Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was employed to construct asset

indices and identify principal components of the livelihood assets available to the
region (Jolliffe, 2002; Al-Kandari, et al., 2012). The first component accounting
for the highest variance with the highest eigenvalue was considered as the asset
index for that category. Once the principal assets under different livelihood
dimensions were identified, the optimal mix of such livelihood assets in the
formation of sustainable livelihoods could be identified using parametric and
nonparametric analytical techniques.
18
The PCA is a statistical technique used for data reduction. The leading
eigenvectors from the eigen decomposition of the correlation or covariance
matrix of the variables describe a series of uncorrelated linear combinations of
the variables that contain most of the variance. In addition to data reduction, the
eigenvectors from a PCA are often inspected to learn more about the underlying
structure of the data.
Let C be the p  p correlation or covariance matrix to be analyzed. The spectral

or eigen decomposition of C is
p
C = VV ' =  i vi vi'
i =1
v v =  ij ,
'
i i (orthogonality)
1  2   p  0.
where the eigenvectors (vi) are also known as the principal components; and the
direction (sign) of principal components is not defined.
In addition to valuation of livelihood assets for establishment of sustainable
livelihoods ensuring durable economic growth, the sources and intensity of
vulnerability of resources were evaluated. This offers the possibilities of defining
policy measures required to ensure implementation of relevant policies of
resource utilization in the region.
3.4. Optimizing and Aligning Livelihood Strategies
Development policy interventions generally focus on addressing

prioritized challenges for improving the welfare of a society. Concentration of
available resources for the proposed development programs requires
prioritization of development challenges and the associated interventions. The
primary task in livelihood analysis is to identify the alternative livelihood
strategies pursued by households in different groups of the target population; so,
the alternative livelihood strategies employed by different groups of the regional
residents were identified by KIIs and FGDs. Livelihood options in rural areas are
relatively less diversified and can easily be identified without in-depth analysis
of such strategies at household level. KIIs and FGDs were therefore utilized to
19
identify the dominant livelihood strategies pursued by the different social groups
within sub-populations.
In the SLF, the choices of livelihood strategies adopted by households
are determined by a number of factors related to assets, policies, institutions and
processes (DFID, 2000). Because resources are limited, the choice of one
livelihood strategy is not independent of the choice of another. In order to
optimize their utility generated from the choice of alternative livelihood
strategies, households, given their resource constraints, are likely to jointly
choose a combination of livelihood strategies. The choice of one livelihood
strategy simultaneously affects (positively or negatively) the choice of another.
This leads to simultaneity of household decisions from the available alternative
livelihood strategies. Access to one kind of livelihood asset, access to grazing
land for livestock, for instance, can reinforce households’ access to another kind
of livelihood asset (e.g. physical capital or financial capital through livestock
production).
In this study, the alternative livelihood strategies pursued in each district,
social group or household, and their interdependence were identified to optimize
the mix of livelihood strategies and development interventions. Estimation of
tetrachoric correlations between pairs of livelihood strategies chosen by social
groups assists to identify complementary and competitive strategies to be pursued
in the region. Significantly correlated livelihood strategies clearly suggest
pathways for constructing an optimal mix of livelihood strategies relevant to
improve the livelihoods of residents. Complementary and competitive livelihood
strategies can be indicated, respectively, by significant positive and negative
nonlinear correlations. The results permit us to identify the positive and negative
effects of alterative livelihood strategies to be pursued before development
interventions.
3.5. Measuring Poverty and Equity

3.5.1. Economic welfare
The Foster-Greer-Thorbecke (FGT) poverty measures are used to
measure economic poverty. Real consumption expenditure is considered as an
indicator of economic wellbeing in this study and the FGT index of poverty was
used to analyze the incidence, depth and severity of consumption poverty. As one
of the measures proposed by Foster et al. (1984), it is defined as
20
a
1 N G 
Pa =   i  , a  0
N i =1  z 
where α is a measure of the sensitivity of the index to poverty and the poverty
P0
line. When parameter α = 0, is simply the headcount index. When α = 1, the
index is the poverty gap index P1 , and when α = 2, P2 is the poverty severity
index. For all α > 0, the measure is strictly decreasing in the living standard of the
poor.
The FGT poverty index (P) can be decomposed by population subgroups as
follows (Araar and Duclos, 2013):
  
P (z, ) =  (g ) P (z; a g )
G
g =1

where G is the number of population subgroups, P (z, , g ) is the estimated FGT


index of subgroup g,
 (g ) is the estimated population share of subgroup g,
 
 (g ) P (z; a g )
G
g =1 is the estimated absolute contribution of subgroup g to

 
 (g ) P (z; a g )
G
total poverty, and g =1 is the estimated relative contribution of

subgroup g to total poverty.
To decompose total poverty, assume that there exist K
income/expenditure sources and that sk denotes source k. Accordingly, the FGT
index is defined as (Araar and Duclos, 2013):
n a
1 − y 

 K


i =1 
z +

P z ; a y =  sk  =

n
k =1
w
i =1
i
where wi is the weight assigned to individual i and n is sample size.
21
This estimates the share in total consumption expenditure of each source

k and the absolute and relative contributions of each source k to the value of
  
 P − 1
 .
Growth Elasticity of Poverty (GEP) is the percentage reduction
in poverty rates associated with a percentage change in mean income or
expenditure. The information on the responsiveness or sensitivity of poverty
measures to changes in income or expenditure is relevant to evaluate the likely
impacts of poverty reduction measures. The overall GEP, when growth comes
exclusively from growth within a group k (within that group, inequality neutral),
is estimated by (Araar & Duclos, 2007; Araar, 2012):
 zf (k , z )
− F ( z ) if  = 0

GEP = 
 P(k , z;  ) − P(k ,z; − 1) if   1

 P( z,  )
where z is the poverty line, k is the population subgroup in which growth takes
place, f(k, z) is the density function at level of income or expenditure z of group
k, and F(z) is the headcount.
3.5.2. Multidimensional poverty

The definition and measurement of the four dimensions and 10 indicators
included in the regional MPI framework are defined in Table 5. To decide on the
unit of identification, choosing the method of aggregation of dimensions or
indicators is essential. One option is to aggregate all attributes across individuals
to a global measure of wellbeing. This is the aggregation of dimensions across
individuals to form a dimension-specific measure across all the individuals and
to combine all the one-dimensional indices yielding an MPI measure. The other
option is aggregation of individuals focusing either only on those that are poor
according to all attributes or on all those who are poor in at least one attribute.
This second option is the combination of the multiple indicators of deprivation
for each individual and then to aggregate them across the individuals. In this
study, the aggregation of welfare dimensions/indicators across individuals was
used to estimate the MPI measure.
22
Table 5: Definition and measurement of welfare dimensions and indicators

for regional MPI
Dimensions/ Poverty
Definition of deprivation
Indicators line
Deprived if intensity of deprivation in education is
Education (1/4) 1/12
at or above 1/12
Years of schooling Deprived if no household member has completed six
1/24
(1/8) years of schooling
Child school Deprived if any school-aged child is not attending
1/24
attendance (1/8) school up to class 8
Deprived if intensity of deprivation in health is at or
Health (1/4) 1/12
above 1/12
Deprived if individuals in the households did not
Health care (1/8) 1/24
consult any medical practitioner in the last 12 months
Deprived if the household faced difficulty satisfying
Food security (1/8) 1/24
food needs in the last 12 months
Deprived if intensity of deprivation in income is at
Income (1/4) 1/12
or above 1/12
Consumption Deprived if individuals living in the households below
1/12
expenditure (1/4) the absolute poverty line (ETB 14758)
Living condition Deprived if intensity of deprivation in living
1/12
(1/4) condition is at or above 1/12
Deprived if the household has no electric source of
Electricity (1/20) 1/60
lighting
Deprived if the household had no private telephone
Telephone (1/20) 1/60
services
Deprived if the household had no access to safe
Water (1/20) 1/60
drinking water
Flooring (1/20) 1/60 Deprived if the household had a dirt, sand or dung floor
Deprived if the household cooks with dung, wood or
Cooking fuel (1/20) 1/60
charcoal
MPI (1.00) 1/3 MPI poor if intensity of deprivation is at or above 1/3
Source: Authors’ compilation (2020).
To estimate the MPIs in this study, the Alkire-Foster (AF) methodology

was employed. The construction of an MPI that uses the AF is based on the M0
(adjusted head count ratio) measure, proposed by Alkire and Foster (2011). The
LSMS data were exposed to rigorous analysis using the Distributive Analysis
Stata package (DASP) developed by Araar and Duclos (2013).
23
To specify the method, consider a population of individuals, i = 1,  , n,

i =n
w
fi = i N =  wi
yi wi N i=
with income , and sampling weight . Let , where .
Suppose that j = 1,  , K , denotes the ji dimension of poverty and i denotes

th
z
the poverty line for dimension j . A general form for additive multidimensional
poverty indices can be written as (Araar and Duclos, 2013):
1 i =n
P(x, z ) =  fi p(xi , z )
n i=1
p(xi , z )
where is the individual poverty function that determines the
contribution of individual i to total poverty p .
The Alkire and Foster MPI is estimated as (Alkire and Foster, 2011)

1 N 1 J  z − xi , j 
p( , xi , z ) =   w j  j  I (d i  d c )
N i=1 J j =1  z j 
+
 w I (z  xi , j )  d c
J
j j
where I (i is poor) = 1 if j
, zero otherwise; N is the total
z
sample size; J is the number of poverty dimensions/indicators; j is the poverty
j x
line for indicator ; i , j is the intensity of poverty of individual i in indicator
j ; and d c is the dimensional cut-off point to identify the poverty status.
Following the algorithm for computing the Shapley value developed by
Araar and Duclos (2009), the total MPI poverty indices were decomposed into
their constituent components or dimensions (education, health, income, and living
condition).
3.5.3. Multidimensional inequality

Estimation of multidimensional inequality index (MII) and identification
of its possible sources is imperative for designing and implementing policy
interventions related to equity. The MII in this study was estimated by using the
24
Araar MI index. The Araar MII index for the K dimensions of wellbeing takes
the following form (Araar, 2009):
i=K
MI = k k I k + (1 − k )Ck 
i =1

where k is the weight attributed to the dimension k (may take the same value
across the dimensions or can depend on the averages of the wellbeing
Ik
dimensions). and 𝐶𝑘 , respectively, are the relative–absolute-Gini and

concentration indices of component k. The normative parameter k controls the
sensitivity of the index to the inter-correlation between dimensions.
The total multidimensional inequality measured by the Gini coefficient
was also decomposed into the four dimensions based on the method of
decomposition developed by Araar (2006).
25
4. Description of the Region
4.1. Location
The Afar National Regional State is located in the northeast of the

country and is one of the nine regional states of Ethiopia. It is the homeland of
the Afar people. Samara-Logia city administration is the capital city of the region,
located at 605 kms northeast of Addis Ababa with geographic coordinates
between 8.830 to 14.460 East and 39.730 to 42.410 North.
The region has about 99,646.54 km2 area which accounts for 8.4% of the
national land area (ADSWE, 2018). The Afar Region, the original home of human
beings, is divided into five administrative zones and 39 woredas (districts) with
358 rural and 32 urban kebeles. About 23 of the woredas are categorized as
severely affected districts. Afdera and Elidare are the biggest woredas covering a
quarter of the Region, while Koneba and Dewe are the smallest.
Samara-logia city administration serves as the capital of the Region and
of Awsi Rasu. Kilbet Rasu encompasses various tourist attractions especially for
those interested in geo-tourism and shares a 328 km-long international boundary
with Eritrea and Djibouti Republic. Gabi Rasu is well known for large-scale
modern irrigation schemes owned by different companies. Fantena Rasu shares a
109 km-long regional boundary with both Amhara and Tigray regions; and Hari
Rasu shares a 225 km-long regional boundary with Amhara (USAID, 2010).
The Afar Depression, Erta Ale active volcano, Awash National Park,
Yangudi-Rassa National Park and the Aramis archeological site, as well as
cultural games and traditions of the community are the major tourist attractions
of the Region. In addition, it boasts abundant reserves of various major and
significant minerals (Franzson et al., 2015; Mindat, 2017). The region has good
geothermal sources and potential solar energy (Katarzyna et al., 2014).
4.2. Livelihood Zones
Afar Region is dominated by two major livelihood zones (pastoral and

agropastoral), and further categorized into eight sub-livelihood categories,
including Livelihood zone 8, also known as Awash pastoral/agricultural system
or the Afar Depression, and Livelihood zone 10, termed as Northeastern pastoral
livelihood system (USAID, 2010) (Figure 4). About 85% of the rural population
is dependent on pastoral livelihoods and the remaining 15% on agropastoral
26
livelihood (Afar Atlas, 2014). Pastoralists in this area rely on livestock production
as their main livelihood. All major species of livestock including camel, cattle,
sheep and goats are kept.
Figure 4: Livelihood zones in Afar Region
Source: USAID (2010)
4.3. Demography
According to (ADSWE (2018)) the Afar Regional State covers a land

area of 99,646.54 square kilometers. The total population is 1,812,002, of which
80.9% are pastoralists and 19.1% urban residents Because of its hot climate
.
conditions, population density is relatively sparse and the greatest proportion of

the land area (69%) has a population density below 50 persons per square
kilometer (Table 6), which is far above the national average (19.1%).
27
Table 6: Population density in Afar and Ethiopia

Population density Proportion (%)
(persons per km2) Regional (Afar) National
0-50 69.0 19.1
50-100 10.6 12.3
100-200 9.2 21.4
200-300 - 8.4
300-400 - 5.1
400-500 - 3.5
1000-2000 - 3.5
500-1000 0.7 5.3
2000-5000 4.2 5.7
5000-10000 0.7 5.3
10000-20000 5.6 7.2
>20000 - 3.2
Source: Authors’ computation from LSMS-2016 data.
Values of other demographic variables describing the region are also far
below or above the national average (Table 7). Only 42.3% of the entire
population and 22% of the household heads are literate, which is 13.6 percentage
points lower than the literacy condition of the population as a whole. Households
in the Afar region have relatively more family members, particularly for larger
households which underlines the need to implement relevant family planning
policy interventions in the region. The main religion followed by the population
in the region is Islam (80%) followed by Orthodox Christianity (20%). The
marital status experienced in the region is not significantly different from the case
in Ethiopia where most of the households are either single or married.
28
Table 7: Comparison of demographic features of households between Afar

region and Ethiopia
Proportion (%)
Variables
Regional National
Household characteristics
Age (year) 21.80 23.5
Age of household heads (year) 43.66 46.5
Literacy status of household heads (%) 16.4 13.8
Educational level (grades completed) 5.10 8.1
Household Size (counts) 6.31 5.91
Rural 6.56 6.2
Small towns 5.15 5.5
Urban centers 4.03 5.00
Number of household members
1 2.0 2.0
2 5.0 5.0
3 7.0 9.0
4 8.0 14.0
5 11.0 16.0
6 17.0 17.0
7 21.0 14.0
8 12.0 11.0
8+ members 16.0 12.0
Main religion
Orthodox 19.9 49.9
Muslim 80.1 27.1
Protestant 0.3 20.7
Catholic - 1.2
Other (pagan, Wakefeta, etc.) - 0.7
Marital status
Single 42.3 48.1
Married-monogamy 43.6 42.0
Married-polygamy 2.4 1.0
Divorced 3.6 3.2
Other (widowed, separated, etc.) 8.1 5.0
29
4.4. Agroecology
Agroecology is the study of ecological processes applied to agricultural

production systems (Wezel et al., 2009). It is a science, a set of practices and a
social movement dealing with the interaction of different components of the
agroecosystem and seeking to establish sustainable farming systems that optimize
and stabilize yields and pursue multifunctional roles for agriculture; promote
social justice; nurture and identity culture; and strengthen the economic viability
of rural areas (FAO, 2019).
For countries to transform their food and agricultural systems,
mainstream sustainable agriculture on a large scale, and achieve ‘zero hunger’
and other UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the following 10
interdependent and interlinked elements are important (FAO, 2020): Diversity;
synergies; efficiency; resilience; recycling; co-creation and sharing of
knowledge; human and social values; culture and food traditions; responsible
governance; circular and solidarity economy.
4.4.1. Agro-ecological zones

An agro-ecological zone is a land resource mapping unit, defined in terms
of climate, landform and soils, and/or land cover, and having a specific range of
potentials and constraints for land use.
There are only three agro-ecological zones in which the population in
Afar region live. A majority of the households reside in arid (48%) and semi-arid
(49%) zones followed by a much smaller number in semiarid zones (3.3%) (Table
8). These agro-ecological zones are not suitable for crop production where
pastoralism is pursued as the only livelihood option. However, the region is also
endowed with irrigation water from the Awash River. Many areas in the region
are irrigable and crop production can be boosted to ensure food supplies in the
region, and in the country at large. The current example of this is the policy
direction to produce lowland wheat on a substantial scale using irrigation water.
30
Table 8: Comparison of households’ agro-ecology between Afar and

Ethiopia
Proportion (%)
Agro-ecological zones
Regional National
Tropic-warm/arid 47.7 0.8
Tropic-warm/semiarid 49.0 3.7
Tropic-warm/sub-humid - 0.7
Tropic-warm/humid - 0.1
Tropic-cool/arid - 0.1
Tropic-cool/semiarid 3.3 24.3
Tropic-cool/ sub-humid - 56.5
Tropic-cool/humid - 13.9
4.4.2. Weather and climate

Weather is a condition of the atmosphere over a short period of time and
affected by temperature, pressure, humidity, cloudiness, wind, precipitation, rain,
flooding, ice storms, etc. Climate, however, is the long-term observation of the
overall atmospheric conditions at any location though also affected by humidity,
temperature, the sunshine, wind, etc. Precipitation, on the other hand, is any
product of the condensation of atmospheric water vapor that falls under gravity
from clouds. Its main forms include drizzle, rain, sleet, snow, ice pellets, and hail.
Plants use the moisture in the soil to replenish the water lost through transpiration.
If there is no water in the soil, leaves will wilt. Rainwater builds up the moisture
levels in the soil and assures a healthy plant.
The mean annual temperature in the Afar Region is by far higher (27
degree Celsius) and annual precipitation much lower than the national averages,
underlining that the harsh weather conditions are not suitable for crop production
or rain-fed agriculture (Table 9). Because of the overall elevation (628.8 m above
sea level), the annual mean rainfall is twofold lower (423.6 mm) than the national
average (858 mm).
31
Table 9: Comparison of some household geo-variables between Afar and

Ethiopia
Proportion (%)
Variable
Regional National
Annual mean temperature (degree C) 27.0 19.3
Mean temperature of wettest quarter (degree C) 29.0 19.1
Annual precipitation (mm) 371.3 1064.2
Precipitation of wettest month (mm) 89.5 224.6
Precipitation of wettest quarter (mm) 189.5 562.5
Elevation (m) 628.8 1872.7
Average 12-month total rainfall (for January to December, mm) 423.6 858.0
Total rainfall in wettest quarter (of 2015) (mm) 221.2 497.0
4.4.3. Land cover

Land cover, or earth cover, is the physical material on the surface of the
earth. Land covers include grass, asphalt, trees, bare ground, water, etc.
Earth cover is the expression used as a synonym to vegetation. Land cover in Afar
region is also nonexistent or very low compared to the national average (Table
10). About 36% of the households reside in wider land areas of the region
primarily covered by shrubs or open or close to open land. The lands in the region
are less vegetated and bare areas where pastoralism is widely practiced for search
of pasture for livestock.
Table 10: Major land cover class within approximately 1 km buffer

Mean (%)
Land cover
Regional National
Rainfed croplands - 2.5
Mosaic cropland (50-70%)/vegetation 5.4 47.0
Mosaic vegetation (50-70%)/cropland - 18.1
Open (15-40%) broadleaved deciduous forest - 1.0
Mosaic forest or shrub land (50-70%)/ grass 11.7 15.3
Mosaic grassland (50-70%)/forest or shrub - 0.0
Closed to open (>15%) (broad-leaved) 0.6 10.5
Closed to open (>15%) herbaceous vegetation 35.7 0.4
Sparse (<15%) vegetation - 1.0
Closed to open (>15%) grassland-fresh 12.5 0.1
Artificial surfaces and associated area - 3.3
Bare areas 34.1 0.8
32
4.4.4. Topographical features

Topography is the arrangement of the natural and artificial physical
features of an area. These include mountains, hills, valleys, lakes, oceans, rivers,
cities, dams, and roads. Household residences in Afar region are primarily found
on mid-altitude plains (52%), high-altitude plains (19%), and low plateaus (15%)
(Table 11). These plains are suitable for irrigation agriculture - if access to
irrigation water is secured.
Table 11: Comparison of terrain roughness between Afar and Ethiopia

Proportion (%)
Terrain Roughness
Regional National
Plains - 0.1
Mid-altitude plains 52.0 1.2
High-altitude plains 18.6 11.3
Platform (very low plateaus) 10.8 0.2
Low Plateaus 15.3 0.8
Mid-altitude mountains 3.3 20.5
High plateaus - 43.7
Low mountains - 0.1
Mid-altitude mountains - 16.3
High mountains - 5.9
4.5. Soil Conditions
Soil condition can be defined as the capacity of a soil to function, within

land use and ecosystem boundaries, to sustain biological productivity, maintain
environmental health, and promote plant, animal, and human health.
4.5.1. Soil type and quality

The predominant soil types and qualities in Afar region are compared to
national soil conditions reported in Table 12. The Afar region, as well as the
country, is dominated by vertisols, and 63% of the households reside in areas
dominated by this type of soil, which is characterized by soil-forming processes
that include cracking and movement of material due to shrinkage and swelling of
clays during drying/wetting cycles, causing the clays to expand and contract.
33
Vertisols are typically formed from basic rocks (such as basalt) in climates that
are seasonally humid or subject to erratic droughts and floods (like the Afar
region), or impeded drainage. Recurrent drought and erratic rainfall, coupled with
the soil’s poor water retention capacity, is a major constraint for crop production.
If there is sufficient irrigation water, the soil quality in Afar region is
predominantly good (as validated by 68.5% of the respondents, compared to
national average soil quality (51% good). Irrigation agriculture is the primary
option recommended for crop production in such areas.
Table 12: Predominant soil types of land plots

Proportion (%)
Soil type and quality
Regional National
Soil type2
Leptosol 8.5 8.4
Cambisol 4.3 2.2
Vertisol 62.7 37.8
Luvisol 11.0 34.3
Mixed type 4.2 15.5
Other soil type 9.3 1.8
Soil quality
Good 67.5 29.2
Fair 21.7 52.2
Poor 10.8 18.6
4.5.2. Soil constraints

Problems related to soils can be characterized by seven variables: nutrient
availability; nutrient retention capacity; rooting condition of plants; oxygen
availability for plants; excess salts; soil toxicity; and the workability of soils.
The intensity of the problem arising from these constraints may be
evaluated by households at four levels: (a) no or slight constraint, (b) moderate,
(c) severe, or (d) very severe, with other constraints arising from non-soil and
water shortage (Table 13). To undertake crop production with or without
2
There are about 19 soil types in Ethiopia. The major soil types (in order of their area
coverage) are Leptosol (14.7%), Nitosol (13.5%), Regosol (12.0%), Cambisol (11.1%),
Vertisol (10.5%), Fluvisol (7.9%), Luvisol (5.8%), and other soil types (24.5%).
However, the LSMS dataset didn’t consider other soil types with relatively higher
coverage of land in Ethiopia such as Nitosol, Regosol, and Fluvisol (FAO, 2016).
34
irrigation water, it is advisable to carry out measures of soil treatment and

improved soil management practices.
Table 13: Soil constraints and intensity of the problem to crop production
Intensity of constraint (%)
Soil constraints Very Other (non-soil
No/slight Moderate Severe
severe & water)
Nutrient availability 31.1 27.7 14.1 26.3 0.7
Nutrient retention
58.2 0.7 38.3 1.1 0.7
capacity
Rooting conditions 12.4 8.2 29.2 36.6 12.9
Oxygen availability 54.6 4.3 39.3 1.1 0.7
Excess salts 37.9 20.4 11.2 25.6 4.3
Toxicity 58.2 0.7 39.3 1.1 0.7
Workability 5.9 35.9 44.6 12.9 0.7
4.6. Agriculture
4.6.1. Livestock production

Cattle, shoats and camels are the major livestock holdings in Afar region.
There are about 1.5 million cattle and 0.11 million camels, owned by 0.16 million
people and 78,000 households in the region, respectively (Getachew Diriba,
2020). Households’ cattle and camel holdings are the largest in Afar region next
to cattle in South Omo of Southern region and camels in the Somali region. On
average, livestock holding per household in Afar region is 6.8 cattle, 15 goats,
nine sheep, and 2.2 camels, all of which are far higher than the national averages
(3.6 cattle, 3 goats, 2.3 sheep and 0.3 camels, (Table 14).
The region, in fact, is endowed with a livestock population adapted to a
harsh environment characterized by water shortage and pastoral and agro-pastoral
systems. The sustainable and productive use of these physical capitals requires
identification of suitable and relevant livelihood strategies enabling the
population and the region to cope with the multiple vulnerabilities (shocks,
trends, seasonality) prevalent in the region. This may include identification of
alternative livelihood assets, sedentary farming, irrigation farming, and off-farm
activities involving a significant proportion of the disadvantaged and
marginalized groups of the population.
35
Table 14: Livestock holding and diversity in Afar region

Livestock holding
Livestock type (counts per household)
Regional National
Cattle 6.82 3.57
Goats 15.35 2.99
Sheep 8.72 2.27
Camel 2.24 0.26
Chicken 0.8 4.04
Horses 0.00 0.10
Mules 0.01 0.03
Donkeys 0.47 0.40
Bee colony 0.02 0.32
4.6.2. Crop production

The physical appearance of land is an important natural factor
determining the relevance of agricultural production. Crop lands in Afar region,
to a great extent, are flat (91%), compared with the overall figure in Ethiopia
(56%) (Table 15). If this land resource endowment is maintained by an integrated
agricultural input supply and facilities (including water for irrigation), the region
could be a potential producer and supplier of agricultural products for agro-food
manufacturing industries in the country and for other regions and countries.
Currently, the proportion of households with access to irrigated crop lands is
about 50.5%. This needs to be scaled up and there would have to be policy
directions to bring idle land under irrigation as commercial farms with active
participation of the private sector.
Currently, regardless of such potential opportunities, access to the use of
improved agricultural inputs and availability of important facilities are minimal and
incomparable with the national average. Use of chemical fertilizer is below 14%,
48 percentage points lower than that of the national estimate (56%). The application
of inputs for crop production is very low, though due to recurrent crop pests, the
use of pesticides is relatively higher in the region (67%). Agriculture inputs can be
pre-planting or post-harvest; inputs are generally used to boost production and
productivity, to reduce and control crop damage before and after harvest.
36
Table 15: Farm plots and input use

Proportion (%)
Variables
Regional National
Field appearance (GPS)
Flat 91.0 56.2
Sloppy – Moderate 6.6 33.1
Sloppy – Steep 2.5 10.7
Agricultural inputs and facilities
Access to irrigation in the current season (%) 50.5 2.6
Use of chemical fertilizer (%) 13.6 55.8
Use of herbicide (%) 11.1 76.2
Use of pesticide (%) 66.8 17.6
There are multiple causes of crop damage, most of which are related to
the agro-climatic conditions of the region (Table 16). The level of crop damage
is about 73.7% of the entire potential output, far higher than the national estimate
(48.1%). About 88% of households in Afar region report that crops are damaged
by shortage of rainfall, a significantly higher figure than the national incidence of
61%. This underlines the importance of a search for alternative livelihood options
and strategies relevant to the context of the region. As mentioned above,
sedentary farming with irrigation and the introduction of drought-tolerant crop
varieties are the immediate options for the existing environment.
37
Table 16: Causes of crop damage

Proportion (%)
Causes of crop damage
Regional National
0000000 3.6
Too little rain 88.4 61.0
Insects - 5.2
Crop disease - 13.9
Weeds - 2.0
Hail - 3.5
Frost - 1.6
Floods - 0.2
Wild animals 11.6 2.0
Locust - 0.01
Birds - 0.3
Shortage of seeds - 0.1
Depletion of soil - 2.6
Security problems - 0.1
Bad seeds - 0.7
Others - 3.1
Source: Authors’ analysis (2020).
38
5. Livelihood Analysis
5.1. Livelihood Capitals
Respondents from different social groups and from all woredas and zones
were asked to evaluate the relative importance of the 38 selected livelihood assets,
capabilities and activities in the livelihoods of their respective woredas/zones. They
were allowed to rank each livelihood asset as 5 if importance of the asset is very
high, 4 if high, 3 if moderate, 2 if low, or 1 if the asset was unimportant/very low.
In order to identify the most relevant indicators, factor analysis of the
correlation matrix was employed. Accordingly, uniqueness of all the indicators
was below 0.5, suggesting that all the livelihood assets were relevant in the
analysis. The intensity of importance of the five livelihood capitals was evaluated
and reported as shown in Figure 5. Human capital was the first, followed by
natural and physical capital. Financial capital was the least important capital for
the livelihoods of the population in Afar region.
Figure 5: Relative importance of livelihood capitals in Afar region
Source: Authors’ computation (2020).
The role of the five livelihood capitals in the livelihoods of the population
was also evaluated across the five administrative zones (Table 17). On average,
all the livelihood capitals had moderate importance (index below 0.4-0.6). Except
physical capital, there was no significant difference in the importance of
livelihoods among zones of the region.
39
Table 17: Importance of livelihood capitals by administrative zones

Livelihood capitals
Population subgroup All
Natural Human Physical Social Financial
Awsi Rasu 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.48 0.45 0.53

Kilbet Rasu 0.50 0.57 0.46 0.49 0.41 0.49
Gabi Rasu 0.56 0.65 0.60 0.59 0.48 0.58
Fantena Rasu 0.52 0.56 0.50 0.54 0.34 0.49
Hari Rasu 0.44 0.47 0.49 0.46 0.37 0.45
Region 0.55 0.58 0.54 0.50 0.43 0.52
Pearson chi2 101.79 72.50 173.99*** 77.15 67.16 286.05
There are only nine livelihood assets and capabilities, which are
evaluated for their moderate and higher role and importance in contributing to
livelihoods of the population in the region (Figure 6). The rest (with index at or
below 0.6) have low or very low importance in forming the livelihoods of the
population, indicating that the region has a limited range of livelihoods to
establish sustainable and resilient livelihoods.
Figure 6: The top 15 livelihood assets/capabilities/activities in the Afar region
40
5.2. Asset Pentagons
The relative importance of livelihood capitals is depicted in Figure 7. The

importance of livelihood assets in the livelihoods of the population in the region
evaluated out of five ordinal scales (very high = 5, high= 4, moderate = 3, low 2,
very low = 1) suggest that the overall role of livelihood capitals in the region was
0.52, indicates that the overall importance of livelihood capitals is below
moderate (0.60). The maximum index is 0.58 for human capital followed by
natural and social capitals. The least important livelihood capital in the region
was financial capital signifying that financial income and related sources of
livelihoods are limited.
Figure 7: Pentagon of importance of livelihood capitals
5.3. Sustainability of Livelihoods
Livelihood may be defined as a means of securing the necessities of life.

Livelihoods are sustainable when they are resilient in the face of external shocks
and stresses; are not dependent upon external support (or if they are, this support
itself should be economically and institutionally sustainable); are able to maintain
41
the long-term productivity of natural resources; and do not undermine the

livelihoods of, or compromise the livelihood options open to others. Livelihoods
can be sustainable environmentally, economically, socially, and institutionally.
Environmental sustainability is achieved when the productivity of life-supporting
natural resources is conserved or enhanced for use by future generations.
Economic sustainability is achieved when a given level of expenditure can be
maintained over time. Social sustainability is achieved when social exclusion is
minimized and social equity maximized. Institutional sustainability is achieved
when prevailing structures and processes have the capacity to continue to perform
their functions over the long term.
Sustainability of assets and capabilities and the formation of resilient
livelihoods and durable socio-economic development varies across areas and
social groups. Evaluation of the livelihood assets and capabilities under the five
livelihood capitals by respondents enables us to identify the type (environmental,
economic, social, or institutional) and intensity of their sustainability.
Respondents expressed their agreement whether the specific livelihood asset,
capability, or activity was environmentally, economically, socially, or
institutionally sustainable. Agreement of respondents took a value of 1, and 0
otherwise. The specific types of sustainability indices were analyzed and
aggregated.
Figure 8: Pentagon of livelihood sustainability
42
The sustainability indices of the livelihood assets and capabilities in the four
dimensions of sustainability are reported in Figure 8 with a pentagon of asset
sustainability. Sustainability of livelihood capitals aggregated from all livelihood
assets, capabilities and activities do not significantly vary across administrative
zones. Almost all livelihood capitals are unsustainable (below 0.5 index), human
and financial capitals being the most unsustainable livelihood capitals in the region.
5.4. Vulnerability of Livelihoods
Vulnerability is the quality or state of being exposed to the possibility of

being attacked or harmed, either physically or emotionally. The vulnerability
context in a society frames the external environment in which people exist.
People’s livelihoods and the wider availability of livelihood assets are
fundamentally affected by critical trends, shocks and seasonality3, over which
they have limited or no control.
5.4.1. Sources of vulnerability

Assets, capabilities, and activities are vulnerable to different changes at
different levels. They are influenced by the vulnerability context of trends, shocks
and seasonality. To identify the type and frequency of vulnerability, respondents
were asked to rank their evaluation as 3 if the occurrence of the source of
vulnerability was often, 2 if rare/seldom, or 1 if never. About 27 potential sources
of vulnerability of livelihood assets were evaluated by respondents. The results
indicate that intensity of prevalence of all of the sources of livelihood
vulnerability were found to occur often (index above 0.67) as shown in Figure 9.
The top five important sources of vulnerability in the region were price/inflation,
drought, increasing temperature, scarcity of water, and human disease.
3
A trend is a general long-run direction in which something is developing or changing.
A shock is a sudden event or experience affecting current condition of a variable.
Seasonality is a pattern that repeats itself every 12 months.
43
Figure 9: Top 15 important source of vulnerability of livelihoods in Afar

region
5.4.2. Livelihood vulnerability index (LVI)

Assets, capabilities, and activities are vulnerable to changes arising from
the different sources of vulnerability discussed above. To identify the dimensions
of vulnerability of assets (whether trend, shock or seasonality), respondents were
asked to reflect their agreement. In addition, they were also allowed to rank their
evaluation of overall intensity of vulnerability as 4 if the vulnerability was high,
3 if moderate, 2 if low, or 1 if none.
The results generally show that all the five livelihood capitals were found
to be vulnerable or moderately vulnerable to the various trends, shocks and
seasonal changes (LVI > 0.5), physical capital being the first (LVI=0.61) (Table
18). In terms of intensity of vulnerability of livelihoods, there is no significant
difference among zones of the region. The overall vulnerability of livelihoods in
the region was about 0.56.
44
Table 18: Vulnerability of livelihood capitals by administrative zones

Population Livelihood Vulnerability Index (LVI) LVI
subgroup Natural Human Physical Social Financial (overall)
Awsi Rasu 0.51 0.54 0.58 0.45 0.47 0.51
Kilbet Rasu 0.60 0.64 0.61 0.51 0.55 0.58
Gabi Rasu 0.69 0.62 0.70 0.65 0.66 0.66
Fantena Rasu 0.56 0.59 0.64 0.51 0.53 0.57
Hari Rasu 0.62 0.66 0.62 0.51 0.56 0.59
Region 0.57 0.59 0.61 0.50 0.53 0.56
The relative vulnerability of livelihood capitals in the region is illustrated

in the left panel of Figure 10. The level of vulnerability of physical capitals is
relatively higher followed by natural and human capitals. The relative levels of
the top six vulnerable assets or capabilities are also illustrated in the right panel
of the figure. These are the three livestock elements (camels, cattle, and shoats),
transport, health services, and food.
Figure 10: Vulnerability of livelihood capitals and assets
45
5.4.3. Coping strategies

People adopt different coping or adaptation strategies in order to reduce
their vulnerability. The coping strategies enable them to create resilient
livelihoods. Ten coping strategies of livelihoods were identified and evaluated by
respondents for their intensity of adoption in the region. The coping strategies
were ranked as 4 if widely/highly adopted, 3 if moderately adopted, 2 if less
adopted, or 1 if no adoption.
The most widely adopted coping strategy for securing livelihoods in the
Afar region was a local conflict resolution mechanism (index=0.77=high)
followed by coping strategies with a moderate role including local institutions,
collective action and water harvesting (Figure 11). The importance of other
potential coping strategies which require due focus for reducing vulnerability of
livelihoods and securing livelihoods in the region is also low (index below 0.5).
We would note that because of the harsh agroecology in the region, the adoption
of irrigation farming, livelihood diversification, and suitable marketing strategies
for livestock and crop products could have particular importance to secure
livelihoods in the region.
Figure 11: Relative importance of coping strategies to asset vulnerability
46
5.5. Livelihood Strategies
The livelihoods approach seeks to promote choice, opportunity and

diversity. It is the overarching concept used to denote the range and combination
of activities and choices that people make/undertake in order to achieve their
livelihood goals, including productive activities, investment strategies,
reproductive choices, and so on. And people choose different combinations of
livelihood strategies. To secure livelihoods, individuals/households have to
combine different livelihood strategies. Respondents were therefore asked to rank
the adoption of nine potential livelihood strategies of relevance in the Afar region.
They were allowed to attach one of four ordinal values, 4 if high, 3 if moderate,
2 if low, or 1 if none, to each of the strategies.
The evaluation results indicate that pastoralism and goat production are
relatively the most widely adopted livelihood strategies in the region (Figure 12).
Camel and sheep production are the other preferred livelihood strategies. The
other means of livelihoods, including nonfarm activities, sedentary farming, trade
business and wage from employment, are rarely practiced. This emphasizes that
the region should give due attention to the creation of nonfarm employment
opportunities, villagization of pastoralists for sedentary and mixed farming, and
creation of business activities.
Figure 12: Intensity of adoption of livelihood strategies in Afar region
47
The adoption of different livelihood strategies to secure livelihoods

requires the identification of strategies which are competitive or complementary
to enhance the options. This interdependence should either be positive (if they are
complementary or can be operated together to enhance livelihoods) or negative
(if they are competitive for resources and cannot be adopted simultaneously)
(Table 19).
The results generally show that there are no wider options and strong
linkages of livelihood strategies in the region. The complementary strategies
include pastoralism with livestock production including camels (0.48), goat
(0.34), and sheep (weak). Nor has sedentary farming been significantly pursued
as a livelihood strategy for improving livelihoods in the region. It would seem
strongly advisable to widen livelihood options in the region by enhancing
nonfarm activities, trade business, and employment opportunities.
48
Table 19: Interdependence/correlation of livelihood strategies in Afar Region

Sedentary Camel Goat Sheep Nonfarm Trade
Livelihood Strategies Pastoralism Employment/wage
farming production production production activities business
Pastoralism 1.00
Sedentary farming -0.09 1.00
Camel production 0.48 0.10 1.00
Goat production 0.34 0.03 0.54 1.00
Sheep production 0.27 0.06 0.53 0.61 1.00
Nonfarm activities 0.05 0.15 0.13 0.04 0.16 1.00
Trade business -0.06 0.09 0.05 -0.27 -0.19 0.39 1.00
Employment/wage -0.21 0.12 -0.08 -0.12 -0.12 0.22 0.53 1.00
Remittance -0.17 0.18 0.00 -0.15 -0.04 0.19 0.23 0.23
Source: Authors’ computation (2020)
49
5.6. Livelihood Outcomes
Livelihood outcomes are the realization, the output of livelihood

strategies. The important idea associated with this component of the SLF is that
we, as outsiders, should investigate, observe and listen, rather than jump to quick
conclusions or make hasty judgements about the exact nature of the outcomes that
people pursue. In particular, we should not assume that people are entirely
dedicated to maximising their income. Rather, we should recognise and seek to
understand the richness of different potential livelihood goals. This, in turn, will
help us to understand people’s priorities, why they act as they do, and where
major constraints lie.
Some 17 livelihood outcome indicators were identified. Respondents
were asked to express their views of any positive impact of socio-economic
development interventions on these livelihood outcomes and the welfare of the
society in the last five years. They were also asked to rank the intensity of the
impact, from 5 very high, through 4 high, 3 moderate, 2 low, to 1 very low.
The results suggest dissatisfaction due to the negligible livelihood
impacts of socio-economic interventions undertaken in the last five years. A
majority of the respondents did not agree on the positive impact of interventions
related to housing, equity, and natural resource utilization; though the impact of
socio-economic development interventions, including good governance, road and
communication infrastructure, health, employment, peace and order, and
education, were perceived to have had positive livelihood impact in the region.
The top five indicators evaluated for their improved livelihood outcomes
were income, financial services, equity (distribution), public services, and
housing. However, apart from peace and order, socio-economic development
interventions were evaluated to have low level of livelihood outcomes on all
indicators (Figure 13). The results generally suggest that socio-economic
development interventions in the region largely had low and unsatisfactory
livelihood outcomes in many aspects.
50
Figure 13: Relative levels of perception on livelihood impacts of development

interventions
5.7. Performance of Sectors
The success of socio-economic development interventions in the region

may be expected to have different levels of achievements and multiple
constraints. Respondents were asked to evaluate the success/performance of these
socio-economic interventions in their respective areas over the last five years,
attaching 1 to 5 ordinal values for performance (5=very high, 4=high, 3=
moderate, 2=low, or 1=very low).
The results indicate that, except peace and security (which was the best
performance rating), all the sectors had low and/or very low performance (index
below 0.6) in the last five years (Figure 14). The top four sectors evaluated to
have moderate performance (index between 0.4 and 0.6, below peace and
security) were education, health, agricultural and pastoral development, and
women and children. Investment and development of natural resources had
exceptionally low performances in the region (index below 0.4).
51
Figure 14: Development performance of sectors and subsectors in Afar region
5.8. Constraints and Obstacles to Development
Multiple constraints and challenges can be expected to have affected the

success of socio-economic development interventions in the region. About 18
potential constraints/ challenges/ problems were identified and evaluated by
respondents. Respondents were allowed to rank the importance of each constraint
and obstacle using a five-point Likert scale (5 = very high, 4 = high, 3 = moderate,
2 = low, or 1 = very low or negligible). The major factors adversely affecting the
success of socio-economic interventions in the last five years are reported in
Figure 15. The findings show that the top six challenges and constraints adversely
affecting the success of socio-economic development intervention were
corruption (high), shortage of appropriate technologies, budget constraint,
shortage of capital, inflation, and drought.
Bad weather condition, absence of institutions, market/price risk, and
shortage of production inputs were also shown as important factors (index 0.6-
0.62). Shortage of output markets, conflicts over resources, human and animal
diseases, bad governance, political instability, and harmful cultural practices were
considered relatively less important constraints in affecting the success of
development interventions.
52
Figure 15: Challenges and constraints of development interventions in Afar

region
53
6. Poverty and Equity
6.1. Access to Basic Services and Facilities
Access to basic services and facilities is one of the major indicators of

non-monetary wellbeing. Access to roads, markets, administrative centers, water
and sanitation facilities, health and related services and facilities are indicators of
welfare (Table 20). The population in the Afar region have relatively lower access
to the major services and facilities. They are particularly and relatively poorer in
access to urban centers, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, and human and
veterinary health/medical services.
Table 20: Access to basic services and facilities

Proportion (%)
Variables/Services/Facilities
Regional National
Distance to the nearest major road (km) 22.8 12.7
Distance to urban centers (km) 134.5 32.8
Distance to the nearest market (km) 48.1 55.4
Distance to the capital of residence zone (km) 117.9 143.0
Access to source of safe drinking water (piped & protected) 90.16 69.00
Treatment of water for safety 10.77 16.74
Access to off-farm activity 23.95 14.4
Ownership of telephone services 90.23 74.20
Access to credit (in the last 12 months) 19.73 23.3
Access to washing water 5.00 8.46
Incidence of health problem (in the last 4 months) 22.51 11.40
Consultation for medical assistance (in the last 12 months) 49.92 25.20
Incidence of food shortage (in the past 7 days) 21.51 17.39
Improved toilet facilities 95.92 71.37
Unimproved and shared toilet facilities 57.20 24.80
Access to livestock vaccination 4.43 10.70
6.2. Nutrition and Child Growth
Anthropometry is the study of the measurement of the human body in terms

of the dimensions of bone, muscle, and adipose (fat) tissue. Anthropometric measures
54
are a series of quantitative measurements of the muscle, bone, and adipose tissue used
to assess the composition of the body which is the result of adequate and nutritious
food, particularly in identifying child growth standards4. The core elements of
anthropometry include height, weight, and body mass index (BMI).
Children’s access to food and the growth situation in the Afar Region was
analyzed and compared with the national average in Ethiopia (Table 21). The
average weight of children under five in Afar Region is relatively lower (14.1 kgs)
compared to the national average (14.9 kg), though they are nearly similar in their
height (97.7 cm). Though prevalence of stunting of children under five due to
access to nutrition is high in Ethiopia, incidence is relatively higher (38.1%) in Afar
Region compared to the national average (32.8%). A great proportion of children
under the age of five in the Afar Region are too short for their age. Similarly, the
percentage of children under five who are underweight in the Region is also higher
(39.2 %) compared to the national average (24.7%). Overall, a great proportion of
children under the age of five are too small for their age.
Table 21: Child health and anthropometric measures in Afar region

Value
Anthropometric measures
Regional National
Weight (kg) 14.07 14.91
Height (cm) 97.68 97.65
Age (years) 3.72 4.03
Weight-for-age 9.11 7.22
Height-for–age 62.81 47.61
Weight-for height 0.14 0.16
Body mass index (BMI) 0.28 0.32
Prevalence of stunting (%) 38.1 32.8
Prevalence of underweight (%) 39.2 24.7
4
Stunting is low height for age, reflecting a past episode or episodes of sustained
undernutrition. Underweight is low weight for their age in children, and a body mass
index of less than 18.5 in adults, reflecting a condition resulting from inadequate food
intake, past episodes of undernutrition or poor health conditions.
55
6.3. Housing
Housing is one of the major indicators of welfare serving as a measure of

the living standards of individuals and societies in a country. Although Ethiopia
is very poor in housing and related facilities, the Afar region is particularly poor
in terms of the quality of housing. About 73% of the population live in very poor
housing (Table 22).
Table 22: Housing ownership status

Proportion (%)
Ownership status
Regional National
Private 73.29 83.42
Free 20.33 4.27
Rented 6.37 11.77
Other - 0.53
The quality of housing in this study is characterized by the materials from

which the walls, floors, and roofs are made. The number of rooms available in a
house is another indicator used to assess the likelihood of access of households
to adequate housing conditions.
As reported in Table 23 below, the greatest proportion of the population
in the Afar region live in houses made of poor materials including wood and mud
(48.1%), or wood and thatch (18.5%), and these proportions are far above the
national average of poor housing quality. Only small proportions of the
population live in houses made of stone or cement and blocks.
56
Table 23: Materials from which walls of the main dwelling is made
Proportion (%)
Make of house wall
Regional National
Wood and mud 48.14 77.62
Wood and thatch 18.49 4.54
Wood only 1.29 2.48
Stone only 0.13 0.54
Stone and mud - 7.83
Stone and cement 3.67 1.97
Blocks, plastered with cement 1.57 2.58
Blocks, unplastered - 0.15
Bricks - 0.10
Mud bricks (traditional) - 0.31
Steel 1.04 0.19
Cargo container 0.29 0.00
Chip wood - 0.01
Corrugated iron sheet 3.81 0.29
Asbestos - 0.01
Reed or bamboo - 0.26
Others 21.59 1.13
Floors of houses in Ethiopia are generally of very poor materials such as

mud and/or dung (Table 24). Similarly, floors of the great majority of houses
(78.3%) in the Afar region are of poor materials, though this is not significantly
different from the national housing situation (75.2%). Only just over 20% of the
regional population live in floors of houses made of quality materials like cement.
Table 24: Materials from which floors of houses are made
Proportion (%)
Make of house floor
Regional National
Mud / dung 78.32 75.18
Reed / bamboo - 1.27
Wood planks - 0.61
Parquet of polished wood - 0.15
Cement screed 21.67 18.51
Plastic tiles - 0.60
Cement tiles - 1.34
Brick Tiles - 0.69
Ceramic / marble tiles - 1.48
Others - 0.17
57
Another indicator of housing quality is the materials from which the roofs
of houses are made (Table 25). About 46% of the regional population live in
houses with corrugated iron sheets, far below the national average of 64.8%. The
great majority live under roofs made of wood and mud (18.5%), plastic canvas
(9.3%), thatch (7.5%), and other poor materials (18.9%).
Table 25: Materials from which roof of the house is made
Proportion (%)
Make of house roof
Regional National
Corrugated iron sheet 45.75 64.78
Concrete / Cement - 1.12
Thatch 7.53 28.15
Wood and mud 18.50 2.92
Reed / bamboo - 1.25
Plastic canvas 9.30 1.09
Asbestos - 0.11
Bricks - 0.03
Others 18.92 0.56
The number of rooms in a house, excluding toilet and kitchen, is an

indicator of housing poverty and this is shown in Table 26. On average, about
66.6% of the entire regional population live in a single room, regardless of the
relatively higher average household size, 6.3 in Afar and 5.9 elsewhere across the
country. Nationally, the population living in a single room amounts to some 27%
compared to the situation in the region (66%). About 33.1% of the regional
population live in houses with two rooms. Housing poverty in Afar region is
serious. It requires particular focus and policy interventions designed to improve
housing and related living conditions to enable the population to tolerate the harsh
climate and weather conditions of the region.
Table 26: Number of rooms owned (excluding toilet and kitchen)
Proportion (%)
Number of rooms
Regional National
1 66.64 26.64
2 33.06 33.34
3 1.10 25.65
4 0 9.13
5 1.20 2.61
6+ rooms - 2.63
58
6.4. Sources of Energy
Sources of energy for lighting and cooking is an important welfare

indicator. About 13 sources of energy were identified and for analysis (Table 27).
The Afar region is relatively well off in terms of energy sources for lighting with
about 90% of the population having access to standard sources of lighting
including electric meter, solar, or generator. Similarly, access to standard sources
of energy for cooking is relatively higher (about 89%) compared to the national
access rate (78%).
Table 27: Main source of light and cooking fuel

Light (%) Cooking fuel (%)
Energy source
Regional National Regional National
Electricity meter - private 32.04 23.67 41.65 56.45
Electricity meter - shared 56.44 18.67 17.40 14.95
Electricity from generator - 0.82 29.81 6.62
Solar energy 2.05 11.33 - 5.98
Bio gas - 0.02 - 4.80
Electrical battery 0 0.77 - 0.13
Lantern - 0.04 - 0.13
Light from dry cell with switch 0.64 18.80 - 0.18
Kerosene light lamp (imported) - 1.53 11.14 9.53
Kerosene lamp (local kuraz) 8.06 21.76 - 0.02
Candle/wax - 0.12 - 0.00
Fire wood 0.77 1.39 - 0.50
Others 1.07 0 0.70
6.5. Economic Wellbeing
Economic welfare or monetary poverty in this study is measured by

annual real consumption expenditure per capita where ETB 14758 (or $1.9 a day)
is considered as the international or absolute poverty rate.
59
6.5.1. Patterns of poverty

The distribution of consumption expenditure shows that greatest majority
of the population in the Afar region is above the poverty line (left of the vertical
poverty line) in all areas of residence as indicted by the vertical line (at z=14758)
(Figure 16). However, poverty is relatively more prevalent in semi-urban areas of
the region. This is different from the poverty situation across the country where
semi-urban areas are usually expected to be relatively better-off in terms of
poverty compared to their rural counterparts. It offers clear evidence suggesting
the need to design policy interventions to reduce poverty in small towns of the
region where poverty is worse than in rural areas.
Figure 16: Patterns of poverty in the Afar region
The distribution of poverty incidence was also plotted by the two

administrative zones representing the region in the LSMS data (Figure 17).
Poverty incidence in Awsi Rasu of the Afar region is far higher than the situation
in Gabi Rasu, and there is a substantial difference in poverty situation across the
different zones of the region. This emphasizes the need to reduce spatial welfare
differentials using relevant policy interventions to ensure equitable growth and
redistribution in the region.
60
Figure 17: Zonal distribution of poverty in the Afar region
Source: Authors’ computation (2020)
6.5.2. Prevalence and depth of poverty

The prevalence and depth of poverty in Afar region is measured and
compared to the national average in Table 28, and the results clearly indicate that
both the incidence and depth of monetary poverty are far lower in Afar region
(5.4% and 1.5% respectively, compared to the national averages (22.1% and 6%).
The spatial distribution of poverty by place of residence is also nearly similar
across the region. This compares to the situation across the country where rural
poverty is twofold higher than in urban areas.
Table 28: Levels and distribution of poverty by place of residence

Poverty incidence Poverty gap
Place of residence
Rural 0.060 0.241 0.018 0.064
Semi-urban 0.053 0.155 0.009 0.052
Urban 0.007 0.127 0.003 0.034
All 0.054 0.221 0.015 0.060
6.5.3. Elasticity of poverty

Growth elasticity of poverty (GEP) in this case measures the percentage
reduction in poverty rates associated with a percentage change in mean real
income or expenditure. Elasticity of total poverty with respect to average
61
expenditure growth in the Afar region is high (Table 29). A unit percentage
growth in real consumption expenditure reduces poverty incidence by 4.6% and
10.2% in rural and semi-urban areas of the region, respectively. This level of
elasticity is relatively very high compared to the poverty elasticity in Ethiopia
(2.45 and 1.5%). The total regional growth elasticity of poverty is higher (-5.1%)
compared to the national average (-2.2%). The same pattern of depth of poverty
is observed in the region. This level of poverty elasticity suggests a positive
responsiveness to potential poverty reduction interventions in the region.
Elasticity of poverty with respect to consumption inequality is also
relatively very high compared to the national average. A unit percentage growth in
inequality would increase total incidence of poverty by about 5.4% and 1.9%,
respectively, in rural and urban areas of the region. The elasticity of poverty due to
inequality is exceptionally low (1.9%) in urban areas of the region, but more elastic
with reference to inequality (5.9%) compared to the national average (4.7%).
Table 29: Elasticity of total poverty in Afar region

Poverty incidence Poverty gap
Place of residence
Growth elasticity of poverty
Rural -4.57 -2.39 -2.74 -2.95
Semi-urban -10.20 -1.48 -2.86 -1.73
Urban -0.42 -1.13 -0.23 -1.56
All -5.11 -2.17 -2.52 -2.70
Poverty elasticity with respect to inequality
Rural 5.43 2.31 5.84 5.14
Semi-urban 6.96 1.76 3.66 4.06
Urban 1.92 1.52 1.79 3.47
All 5.94 2.18 5.10 4.72
6.6. Multidimensional Deprivation
The incidence of multidimensional deprivation for the 10 indicators of

poverty is reported in Figure 18, indicating significantly different incidence of
deprivation. Living conditions of the population related to access to standard
sources of cooking fuel (98.5%) and clean floors of housing (96.1%) show the
highest levels of deprivation, while deprivation in education (proxied by child
62
school attendance and years of schooling) and health (captured by health care and
food security) were relatively lower.
Figure 18: Relative levels of deprivation rate for the 10 poverty indicators
The mean index of deprivation for the 10 indicators is also shown by

place of residence in Table 30.
Table 30: Mean index of deprivation by place of residence in Afar region

Mean index of deprivation
Indicators
Rural Urban Both
Education 0.589 0.494 0.558
Years of schooling 0.451 0.336 0.420
Child school attendance 0.302 0.503 0.368
Health 0.471 0.466 0.470
Health care 0.696 0.512 0.646
Food security 0.247 0.419 0.294
Consumption expenditure 0.060 0.037 0.054
Living condition 0.701 0.358 0.607
Electricity 0.722 0.000 0.524
Telephone 0.272 0.014 0.201
Water 0.527 0.000 0.382
Flooring 0.985 0.859 0.950
Cooking fuel 1.000 0.916 0.977
Incidence of MD deprivation 0.966 0.563 0.834
Intensity of deprivation (weighted) 0.458 0.331 0.416
Source: Author’s computation (2020).
63
6.6.1. Education
Years of schooling: If there was a household member who has not
completed six years of schooling, the household was considered poor or deprived.
This measure indicated that the mean index of deprivation in years of schooling
was 42%. As expected, deprivation in years of schooling decreased with
increasing urbanization from 58.9% in rural areas to 49.4% in urban areas.
Child school attendance: The second indicator of education poverty was
school attendance. Any school-aged child is considered deprived if s/he is not
currently attending school up to grade eight. The mean index of deprivation in
school attendance of school-aged children was about 36.8%, suggesting that the
great majority of children were not attending school. Deprivation in school
attendance unexpectedly increased with increasing urbanization from 30.2% in
rural areas to 50.5% in urban centers.
6.6.2. Health
Health care: If individuals in the households did not consult any medial
practitioner in the last 12 months, they were considered deprived. The mean index
of deprivation in health care of the population was 64.6%, suggesting that
majority of the population did not consult any medical practitioner within a year.
This is attributable to different factors including absence or scarcity of health
centers and practitioners and/or the inability of households to access the health
services due to financial and other constraints.
Food security: Food insecurity also leads to undernourishment and
provides an indicator of health poverty. Households were considered deprived or
food insecure if they faced difficulty in satisfying food needs over the previous
12 months. Shortage of food for an extended period is an indicator of food
insecurity in terms of both quantity (energy requirements) and quality (nutrition)
which can adversely affect human health. The mean index of deprivation in food
was 29.4% where a significant proportion of the population had faced difficulty
in satisfying their food needs, suggesting that health was adversely affected by
food shortage and poor nutrition. Food insecurity significantly increased with
increasing urbanization from rural (24.7%) to urban centers (41.9%). Unlike rural
areas, the urban centers in Afar region are characterize by food shortages.
6.6.3. Expenditure
64
Real consumption expenditure per capita was the indicator of income

poverty used in this study. Individuals living below the absolute poverty line,
($1.90 or ETB 40.43 per day at an exchange rate of 21.28 in December 2015),
were considered consumption poor. Accordingly, the absolute poverty line,
determined by using the annual real consumption expenditure per capita, was
ETB 14758. Individuals falling below this absolute poverty line were 5.4%
(considered income poor).
6.6.4. Living condition

Electricity: Individuals with no access to lighting from standard sources
(electricity from electric meter, electric meter from generator, solar energy,
biogas, electric battery, lantern, dry cell) were considered poor in electricity.
About 52.4% of the population lacked electric light from standard sources, the
majority of which were rural residents (72.2%). There was no significant
deprivation in electricity among the urban population of the region.
Telephone: A second indicator of living condition or service poverty is
ownership of private telephone services, and individuals were considered poor if
they had no private access to any type of telephone services. About 20.1% of the
regional population had no private telephone services of which 27.2% was the
deprivation rate among rural residents.
Water: Access to sources of safe drinking water is another important
indicator of poverty of living condition. About 38.2% of the entire population and
over half of the rural population (52.7%) were deprived of safe drinking water.
There was no significant deprivation of safe drinking water among the urban
population.
Flooring: Individuals were considered deprived if the household was
living in a house with dirt floor or floor made of sand or dung. The proportion of
the population living in a house with dirt floor was very high (95.0%). The
majority of population in the region were house poor, living in houses with
unclean floors, and this included about 98.5% of the rural population.
Cooking fuel: Individuals in households were considered deprived if the
households’ source of cooking fuel was dung, wood or charcoal. About 97.7% of
the total population were poor in terms of their sources of cooking fuel, and the
entire rural population (100%) and 91.6% of the urban population used poor
sources of cooking fuel.
65
6.6.5. Multidimensional deprivation

Incidence of deprivation: Generally, the incidence of multidimensional
derivation in the region was 83.4%, with rural residents more highly deprived
(96.6%) compared to their urban counterparts (56.3%).
Intensity of deprivation: The density curves of the intensity of
multidimensional deprivation for the 10 indicators between rural, small towns and
large towns are plotted in Figure 19. The density curves indicate the proportion
of poor and non-poor population by areas of residence. A greater proportion of
the rural population was relatively more multidimensionally deprived, falling
above the dimensional poverty cut-off point (at k = 0.333), indicating that
intensity of multidimensional deprivation decreases with increasing urbanization.
Figure 19: Density curves of intensity of multidimensional deprivation
6.7. Regional Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI)
The MPI as a measure of welfare reflects both the incidence of poverty

and the intensity of poverty (the percentage of deprivations suffered by each
person or household on average). It reflects the proportion of weighted
66
deprivations that the poor experience in a society out of all the total potential
deprivations that the society could experience, and it represents the share of the
population that is multidimensionally poor adjusted by the intensity of the
deprivation suffered.
The Alkire-Foster (AF) (2011) methodology of multidimensional
poverty analysis was employed to estimate these measures. The spatial
distributions of these measures are shown in Table 31. The results indicate that
96% of the population in the Afar region was multidimensionally deprived of the
10 weighted indicators. Regardless of the different indicators and dimensions
used in this study, the incidence of multidimensional poverty is higher than
national average (83.1%) (Degye Goshu, 2020). But prevalence of
multidimensional poverty increases with increasing urban growth. Rural areas
relatively contributed 72% to the incidence of multidimensional poverty in the
region.
The MPI (55%) is the product of the two factors, headcount ratio (H) and
intensity. Because they were, on average, deprived in 96% of the weighted
indicators, the population in the region were deprived in 55% of the total potential
deprivations they could experience overall. Like the incidence of
multidimensional deprivation, the MPI increased with the increasing level of
urban growth, rising from 52% in rural areas to 63% in urban areas.
Table 31: Spatial distribution of poverty in Afar region

Multi-dimensional poverty measures Rural Urban Regional
MPI
Population share 0.74 0.27 1.00
Headcount ratio (H0) 0.94 0.99 0.96
Adjusted headcount (MPI=M0) 0.52 0.63 0.55
Relative contribution to incidence (H0) 0.72 0.28 1.00
Relative contribution to adjusted headcount (M0) 0.69 0.31 1.00
Non-monetary MPI
Headcount ratio (H0) 0.75 0.98 0.819
Adjusted headcount (MPI=M0) 0.35 0.52 0.39
Relative contribution to incidence (H0) 0.67 0.33 1.00
Relative contribution to adjusted headcount (M0) 0.64 0.36 1.00
Monetary poverty
Incidence of poverty (α=0) 0.060 0.037 0.054
Poverty gap index (α=1) 0.018 0.007 0.015
67
Squared poverty gap index (α=2) 0.008 0.003 0.006

The incidence of non-monetary poverty estimated with three non-
monetary dimensions of wellbeing (education, health and living conditions) is
81.9%, 14 percentage points lower than the overall MPI (98%). Similarly, the
non-monetary MPI was 55%, which is 16% lower than the overall MPI. Non-
monetary MPI was higher in urban areas compared to the rural counterparts,
indicating that non-monetary poverty is increasing with urban growth. Incidence
of monetary poverty, estimated by using the Foster-Greer-Thorbecke (FGT)
method, was 5.4%, far lower than the other two multidimensional measures. The
results generally suggest that income poverty in the Afar region was significantly
and relatively lower than the other forms of poverty.
In order to estimate the relative and absolute contributions of the 10
indicators and the four (aggregated) dimensions of multi-dimensional poverty,
the AF (2011) total MPIs (H0 and M0) were decomposed to their constituent parts
(Table 32). The contribution of the four dimensions to the total MPI, in order of
importance, are income, health, education and living condition with significant
and comparable contributions.
Table 32: Decomposition results of the MPIs by indicators/ dimensions using

the Shapley approach
Contribution to H0 Contribution to MPI
Dimensions/Indicators Absolute Relative Absolute Relative
contribution contribution contribution contribution
Education 0.143 0.148 0.090 0.162
Years of schooling 0.088 0.092| 0.056 0.101
Child school attendance 0.054 0.056 0.034 0.061
Health 0.190 0.198 0.122 0.221
Health care 0.060 0.062 0.040 0.073
Food security 0.130 0.136 0.082 0.148
Income 0.502 0.524 0.256 0.462
Consumption expenditure 0.502 0.524 0.256 0.462
Living condition 0.125 0.130 0.086 0.155
Electricity 0.034 0.035 0.022 0.040
Telephone 0.046 0.048 0.033 0.059
Water 0.041 0.043 0.028 0.050
Flooring 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.004
68
Cooking fuel 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002

Regional 0.957 1.000 0.554 1.000
Education: Education contributed 14.3% and 14.8% to the total head
count ratio in absolute and relative terms, respectively. This was the third largest
contribution (next to health) to the incidence of total MPI. Similarly, the relative
contribution of education to the total MPI (M0) was 16.2%. Compared to child
school attendance, years of schooling contributed more to education poverty.
Health: Health ranked second in its contribution to total MPI in both
absolute and relative terms. It contributed 19.8% to the total multidimensional
deprivation (H0). Similarly, the relative contribution of health to the total MPI
(M0) was 22.1%. Compared to health care, food security contributed more to
health poverty.
Expenditure: As expected, over half of the total multidimensional
poverty in the Afar region is attributable to consumption poverty. It provides
52.4% and 46.2% relative contributions to MP incidence and the MPI,
respectively.
Living condition: Living condition of the population, as captured by
access to major utilities and facilities, makes a comparable contribution to the
other dimensions of wellbeing. In relative terms, it contributes 13% to incidence
of multidimensional deprivation and 15.5% to MPI. Access to telephone and safe
drinking water make relatively larger contributions to the total MPI; however,
cooking fuel and flooring have relatively lower contributions to poverty.
6.8. Multi-dimensional Inequality
The multidimensional inequality index (MII) was computed by using the

Araar MII (Araar, 2009) with uniform dimensional weights of 25% for each
dimension of inequality (Table 33). To apply this method of analysis, the 10
weighted indicators were aggregated to the four dimensions. The results indicate
that the relative MII in Afar region was 0.282 and it did not significantly vary by
areas of residence (rural-urban). The non-monetary MII estimated by excluding
the income dimension of wellbeing was 0.152, significantly lower than the overall
MII (0.282). On the other hand, the monetary inequality was 0.248, with little
variation by place of residence.
69
The total MII, decomposed to the welfare dimensions, indicate that the
primary sources of inequality in Afar region were identified to be real
consumption expenditure with 60.2% contribution to the overall regional MII.
The other three dimensions (education, health and living condition) had nearly
comparable contributions to the total MII, with 14.8%, 14.7% and 10.3%
contributions, respectively. As expected, the greatest proportion of MII was
attributable to consumption inequality. The population of the region are more
likely to face equity problems mainly arising from the difference in their
consumption expenditure.
The highest source of non-monetary inequality in the region was
education (37.8%) followed by health (36.9%) and living condition (25.4%).
Non-monetary inequality due to education and health generally decreased with
increasing level of urbanization. However, the contribution of living condition to
non-monetary MII increased with increasing urbanization, suggesting that
urbanization in the region was not accompanied by improved basic urban
facilities and services.
Table 33: Spatial distribution of inequality among the poor and relative
contribution of dimensions (%)
Inequality Living
Inequality measures Education Health Income
index condition
MII (λ=0.5) 0.282 14.83 14.69 60.16 10.32
Rural 0.268 12.27 13.81 65.87 8.06
Urban 0.269 20.37 18.61 55.52 5.50
Non-monetary MII (λ=0.5) 0.152 37.79 36.86 - 25.35
Rural 0.126 37.52 39.62 - 22.86
Urban 0.176 44.83 43.45 - 11.72
Monetary inequality (Gini) 0.248 - - - -
Rural 0.249 - - - -
Urban 0.240 - - - -
70
7. Development Trends and Gaps
This section focuses on the performances, trends, and gaps of different

sectors and subsectors in the Afar National Regional State. The major sectors
considered include education, health, agriculture and pastoral development, trade
and industry, basic utilities, budget, expenditure and revenue.
7.1. Agricultural and Pastoral Development
The Afar National Regional State is basically a pastoral and agro-pastoral

region, known for its livestock production. The region holds about 63.5% of the
camel population, 2.91% of the cattle, 13.6% of sheep, 25.6% of goats, and 4.6%
of donkeys in Ethiopia in 2019 (CSA, 2019b).
As a result, livestock development demands the provision of inputs
required for enhancing productivity from this sector. Among these, availability of
veterinary clinics and animal health posts have a significant role. Indeed, the region
is expected to expand animal health facilities together with necessary utilities
required for effective functioning of these physical facilities. In terms of number
and distribution of veterinary clinics and health posts, Chifra woreda has the most,
followed by Dalol, Dubti, Amibara, Dalifag, and Uwa woredas in that order.
Argoba woreda has the least in terms of number, followed by Bidu woreda (Figure
20). The region needs to work on equitable distribution of animal health related
facilities among its woredas based on available livestock resources, proximity to
markets, and so on. Focus group discussion participants reported that many of the
available veterinary clinics and animal health posts were not providing the required
functions due to the absence of the necessary utilities, such as electricity, water, and
medical supplies. There is an urgent need to provide the necessary utilities (water,
electricity, medical supplies) to run the clinics and health posts.
When the figures are aggregated at zonal level, Awsi Rasu has the most
number of veterinary clinics and animal health posts (88) followed by Kilbet Rasu
and Hari Rasu in that order (Figure 20). Given the fact that the region in general
is known for its livestock population, the available number of veterinary clinics
and animal health posts seems inadequate.
71
Figure 20: Distribution of veterinary clinics and animal health posts by

Woreda, 2019
Source: Authors’ computation from regional data (2020).
Figure 21: Distribution of veterinary clinics and animal health posts by Zone,
2019
100
88
90
80
70 63
60 55
48 48
50
40
30
20
10
0
Awsi Rasu Kilbet Rasu Gabi Rasu Fantena Rasu Hari Rasu
72
Though the region is known for its livestock production, crop production
is also practiced in some parts of the region. In terms of area allocated for crop
production, Aba’ala woreda took the lead followed by Aysaita, Afambo, and
Argoba woredas (Figure 22).
Figure 22: Area allocated for crop production (ha) by woreda, 2019
Zonal comparisons indicate that crop production is more common in

Awsi Rasu as the zone leads in terms of land allocated to crop production
(20135ha), total crop production (769740 thousand quintals), and number of
agrochemical users (161,080 households) (Table 34) followed by Kilbet Rasu,
Gabi Rasu, Hari Rasu and Fantena Rasu in that order.
Table 34: Zonal comparison of activities related to crop production

and input use, 2018/19
S/N Particulars Awsi Rasu Kilbet Rasu Gabi Rasu Fantena Rasu Hari Rasu
Area under crop
1 20135 13929 13579 1505.5 2671
production (ha)
2 Total production (1000 Qt) 769740 396395 471340 22582.5 59150
Users of agrochemicals
3 161080 111432 108632 12044 21368
(number of households)
73
In order to provide pastoralists, agro-pastoralists, and farmers with technical

support, trained professionals are deployed throughout the country. Community
Animal Health Workers (CAHWS) are responsible for taking care of animal
health-related issues while Development Agents (DAs) are there to support
production and management aspects of crops, livestock, and natural resources. In
line with this, CAHWS and DAs are placed in different kebeles and woredas of
the Afar region. Dubti woreda has the largest number of DAs followed by
Amibara woreda, while Chifra took the lead in terms of CAHWS followed by
Amibara and Aba’ala woredas (Figure 23). Amibara woreda is in a better position
than others in terms of both CAHWS and DA numbers. Woredas like Aba’ala
which are reported to have a larger area of land allocated to crops, have a smaller
number of development agents. This is an indication that some revision of the
placement of CAHWS and DAs based on the reality of livestock and crop
coverage is required.
Figure 23: Distribution of CAHWS and Das by Woreda, 2019
The region has given due attention to expanding irrigation schemes as it

has a huge potential for irrigated agriculture. Indeed, an increasing trend in terms
of the number of irrigation schemes observed, which is very encouraging (Figure
24). The number of farmer/pastoralist training centers (FTCs) has also been
74
increasing over the last decade in the region. However, the number of veterinary
clinics has remained almost stagnant. Given the fact that the region is known for
its livestock resources, it is advisable to focus on the expansion of veterinary
clinics for the region as a matter of urgency.
Figure 24: Trend of numbers of FTCs, Veterinary Clinics, and irrigation

schemes
7.2. Education Sector Development
Education is instrumental in bringing economic growth and development.

Education in Ethiopia is at the center of the government’s policies as the country
is striving to achieve its target of becoming a low middle-income country and that
of the sustainable development goals by 2030. In connection to this, for the last
20 years, expansion of education in Ethiopia played significant role in terms of
improving the livelihoods of the people. The following sections present
educational careers and achievements in Afar region. The discussion starts from
the sector’s education pillars; namely, schools, students, and teachers.
Comparisons between students’ and teachers’ sex and educational qualification,
and differences among the different weredas and zones have been explored
(Figure 25).
75
Figure 25: Distribution of primary schools by woreda, 2018/2019

60
52
50
48
50 47
44 43
40
40 35 36 3535
37
33 34 3434
30 31
28 28 29 28 29
30 26 26 25
23 24 24
22
19 19 18
20
10 1111 10 11
10
0
0
Afambo
Kore
Mille
Dalifagie
Awash city
Berahle
Koneba
Yallo
Asaita
Megalie
Amibara
Dewe
Dubti city
Gawane
Gelealo
Hadele'ela
Ada'ar
Aba'ala
Ewa
Aba'ala city
The distribution of primary schools in each woreda in Afar region was

assessed. The highest number of primary schools, 52, was found in Elidar woreda.
Chifra, Amibara, and Berehale woredas also have 50, 48 and 47 primary schools,
respectively. Gereni and Budi have 10 primary schools. The result shows
education performance is in a good position in terms of the distribution of primary
schools in the region though more focus is still required to assure equity among
the woredas. Indeed, the education sector can be considered one of the most
successful achievements in the last 20 years, with the exception of the quality
problem which is not unique to Afar region. Responses from the focus group
discussions in Hari Rasu| indicated that education was the most important sector
contributing to better performances in the region.
Figure 26 shows students’ enrolment in primary schools in the different
woredas. Teru and Adear woredas have the highest student enrollment, both with
more than 5000 students. Elidar and Mille have the second highest student
enrollment with 4700 and 4300 students, respectively. Afambo, Dulecha, Fentale,
Abala, Afdera woredas, however, have the lowest enrollments with less than 2000
students.
76
Figure 26: Distribution of student enrollment in primary schools by woreda,

2018/2019
Even though the education sector has showed improvement in general,

the share of female students’ enrolment in primary schools in Ethiopia remains
low, due to complex interplay of socio-cultural, economic and structural factors.
This is also the case in the Afar region. Figure 27 shows the proportion of female
students’ enrolment in the region at woreda level in the year 2018/19. Female
students’ enrolment is found to be about 50% or more in Ewa, Telalak, Awash
City Administration, and Dulecha woredas, more or less the same as the national
level. The figures are smaller for Teru and Erebti woredas where the proportion
of female students is closer to 30%. This indicates a lot to be done to encourage
households to send their daughters to school. Except for these two woredas, all of
the woredas have more than 40% of female student engagement in primary
schools.
77
Figure 27: Proportion of female students in primary schools by woreda,

2018/2019
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
Dawe
Magale
Teru
Dubti
Elida'ar
Dalifage
Hadele'ala
Samurobi
Awra
Amibara
Afdera
Bidu
Gulina
Mille
semera Logiya
Aba'ala
Dalol
Erebti
Telalak
Afambo
Kuri
Argoba
Ewa
Yallo
Ada'ar
Chifra
Gawane
Barahle
Dulecha
Fentale
Asaita
All woredas
Awash City Adm
Konaba
Bure-mudaitu
Figure 28 shows population to primary school ratios for the woredas in

Afar region. The shortage of primary schools is most prevalent in Bidu woreda
where one primary school serves about 8000 people. Dulecha, Awash Fentale,
Ab’ala, Afdera, Magale, Afambo, and Argoba woredas are relatively well placed
in terms of the population to primary school ratio.
Figure 28: Population to primary school ratio by woreda, 2018/2019

9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Dalol
Asaita
Elidar
Kore
Aba'ala
Erebti
Haruka
Afdera
Teru
Gereni
Koneba
Bidu
Dulecha
Semurobit
Dalifagie
Dubti
Amibara
Mille
Chifra
Ada'ar
Berehale
Megalie
Aba'ala city
Awra
Hadele'ela
Dubti city
Awash-Fentale
Awash city
Afambo
Gelealo
Golina
Ewa
Telalak
Asaita city
Yallo
Gewane
Dewe
Argoba special woreda
Semera-Logia city
78
Figure 29 shows the proportion of female students enrolled in high

school, (grades 9-12) in different woredas of the region. The highest proportions
of female students were observed in Telalak and Argoba woredas (about 50%),
while less than 10% female students were registered in Afdera, Budi, and Erebti
woredas where a lot will have to be done to improve the proportion of female
students. The majority of the woredas enrolled between 30% and 50% female
students in grades 9-12 in 2018/19.
Figure 29: Proportion of female students in grades 9-12 by woreda, 2018/19

60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
Dawe
Samurobi
Teru
Magale
Afdera
Bidu
Dalifage
Hadele'ala
Awra
Dubti
Elida'ar
semera Logiya
Amibara
Aba'ala
Gulina
Dalol
Erebti
Telalak
Yallo
Afambo
Kuri
Mille
Ewa
Argoba
Ada'ar
Chifra
Gawane
Barahle
Dulecha
Fentale
Asaita
All woredas
Awash City Adm
Konaba
Bure-mudaitu
Zonal level comparison of some variables at primary school are indicated

in Table 35 below. In terms of the proportion of female students in primary
schools, all the five zones are more or less similar, though Gabi Rasu has
relatively more and Kilbet Rasu relatively less, more than 47% or more than 42%
of female students, respectively. The figures are not bad though improvements
are still required to have the same proportion of male and female students at
primary school levels. In grades 9-12, Gabi Rasu has a relatively higher
proportion of female students (45.2%) followed by Awsi Rasu (40.2%). Kilbet
Rasu had the smallest proportion (26%) of female students in grades 9-12 in
2018/19. Improvements in female student enrollment is necessary in grades 9-12
in all zones. In terms of the population to primary school ratio, one primary school
79
serves 3278 people in Fantena Rasu followed by 3215 people in Awsi Rasu.
Kilbet Rasu is in a relatively better position with one school serving 2168 people.
Kilbet Rasu also had a greater number of total student enrollment (49603
students) in primary schools followed by Awsi Rasu (44597 students) in 2018/19.
Table 35: Zonal comparison of educational variables at primary school

levels, 2018/19
Particulars Awsi Kilbet Gabi Fantena Hari
S/N
Rasu Rasu Rasu Rasu Rasu
Proportion of female
1 students in primary schools 44.6 42.4 47.4 44.8 46.7
(%)
Proportion of female
2 40.2 26.0 45.2 31.0 33.4
students in grades 9-12 (%)
Population to primary
3 3215 2168 2305 3278 2772
school ratio
Student enrollment in
4 primary schools (number of 44597 49603 25455 13850 16128
students)
Ethiopia has given emphasis to the expansion of private schools as a

means to shift costs to users. As a result, the current dual system of education has
grown significantly in the country though the number of private schools in the
Afar region remains small. The data presented on the line graph (Figure 30) shows
the number of private and public primary schools in the region. This shows the
number of private primary schools set up since 2010 is only 15 and despite the
country’s effort to increase the private educational sector, no significant progress
has been noticed for 8 years in the Afar region. It has, however, been able to
maintain and improve the growth of public schools. The number of public
primary schools, for example, has increased by about 71% since 2010. In 2010,
the number was 409 but by 2014, the number had increased to 593, in 2015 to
626, and by 2018 to 700.
80
Figure 30: Number of private and public primary schools in Afar region
800 752
700 637 731

604
600 618
587
500
400 366
362 Public Private
300 266
264
200
124
100 124
0 2 4 17 19 21
2000/01 2005/06 2010/11 2014/15 2015/16 2018/19
With the intention of improving the quality of education, Ethiopia has

been investing in teacher capacity development over the last two decades. Figure
31 shows the number of teachers in the region from 2014 to 2018. In 2014 the
total number of primary school teachers was 4434 and the number grew to 5302
in 2018, an increase of 19.6% within 4 years. The growth in the number and
gender of teachers along with school growth was also compared. The gap between
the numbers of female and male teachers in 2014 was 1870. In 2018, the gap had
grown to 2836, and it can be seen that male teachers dominate primary schools in
the region.
Figure 31: Number of primary school teachers in Afar region

6000
5109 5302
5000
Male Female
4434
4000 4034 4069
3000 3152
2616
2000
1435 1609
1282 1233
1000 1022 1007 1075
795
413
0
2000/01 2005/06 2010/11 2014/15 2015/16 2018/19
81
Figure 32 shows the growth of number of secondary schools in the region

in the past ten years, with a considerable increase between 2010 and 2014,
demonstrating performance of the region to improve access to secondary schools.
Figure 32: Number of secondary schools in Afar region over years

60
50 50
40 41
34
30
20
14
10 10
5
0
2000/01 2005/06 2010/11 2014/15 2015/16 2018/19
When the primary and secondary schools are disaggregated by zones, Awsi
Rasu is in the best position followed by Kilbet Rasu and Gabi Rasu. As with other
developments in the region, there remains considerable differences between the
zones.
Figure 33: Distribution of schools by zones, 2018/2019

350 330
300 285
250
193
200
158 153
150
100
50 18 8 10 8 12 9 5 3 5 5
0
Awsi Rasu Kilbet Rasu Gabi Rasu Fantena Rasu Hari Rasu
Primary schools Secondary schools Preparatory schools
82
The Afar region, like the country’s education system, has also showed
improvement in secondary school students’ enrollment. Figure 34 shows
enrollment in secondary schools with the number of students increasing by about
fivefold, from 3976 in 2005 to 20223 in 2018. This also underlines the improving
access to secondary schools in the region.
Figure 34: Secondary school students’ enrollment, 2018/2019

25000
Male Female
20000 20223
15000
12454
10000 10384
7746 7769
6620
5000 5372 5083
3976 3523 3764
2370 1849 2663
1606
0
2005/06 2010/11 2014/15 2015/16 2018/19
Figure 35 shows the number of teachers involved in secondary schools

between 2005 and 2018. In 2004, the number of teachers was 129 but by 2018
had reached 354. The number of male teachers was 124 in 2005 with only five
female teachers. Thirteen years later, the number of female teachers had risen to
no more than 56 while there were 298 male teachers. There is still a major
difference that needs to be addressed.
83
Figure 35: Gender balance of secondary school teachers in the Afar region
400 Total Male
350 354
300 298
268
250 238
206 236
200 207
129 185
150
100 124
50 56
21 30 29
0 5
2005/06 2010/11 2014/15 2015/16 2018/19
Figure 36 shows the numbers of secondary school teachers with diploma

qualification over the past 8 years. In 2010, they numbered 22, but after increasing
to 38 in 2014, this figure declined to 12 in 2015, probably because these diploma
holders obtained the chance to upgrade their education through pursuing degree
programs.
Figure 36: Secondary school teachers with diploma qualification

40
38
35
30 29
25
22
20 19
18
15 12 16
10 9 11
5 3
4 1
0
2010/11 2014/15 2015/16 2018/19
Male Female Total
84
The number of secondary school teachers with a BA/BSc degree in the

region is indicated in Figure 37. In 2014, there were 230 with a BA/BSc
qualification; by 2018, the number was 318. The difference between the numbers
of female and male teachers has remained high: in 2014 the number of female
teachers with a BA/BSC qualification was only 21 while there were 209 male
teachers with this qualification. In 2018, the numbers were 50 female teachers
and 268 male teachers.
Figure 37: Secondary school teachers with first degree in Afar region
350
318
300
268
250 230
220
200 183 209 193
150 166
100 80
77
50 50
21 27
17
0 3
2000/01 2010/11 2014/15 2015/16 2018/19
Male Female Total
Similarly, in terms of second-degree qualifications, a lot needs to be

done. Only four (three male and one female) and 14 (12 male and 2 female)
second degree holders were available in 2015/16 and 2018/19 academic years.
In terms of expanding preparatory schools, the regional education office
has given due attention to expanding numbers, increasing the number of
preparatory schools from 4 in 2005 to 15 in 2014 and then to 33 in 2018.
85
Figure 38: Number of preparatory schools in Afar region

35
33
30
25
20 21
15 15
10
9
5
4
0
2005/06 2010/11 2014/15 2015/16 2018/19
Figure 39 shows the number of preparatory school students enrolled from

2005 to 2018. In 2005, the number was only 477 out of which 73% were male
students and the remaining 27% female. In 2014, the numbers had risen to 3743
and in 2018, 6447, out of which 39.2% were female.
Figure 39: Preparatory school students’ enrollment in Afar region

7000
6443
6000
5000 4425
3915
4000 3743
3000 2909
2396 2528
2000 1566
1095 1516
1000 477 1347
349 471
0 128
2005/06 2010/11 2014/15 2015/16 2018/19
Male Female Total
86
As indicated in Figure 40, the number of preparatory school teachers in

2005 was 59. None were female. Ten years later, in 2015, the number had
increased to 114, 12 of whom were female teachers. By 2018, the number of
teachers had grown to 261 with about 11% being females. Although far from
adequate, this does show some results have been registered towards increasing
the number of female teachers.
Figure 40: Number of preparatory school teachers in Afar region

300
250 261
233
200
150 102
98
100 83
59 103 114
88
42
50 59 28
42 5 12
0 5
0
2000/01 2005/06 2010/11 2014/15 2015/16 2018/19
Total Male Female
Source: Authors’ computation from regional data (2020)
7.3. Health Sector Development
The major activity of the healthcare sector is to facilitate the basics for
health-related services. This includes funding and regulate complex health
industries in order to ensure the provision of healthcare to patients in need. We
look here at the healthcare sector development that includes health posts, clinics,
hospitals and health centers in the Afar region which has 8 hospitals, 44 clinics,
76 health centers, and 276 health posts. And the finding of this study shows there
has been considerable achievement and attention by the regional and the federal
governments. Health service performance and local perceptions were among the
issues raised during the FGDs held in different zones of the region and most
concluded that health services in their locality had been improved over the last 20
years.
87
Nevertheless, there are still problems, including a lack of health

professionals especially midwives. A lack of transport (ambulance service) to a
health facility was a major challenge reported in some zones, and FGD
participants complained of problems in health facility infrastructure including
beds and road access as well as shortages of medical supplies. Overall, another
concern was the imbalance of facilities across the zones and woredas. Figure 41
shows that only seven woredas have hospitals, and of these one, Golina has 2
hospitals. The rest of the woredas do not have a hospital.
Figure 41: Number of hospitals in the Afar region, 2018/2019

2.5
1.5
0.5
0
Dubti
Garani
Magale
Teru
Dawe
Samurobi
Afambo
Elida'ar
Dalol
Afdera
Bidu
Galealu
Aba'ala
Erebti
Amibara
Gawane
Awra
Mille
Kuri
Semera-Logia city
Golina
Dalifage
Hadele'ala
Barahle
Yallo
Chifra
Ewa
Telalak
Ada'ar
Konaba
Dulecha
Asaita
Awash-Fentale
Hanruka

Awash city administration
There are similar issues with clinics (Figure 42). Only 11 of the 39
woredas have clinics, and of those 11, Asaita, for example, has 11 clinics. Elidar
and Kore have 6 and 8, respectively. Dalol and Gewane, however, have only one
clinic each.
88
Figure 42: Number of clinics in the region, 2019/2019

2.5
1.5
0.5
Argoba special…
Awash city…
Dawe
Garani
Magale
Dubti
Elida'ar
Afdera
Aba'ala
Dalol
Bidu
Amibara
Galealu
Teru
Hadele'ala
Erebti
Awra
Dalifage
Afambo
Mille
Kuri
Semera-Logia city
Samurobi
Barahle
Gawane
Golina
Yallo
Telalak
Chifra
Ada'ar
Ewa
Konaba
Dulecha
Asaita
Awash-Fentale
Hanruka
Health centers are more fairly distributed (Figure 43). Only three
woredas, Kore, Dubti, and Abala City Administration, have no health centers,
though Kore as noted above, has 8 clinics. Some of the woredas, such as Dubti,
Awash City Administration, and Abala City Administration, have neither health
centers, clinics nor hospitals. There are some woredas without health posts and
available ones are not always adequate compared to the population size and the
dispersed nature of settlement in the region (Figure 44).
Figure 43: Number of health centers in the region, 2018/19

4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Dawe
Dubti
Galealu
Garani
Magale
Afdera
Semera-Logia city
Aba'ala
Dalol
Bidu
Awra
Afambo
Elida'ar
Amibara
Teru
Samurobi
Erebti
Mille
Kuri
Golina
Dalifage
Hadele'ala
Ada'ar
Barahle
Gawane
Ewa
Yallo
Telalak
Chifra

Konaba
Dulecha
Asaita
Awash-Fentale
Hanruka
Awash city administration
89
Figure 44: Number of health posts, 2018/2019

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
In terms of the zonal distribution of health posts and clinics, Awsi Rasu
is in a better position while Fantena Rasu has the least number of health posts and
clinics (Figure 45). Hospitals are relatively fairly distributed among the five
zones. However, it appears nearly a quarter (24.1%) of the health facilities in the
region are non-functional for various reasons, most related to absence of the
required basic utilities including electricity, water, latrine services, laboratory
facilities or similar. More effort is necessary to ensure effective functioning of
available health facilities besides expanding new facilities for currently
inaccessible areas.
Figure 45: Distribution of health infrastructure by zones, 2018/2019

120
96
100
76 77
80
60
43 46
40
25
20
20
3 1 1 1 0 1 0 1
0
Awsi Rasu Kilbati Rasu Gabi Rasu Fantena Rasu Hari Rasu
Health posts Clinics Hospitals
90
In terms of the expansion of health facilities over time, there has been
little increase in the last few years: there were 335 health posts in 2014, increased
to 341 by 2018. The number of health centers grew from 92 to 96 during the same
period (Figure 46).
Figure 46: Trends of health facilities across different years

400
335 339 341
350
300
250
200
150
92 93 96
100
50 7
6 6
0
2014/15 2015/16 2018/19
Health posts Health centers Hospitals
The top 10 diseases in the region in 2019/20 were acute fever illness
(AFI), malaria (Plasmodium falciparum), pneumonia, diarrhea, acute upper
respiratory infection, malaria without laboratory confirmed, typhoid, urinary tract
infection, malaria confirmed by lab, and dyspepsia (or indigestion) in that order.
7.4. Investment, Informal Sectors, and Unemployment
Investment trends in the region are promising. The number of investors

has been increasing from year to year. These increments have been witnessed
almost in all sub-sectors including construction, agriculture, manufacturing, and
hotel sub-sectors (Figure 47). These activities are assumed to create job
opportunities.
91
Figure 47: Number of investors operational in the region by sector
In addition to the formal sectors, involvement in the informal sector is

common in the region. As of June 2018, for instance, about 39% of workers were
involved in the informal sector in Afar region as compared to about 22% at
national level, and involvement of females in the informal sector is higher than
males. In terms of unemployment rates, regional figures are better than national
figures. Total unemployment in the region is 15%, with youth (15-29 years)
unemployment at 22.7%. This compares to the national level averages of 19.1%
and 25.3%, respectively. Female unemployment rates are higher than those of
males at both national and regional levels (Table 36).
Formalizing some of the informal sectors in the region will increase
regional revenue from these sectors and also improve working efficiency of firms,
enabling them to benefit from formal support services including credit and
training support. One of the major challenges for the region as well as for the
nation is minimizing the unemployment rate, especially for youth, and it calls for
broadening employment opportunities by encouraging private investment and
business undertakings.
92
Table 36: Involvement in informal sectors and unemployment rates, 2018

Afar Region National level
S/N Particulars
Male Female Total Male Female Total
Proportion of people
1 involved in informal 32.4 48.8 38.9 17.1 28.2 21.7
sectors (%)
Total unemployment
2 7.6 24.3 15 12.2 26.4 19.1
rate in urban areas (%)
Youth (15-29 years)
3 unemployment rate in 16 29.5 22.7 18.6 30.9 25.3
urban areas (%)
Source: CSA (2018).
In terms expansion of road infrastructure, the region has more than

doubled the paved roads, from about 1236 kilometers in 2005 to about 2764
kilometers in 2018 (Figure 48). However, given the size of the region and the
sparse distribution of people over this area, further improvement in road
infrastructure is necessary.
Figure 48: Trends of paved roads in Afar region (km)
93
7.5. Budget and Expenditure
The Afar region’s budget allocation, revenues collected and expenditure

have all been rising steadily. Figure 49 shows the regional budget from 2005 to
2015 (all figures are in thousand Ethiopian currency, ETB). In 2005, the regional
budget was about 348.7 million ETB rising to about 1.04 billion ETB in 2010, a
197% increase. By 2014, it reached about 2,89 billion ETB, an increase of 180%.
A year later, it was about 3,26 billion ETB after an increase of 13%, the least
increment in 10 years.
Figure 49: Trends of budget allocation for Afar region (thousand ETB)
3500000
3260179
3000000 2891800
2500000
2000000
1500000
1000000 1036113
500000
348684.4
0
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
Figure 50 shows the woreda budgets for the region with Amibara having
the highest total annual budget (104,766,039.2 Birr) in 2018, and Kori the lowest
total annual budget (36,750,648.9 Birr). Abala and Aysaita had the second and
third highest budgets.
94
Figure 50: Distribution of total annual budget by woreda, 2018

120000000
100000000
80000000
60000000
40000000
20000000
0
Mile
Magale
Gelealu
Dawe
Woreda
Dubti
Yalo
Elida'ar
Afdera
Teru
Hadele'ela
Aba'ala
Bidu
Amibara
Awra
Samurobi
Aysaita
Erebti
Barahle
Afambo
Kuri
Dalol
Gulina
Dalifage
Chifra
Ewa
Talalak
Ada'ar
Gawane
Argoba
Dulecha
Awash
Konaba
Figure 51 shows the per capita budget of the different woredas in 2018,
ranging from 3,335 Birr for Awash woreda to 614 Birr for Chifra woreda. The
second highest budget per capita, more than 1800, was for Afambo, Magale, and
Dulecha woredas. The per capita budget distribution, in fact, is uneven with some
woredas better off compared to others. Though there is no expectation of equal
budget to population ratios while allocating budgets, this suggests the need to
revisit the formula for budget distribution among the different woredas and taking
population size, relative proximity to available infrastructure, available resources,
and other factors into account.
Figure 52 shows the region’s expenditure categories. In 2005, the
region’s expenditure was less than 236.66 million ETB. After 10 years, recurrent
and capital expenditure had increased by 1,558,651,000 and 1,352,844,000 ETB
respectively. However, expenditure on roads, education, health, and agricultural
and rural services showed little improvement, despite the federal government’s
attention to poverty-targeted expenditure (on health, education, road, and
agriculture). The regional government is also expected to make significant
improvement in poverty-targeted expenditure and it will need to focus on
developing roads (especially rural roads), agriculture, health, and education in the
years to come.
95
Figure 51: Distribution of budget to population ratio (Birr), 2018

4,000.00
3,500.00
3,000.00
2,500.00
2,000.00
1,500.00
1,000.00
500.00
-
Dubti
Mile
Magale
Gelealu
Yalo
Teru
Dawe
Hadele'ela
Bidu
Amibara
Awra
Aysaita
Afambo
Elida'ar
Aba'ala
Dalol
Afdera
Erebti
Kuri
Gulina
Dalifage
Samurobi
Konaba
Barahle
Argoba
Talalak
Chifra
Ada'ar
Awash
Gawane
Ewa
Dulecha
Figure 52: Regional expenditures by categories (thousand ETB)
96
7.6. Revenue
The region’s development is financed by the revenue generated from

three main sources, with the main source being tax revenue. Non-tax, tourism and
hospitality were found to be insignificant. Figure 52 shows performance of the
region’s tax, non-tax, and tourism and hospitality revenue generation between
2010 and 2018. In 2010, less than 200 million was collected. By 2014/15, the
amount of revenue collected increased to about 500 million ETB, and by 2018,
the revenue had significantly improved to more than 911 million Birr. Although
the amount collected from the region has been increasing, the figures remain
significantly less than regional expenditure figures. The disparity between
revenue and expenditure underlines the region’s dependence on federal
government and other support to fill the gap.
Figure 52: Regional revenue by categories
Figure 53 shows the region’s annual expenditure and revenue from 2005
to 2017. It also shows the recurrent and total expenditure, the federal grant, and
the revenue of the region. Total expenditure (both recurrent and capital
expenditure) steadily and sometimes significantly increased over these 12 years.
Equally, the federal grant consistently increased every year since 2005. The
97
regional revenue, however, did not show any consistent or significant increment
as total expenditure and the federal grant did.
Figure 53: Annual regional expenditure and revenue (Birr)
98
8. Conclusions and Policy Implications
The major findings of this study suggest a considerable number of policy

implications for the region. The most important are summarized below:
Evaluation of the major soil constraints for crop and livestock production
in the region indicate that there are many soil constraints for crop production in
the Afar region. To undertake crop production with or without irrigation, the
region requires to adopt soil treatment and improved soil management practices.
The use of agricultural inputs for crop production in the region is very
limited. The region should introduce and disseminate appropriate production
inputs, technologies, and other methods and innovations to boost agricultural
production and productivity.
The five most important sources of vulnerability in the region were found
to be price/inflation, drought, increasing temperature, scarcity of water, and
human disease. The region should design policies for managing and mitigating
the sources of vulnerability of its assets. These could include creating access to
major markets and marketing systems for livestock, the introduction and use of
drought resistant crop varieties, creating substantial access to irrigation, and
improvement of human health facilities.
The three most vulnerable regional assets are camels, cattle, and shoats.
They are also the major livelihoods. The region, therefore, needs to design and
implement appropriate policy intervention measures to reduce their vulnerability
or to improve their sustainability for improving livelihoods, particularly food
security. One option would be to improve methods of livestock production
(pastoralism or sedentary) as well as access to livestock markets.
The wide spread of invasive plants, such as prosopis, is a major threat to
both crop and livestock production in the region. The regional government should
design short- and long-term plans on how to utilize and/or control such plants to
ensure sustainable development.
The incidence of drought is very high in the region. It is of vital
importance to invest in irrigation schemes for increasing development of crop and
fodder production. The predominantly good soil types, suitable topography, and
better ground water resources offer good opportunities for the expansion of
irrigation facilities. This also requires consideration of soil treatment measures
and the adoption of soil management practices as well as improving irrigation
facilities. The Awash River is the primary source of irrigation water in the region,
99
but it offers both a threat and an opportunity to the region. During the main
harvest season of 2020, the river floods seriously affecting about 17 woredas in
the downstream areas, destroying crops and the lives of thousands of livestock.
This disaster was evaluated to been related to mismanagement of the river in
upstream areas. The Regional government should work in close collaboration
with the Federal government to properly manage the river and maximize its
development benefits, both actual and potential.
Encouraging livelihood diversification is necessary to overcome the
harsh agro-ecological condition of the region. The livelihood strategies could
include camel and goat production, sheep production, non-farm activities,
sedentary farming, trading, and wage employment. Any three or more of these
could be pursued simultaneously for diversification.
Performance in the area of peace and security is reported to be very high.
This should be strengthened and the region could provide an example for other
regions. Conversely, investment and development of natural resources are low
performing sub-sectors. The region should focus on improving these and try to
attract investors and encourage existing ones through different incentive
mechanisms. These should address the region’s multi-faceted problems by
creating job opportunities for youth and women, improving access to different
manufactured products, facilitating transfer of knowledge to the people, and
boosting the regional economy.
One of the major challenges facing the region in its efforts to realize
socio-economic development is considered to be corruption. The region needs to
establish transparent systems of planning, budgeting, implementing and
monitoring socio-economic development projects and programs, and ensuring
access and equity among different social groups and administrative zones in the
new regional administration.
Improving access to major services and facilities including road, safe
drinking water, sanitation facilities, and human and veterinary health/medical
services should remain the major focus of development interventions by the
regional authorities. Though there is the basic infrastructure for these services,
most of them remain less than full functional.
Housing conditions are very poor in the region. Initiating housing
projects, especially in urban areas, to improve access to quality housing at
relatively affordable prices is very important.
100
The prevalence of stunting and under-weight children under five is high

in the region compared to the national average. It is, therefore, necessary to
strengthen available nutrition projects and initiate new ones. Nutrition security
should be pursued in tandem with food security projects as food insecurity is also
prevalent in the region.
Semi-urban areas of the region are characterized by a relatively higher
prevalence of poverty, a situation which differs from the poverty situation
elsewhere in the country. The region should design policy interventions which
enable it to implement basic urban services and facilities in small towns.
Elasticity of total poverty with respect to average expenditure growth in
the Afar region is high. This suggests that poverty alleviation interventions can
lead to a high rate of poverty reduction. The region should accelerate poverty
reduction by selecting relevant interventions with high poverty alleviation impact
involving more population or creating access to the wider community.
Deprivation in school attendance of school-aged children is high
suggesting that a significant proportion of children are not attending school.
Unexpectedly, deprivation in school attendance also increases with expanding
urbanization (rural to urban). The region should look for and introduce alternative
methods of increasing child school attendance by creating access to education.
This should include establishment of more primary and satellite schools.
Deprivation in health care of the population remains high suggesting that
a majority of the population do not consult any medical practitioner in a year.
Creating access to health facilities and health professionals should still be the
overriding objective and policy focus of the region.
Deprivation in adequate and nutritious food is also high, underlining the
need to create access to and utilization of food, to improve the health conditions
of the entire population through short- and long-term interventions including food
security programs, income generating activities, and other employment
opportunities differentiated by place of residence (rural and urban) and vulnerable
social groups, including women and youth.
The region should expand animal health facilities together with necessary
utilities required for effective functioning of these physical facilities. It should
look to fair distribution of these facilities among the zones and woredas on the
basis of their livestock resources. It is essential to train additional animal health
workers and revise the current placements of CAHWS on the basis of the
distribution of the livestock population among the different woredas.
101
Poverty in the region remains high and multidimensional. The incidence

of non-monetary poverty (education, health and living condition) is considerably
high with significant differences by place of residence. Non-monetary poverty in
the urban centers is relatively higher where the region is expected to implement
projects related to education, health, and other basic services and facilities to
improve living conditions.
Improving gender composition of students and teachers following
different affirmative actions to encourage involvement of female students and
teachers is required. It is also necessary to improve total student enrollment.
Constructing additional schools to improve education coverage is vital. It also
important to work on teachers’ capacity building through short- and long-term
training and to ensure fair distribution of the number of schools, teachers, and
other educational facilities across all zones and woredas.
Though there have been major improvements in the regional health
sector, there are still issues that require attention. Expanding health facilities,
increasing the number of health professionals with different specializations, and
improving health utilities, including access roads, ambulances, water, electricity,
and health supplies, are important. It is also necessary to look into the distribution
of these facilities among the zones and woredas.
Livestock are a major and important asset in the region, access to
livestock markets is reported to be among the major bottlenecks for development.
It is advisable to establish accessible local livestock markets properly linked with
zonal, regional, national and ultimately export markets.
In order to improve regional revenue, the region should broaden the tax
base and encourage non-tax revenues such as tourism earnings.
The region suffers from absence of up-to-date, relevant and quality data
for planning socio-economic development interventions. It should establish a data
compilation and management unit at each sector and administration level to
organize regional data for designing appropriate development plans.
102
References
ADSWE (Afar Design and Supervision Works Enterprise). (2018). Afar Regional
Atlas.
Afar Atlas. (2014). Regional atlas of Afar. Region Bureau of Finance and
Economic Development, Semera.
Afifi, A. A., May, A., and Clark, V. A. (2012). Practical Multivariate Analysis.
5th ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Alkire, S., and Foster, J. (2011). “Understandings and misunderstandings of
multi-dimensional poverty measurement”. The Journal of Economic
Inequality, 9(2), 289-314.
Alkire, S., Jindra, C., Aguilar, G.R., Seth, S., and Vaz, A. (2015). “Global Multi-
dimensional Poverty Index 2015”, OPHI. Available at
https://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Global-MPI-8-
pager_10_15.pdf
Anderson, S. and Farmer, E. (2015). USAID Office of Food for Peace Food
Security Country Framework for Ethiopia FY 2016 – FY 2020.
Washington, D.C.: Food Economy Group.
Araar, A. (2006). “On the Decomposition of the Gini Coefficient: An Exact
Approach, with an Illustration Using Cameroonian Data”, Working paper
02‐06, CIRPEE.
________. (2009). “The Hybrid Multi-Dimensional Index of Inequality”, W.P
45-09, CIRPEE, University Laval.
Araar, A. and Duclos, J-Y. (2009), “An algorithm for computing the Shapley
Value, PEP and CIRPEE”. Tech.‐Note. Available at
http://dad.ecn.ulaval.ca/pdf_files/shap_dec_aj.pdf (Accessed October
2019).
________. (2013). DASP: Distributive Analysis Stata Package, User Manual,
DASP version 2.3, Université Laval, PEP, CIRPÉE and World Bank
Cochrane, L and Tamiru, Y. (2016). “Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Program:
Power, Politics and Practice”. Journal of International Development, 28,
pp. 649–665, DOI: 10.1002/jid.3234.
CSA. (2008). Key Findings on the 2018 Urban Employment Unemployment
Survey (With Comparative Analysis to 2012 and 2014-2016 Survey
Results), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
103
________. (2012). Population Size by Sex, Area and Density by Region, Zone
and Wereda, Available at
http://www.csa.gov.et/images/documents/pdf_files/nationalstatisti
csabstract/2011/2011 population.pdf.
CSA. (2016a). Welfare Monitoring Survey 2015/16: Statistical Report on
Indicators on Living Standard, Accessibility, and Household Assets.
VOLUME II, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
________. (2016b). Agricultural Sample Survey 2015/2016 Volume I: Report on
Area and Production of Major Crops (Private Peasant Holdings, Meher
Season), Statistical Bulletin 584. Central Statistical Agency of the
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.
________. (2017). LSMS—Integrated Surveys on Agriculture Ethiopia Socio-
economic Survey (ESS) 2015/2016, Survey Report, CSA in collaboration
with the National Bank of Ethiopia and the World Bank, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
________. (2019a). Agricultural Sample Survey 2018/19: Report on Area and
Production of Major Crops (Private Peasant Holdings, Meher Season),
Volume I, Statistical Bulletin 589.
________. (2019b). Agricultural Sample Survey 2018/19: Report on Livestock
and Livestock Characteristics (Private Peasant Holdings), Volume II,
Statistical Bulletin 588.
Degye Goshu. (2019). “Adapting Multi-dimensional Poverty and Inequality
Measures to National and Regional Contexts: Evidence from Ethiopia”,
Tanzania Journal of Development Studies, 17(2), 2019: 1-20.
DFID (Department for International Development). (2000). “Sustainable
Livelihoods Guidance Sheets”,
http://www.livelihoods.org/info/info_guidancesheets.html.
FAO. (2016). Guide for soil description, FAO Rome.
________. (2020). “Family Farming Knowledge Platform”, available at
http://www.fao.org/family-farming/themes/agroecology/en/, Accessed
on 11/04/2020.
________. (2020). “The 10 Elements of Agroecology Guiding the Transition to
Sustainable Food and Agricultural Systems”, available at
http://www.fao.org/3/i9037en/i9037en.pdf, Accessed on 11/04/2020.
FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO. (2019). The State of Food Security and
Nutrition in the World 2019. Safeguarding against economic slowdowns
and downturns. Rome, FAO.
104
FAOSTAT. (2020). FAOSTAT website accessed on 29 February 2020.

Farrington, J., Ramasut, T., Walker, J. (2002). “Sustainable Livelihoods
Approaches in Urban Areas: General Lessons, with Illustrations from
Indian Cases”, ODI Working Paper 162.
Feed the Future. (2018). Global Food Security Strategy (GFSS) Ethiopia Country
Plan, September 2018. Feed the Future: The US government’s Global
Hunger & Food Security Initiative
Foster, J., Greer, J., and Thorbecke, E. (1984). “A class of decomposable poverty
measures”, Econometrica 52:761-766.
Franzson, H., Helga M., Helgadottir, H. M., Oskusson, F. (2015). “Surface
Exploration and First Conceptual Model of the Dallol Geothermal Area,
Northern Afar, Ethiopia”. Proceedings of World Geothermal Congress
2015, Melbourne, Australia, 19-25 April 2015.
Getachew Diriba. (2020). “Agricultural and Rural Transformation in Ethiopia:
Obstacles, Triggers, and Reform Considerations”, Ethiopian Economics
Association (EEA), EEA Policy working paper No. 01/2020.
Hickel, J. (2016). “The true extent of global poverty and hunger: questioning the
good news narrative of the Millennium Development Goals”. Third
World Quarterly, 37(5), 749-767.
http://foodeconomy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Atlas-Final-Web-
Version-6_14.pdf, Accessed on 15 October 2019.
http://www.fao.org/3/a-a0541e.pdf; Accessed on 15 February, 2020.
Jolliffe, I. T. (2002). Principal Component Analysis. 2nd ed. New York: Springer.
MoARD. (2009). Agricultural Investment Potential of Ethiopia. Ministry of
Agriculture and Rural Development. Addis Ababa: Federal Democratic
Republic of Ethiopia.
MoFED. (2011). Growth and transformation plan (GTP): 2010/11–2014/15.
Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, Addis Ababa.
http://et.mofcom.gov.cn/accessory/201101/1296371918402.pdf.
Accessed 7 November 2019
MoRD. (2009). Food Security Programme 2010-2014. Final Document. Ministry
of Agriculture and Rural Development.
Santos, M. E., and Villatoro, P. (2018). “A Multi-dimensional Poverty Index for
Latin America”. Review of Income and Wealth, 64(1), 52-82.
105
Santos, M. E., and Villatoro, P. (2019). “The Importance of Reliability in the

Multi-dimensional Poverty Index for Latin America (MPI-LA)”. The
Journal of Development Studies, 1-6.
UNDP. (2018). “Ethiopia’s Progress towards Eradicating Poverty”. Paper to be
presented to the Inter-Agency Group Meeting on the Implementation of
the Third United Nations Decade for the Eradication of Poverty (2018 –
2027), April 18 -20, 2018, Addis Ababa Ethiopia.
________. (United Nations Development Program) Regional Centre for Latin
America and the Caribbean. (2017). “Guidance Note: Application of
sustainable livelihood framework in development projects”. Available at
www.undp.org (accessed on 12 August 2019).
USAID. (2010). An Atlas of Ethiopian Livelihoods.
Wezel, A., Bellon, S., Doré, T., Francis, C., Vallod, D., David, C. (2009).
“Agroecology as a science, a movement or a practice. A review”.
106
Appendix
Appendix Table 1: Importance and role of livelihood assets
Importance
No. Livelihood Assets/ Capabilities/ Activities
(Index)
1. Natural capital (N)
2. Use rights to land 0.62
3. Communal land 0.67
4. Natural forests 0.54
5. Clean rivers/waters 0.56
6. Minerals for mining 0.46
7. Resources for tourist attraction 0.42
8. Human capital
9. Education 0.65
10. School attendance (enrolment) 0.56
11. Adequate and nutritious food 0.48
12. Information 0.68
13. Public awareness on their public rights, policies and regulations impacting their livelihoods 0.52
14. Social/Political capital
15. Availability of civic organizations 0.49
16. Availability of cooperatives/unions 0.49
17. Participation in local administration councils 0.50
18. Existence of saving and credit association 0.41
19. Existence of influential rules, norms or laws impacting community development 0.54
20. Existence of influential indigenous institutions impacting community development 0.60
21. Physical capital
22. Camel 0.73
23. Cattle 0.67
24. Shoats 0.72
25. Pack animals 0.54
26. Crops 0.47
27. Dependable and affordable energy 0.46
28. Dependable and affordable private telephone services 0.60
29. Safe drinking water and sanitation 0.50
30. Adequate drinking water and sanitation 0.50
31. Clean and secure housing 0.46
32. Affordable human health services 0.52
33. Affordable veterinary health services 0.46
34. Access to all weather roads 0.48
35. Affordable public/private transport 0.47
36. Access to irrigation water 0.46
37. Financial capital (F)
38. Wage from employment 0.56
39. Income from trade business 0.53
40. Income from nonfarm activities 0.42
41. Credit 0.35
42. Saving in banks 0.42
43. Remittance 0.31
107
Appendix Table 2: Sustainability of livelihood assets

Livelihood Assets/ Livelihood Sustainability Index
No.
Capabilities/ Activities Environmental Economic Social Institutional
1. Natural capital (N) 0.55 0.56 0.55 0.48
2. Use rights to land 0.63 0.68 0.64 0.60
3. Communal land 0.67 0.62 0.64 0.43
4. Natural forests 0.46 0.42 0.44 0.38
5. Clean rivers/waters 0.58 0.53 0.57 0.49
6. Minerals for mining 0.48 0.59 0.51 0.49
7. Resources for tourist
0.51 0.50 0.51 0.51
attraction
8. Human capital 0.32 0.31 0.33 0.32
9. Education 0.88 0.88 0.92 0.89
10. School attendance
0.77 0.61 0.64 0.68
(enrolment)
11. Adequate and nutritious
0.53 0.46 0.57 0.52
food
12. Information 0.88 0.90 0.87 0.77
13. Public awareness on their
public rights, policies and
0.48 0.54 0.60 0.62
regulations impacting
their livelihoods
14. Social/Political capital 0.51 0.55 0.63 0.63
15. Availability of civic
0.51 0.56 0.66 0.62
organizations
16. Availability of
0.50 0.56 0.60 0.66
cooperatives/unions
17. Participation in local
0.60 0.64 0.77 0.74
administration councils
18. Existence of saving and
0.33 0.46 0.40 0.49
credit association
19. Existence of influential
rules, norms or laws
0.49 0.53 0.68 0.64
impacting community
development
20. Existence of influential
indigenous institutions
0.61 0.60 0.68 0.63
impacting community
development
108
Livelihood Assets/ Livelihood Sustainability Index

No.
Capabilities/ Activities Environmental Economic Social Institutional
21. Physical capital 0.57 0.59 0.60 0.58
22. Camel stock 0.80 0.87 0.87 0.73
23. Cattle stock 0.81 0.79 0.76 0.66
24. Shoat stock 0.82 0.86 0.89 0.74
25. Pack animals 0.61 0.59 0.58 0.50
26. Crop stock 0.49 0.54 0.57 0.46
27. Dependable and
0.56 0.49 0.49 0.51
affordable energy
28. Dependable and
affordable private 0.71 0.68 0.72 0.76
telephone services
29. Safe drinking water and
0.51 0.49 0.49 0.59
sanitation
30. Adequate drinking water
0.37 0.36 0.44 0.43
and sanitation
31. Clean and secure housing 0.41 0.47 0.43 0.44
32. Affordable human health
0.56 0.56 0.63 0.63
services
33. Affordable veterinary
0.46 0.50 0.50 0.54
health services
34. Access to all weather
0.54 0.61 0.63 0.61
roads
35. Affordable public/private
0.48 0.59 0.50 0.54
transport
36. Access to irrigation water 0.46 0.46 0.47 0.46
37. Financial capital (F) 0.39 0.45 0.45 0.41
38. Wage from employment 0.66 0.68 0.68 0.68
39. Income from trade
0.53 0.59 0.59 0.56
business
40. Income from nonfarm
0.41 0.54 0.51 0.48
activities
41. Credit 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.23
42. Saving in banks 0.36 0.43 0.44 0.37
43. Remittance 0.16 0.22 0.22 0.18
109
Appendix Table 3: Sources of vulnerability of livelihoods

No. Sources of Vulnerability Vulnerability index
1. Trends
2. Prices/Inflation 0.91
3. Increasing temperature 0.81
4. Rainfall variability 0.74
5. Social media 0.73
6. Expansion of invasive weeds 0.72
7. Depletion of natural resources 0.71
8. Demand for goods and services 0.70
9. Globalization 0.67
10. Norms and culture 0.66
11. Intensity of floods 0.66
12. Agricultural production 0.66
13. Institutions 0.65
14. Technology 0.60
15. Shocks
16. Drought 0.84
17. Water shortage 0.79
18. Human diseases 0.76
19. Animal disease 0.76
20. Conflict over resources 0.69
21. Floods 0.69
22. Pest outbreak (e.g. locust) 0.65
23. Political instability/insecurity 0.64
24. Crop diseases 0.63
25. Public policy (changes) 0.62
26. Volcanic eruption 0.52
27. Seasonality
28. Price seasonality 0.73
29. Production and supply of goods and services 0.73
30. Demand for goods and services 0.73
110
Appendix Table 4: Intensity of asset vulnerability

Livelihood
No. Livelihood Assets/ Capabilities/ Activities Vulnerability Index
(LVI)
1. Natural capital (N)
2. Use rights to land 0.58
3. Communal land 0.56
4. Natural forests 0.59
5. Clean rivers/waters 0.61
6. Mineral resources for mining 0.54
7. Resources for tourist attraction 0.53
8. Human capital
9. Access to education 0.61
10. School attendance of school-aged children 0.60
11. Adequate and nutritious food 0.63
12. Information 0.59
13. Awareness of public rights, policies and regulations
0.51
affecting livelihoods
14. Social/Political capital
15. Membership in civic organizations 0.49
16. Membership in cooperatives/unions 0.48
17. Participation in local administration councils 0.49
18. Saving and credit association 0.50
19. Influential public organizations affecting people’s
0.53
livelihoods
20. Rules, norms or laws positively affecting community
0.52
development
21. Physical capital
22. Camel 0.74
23. Cattle 0.74
24. Shoat 0.73
25. Pack animals 0.61
26. Crop 0.57
27. Dependable and affordable energy 0.53
28. Dependable and affordable telephone service 0.62
29. Adequate drinking water and sanitation 0.56
30. Safe drinking water and sanitation 0.53
31. Clean and secure housing 0.52
111
Livelihood
No. Livelihood Assets/ Capabilities/ Activities Vulnerability Index
(LVI)
32. Affordable human health service 0.64
33. Affordable veterinary health services 0.60
34. Adequate all-weather roads 0.60
35. Affordable public/private transport 0.65
36. Irrigation water 0.56
37. Financial capital (F)
38. Income from wage employment 0.59
39. Income from trade business 0.56
40. Income from nonfarm activities 0.56
41. Credit 0.50
42. Saving in banks 0.55
43. Remittance 0.41
112
Appendix Table 5: Evaluation of livelihood impacts of development

interventions in the last five years
Proportion of
Respondents Intensity of
Livelihood Outcome
No. Perceiving Positive Agreement
Indicators
Impacts (Index)
(%)
1. Peace and order 90 0.67
2. Communication infrastructure 81 0.64
3. Health 84 0.57
4. Good governance 80 0.56
5. Employment 89 0.56
6. Education 93 0.55
7. Income (Economic wellbeing) 67 0.53
8. Improved financial services 63 0.52
9. Equity (distribution) 50 0.51
10. Housing 49 0.49
11. Improved public services 74 0.49
12. Water and sanitation 78 0.48
13. Road infrastructure 81 0.48
14. Food security 67 0.47
15. Improved marketing services 62 0.45
16. Sustainable natural resource
53 0.44
utilization
17. Gender balance 74 0.41
113

Afar Research Report Setup

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Afar Research Report Setup

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Afar Research Report Setup

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Socioeconomic Development in

Ethiopian Economic Policy Research Institute (EEPRI)

Printed in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia’

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,

The analysis and policy recommendations of this Report do not necessarily

This study is financed by the Bureau of Finance and Economic

Inquiries should be addressed to:

Ethiopian Economics Association

The Ethiopian Economics Association (EEA) is a non-profit, non-

intractable conflicts and instability, leading to greater population displacement.

Tadele Ferede (PhD)

5. Livelihood Analysis ............................................................................................. 39

Table 1: Distribution of respondents by zones and woredas in the Afar region 10

Figure 1: Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF) ........................................... 5

Figure 34: Secondary school students’ enrollment, 2018/2019 ......................... 83

List of Appendix Tables

Appendix Table 1: Importance and role of livelihood assets ................ 107

Since 2002, the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia has embarked

11. The physical appearance of the land is an important natural factor

Sustainability and vulnerability of livelihoods

Livelihood and coping strategies

livestock production including camels (0.48), goats (0.34), and sheep

Nutrition and child growth

regional growth elasticity of poverty is also higher (-5.1%) compared to the

urbanization from rural (24.7%) to urban centers (41.9%). Unlike rural

54. The incidence of non-monetary poverty, estimated with three non-

Agricultural and pastoral development

Education sector development

plans, distribution of primary schools by woreda revealed good progress

Health sector development

Budget and expenditure

decades at around 30% (UNDP, 2017). Access to universal primary education

terms of implementing these policies, strategies, and programs in the context of

Specific objectives of the study were to:

2.1. Sustainable Livelihood Framework

The British Department for International Development (DFID) defines

Figure 1: Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF)

Source: DFID (2000).

Though the DFID sustainable livelihood approach (SLA) is mainly

The SLA is a good way of integrating the four pillars of development

• Evaluation of the regional resource base and establishment of sustainable

2.2. Multidimensional Welfare Measurement

Figure 2: Dimensions and indicators of the MPI for Afar Region

Source: Authors’’ design (2019).

This socio-economic development study required investigation of both

3.1.1. Primary data

Table 1: Distribution of respondents by zones and woredas in the Afar region

The research team also conducted preliminary field surveys and

Table 2: Checklist of administrative zones and woredas for primary data

The trained key informants were asked to evaluate the livelihoods

3.1.2. Secondary data

Table 3: Distribution of the LSMS samples across zones and areas of

In addition to this secondary data at household, individual and

3.2. Valuation of Livelihood Capitals

The importance of access, or entitlement to assets, and the factors

The pentagon of capital assets serves as a visual presentation of

Figure 3: Pentagon of assets for visualizing changes in asset status

Source: UNDP (2017).

• Available stocks: Savings are the preferred type of financial capital

3.3. Resource Base and Asset Indices