Integrating Climate Change Adaptation,Disaster Risk Reduction,and Social Protection for Enhanced Resilience: Evidence from the Somali Region,Ethiopia

Abstract

Integrating climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction, and social protection is crucial for enhancing resilience in vulnerable communities. This study aims to assess the level of integration among these three approaches in the Somali Region, Ethiopia. A qualitative methodology, involving a meta-analysis of 122 projects and program documents was conducted to evaluate the integration levels of the approaches. Key informant interviews and focus group discussions were also used to gather qualitative insights from stakeholders. The findings reveal that the integration of the three approaches, in the form of adaptive social protection, is limited. While social protection and disaster risk reduction are combined more effectively, the inclusion of climate change adaptation remains insufficient. Duplication of activities is common in programs and projects, wasting resources. The study recommends implementing an adaptive social protection approach with clear institutional arrangements and stakeholder coordination to enhance resilience and resource efficiency.

Keywords

adaptive social protection climate change adaptation disaster risk reduction Ethiopia program integration vulnerability

Introduction

Due to their geographic location, low wages, and increased dependence on climate-sensitive sectors, mainly agriculture, rural livelihoods in developing countries are exposed to hazards related to climate change (CC) (Stern et al., 2006). There is growing evidence that CC increases the occurrence and intensity of climate-related threats and the level and patterns of inter-related risks. Poverty and social impacts are likely profound and will affect people through various direct and indirect paths, such as employment risks, conflict and displacement, and negative spirals (Field & Barros, 2014). CC will also force people to adopt unhealthy coping mechanisms like reducing food intake, selling assets, and pulling kids out of school (Adger et al., 2002; Heltberg et al., 2009). While CC, particularly drought, strongly affects both pastoralists and farmers, the impact is greater on pastoralists for many reasons. First, they are most common in the lowlands, where drought events are more likely to occur. Second, they encounter several additional non-climatic obstacles, such as reduced soil fertility, inadequate infrastructure, and the effect of ill-suited policies for managing natural resources (Adgeret al., 2002; Davies et al., 2008; Tofu et al., 2023).

Ethiopia’s economy depends on agriculture, making it susceptible to natural disasters. In addition to the nation’s reliance on rain-fed agriculture, many interconnected problems, including underutilization of water resources, soil degradation, a lackluster economy, and weak institutions, contribute to the nation’s susceptibility to natural disasters (Gezie, 2019). CC studies conducted in Ethiopia show that vulnerability to cyclic hazards is increasing, making livelihood resilience problematic (Teshome, 2016). Furthermore, regions affected by drought and desertification are growing due to CC and human-induced variables. Drought is the most critical climate-related hazard affecting the country. Drought occurs worldwide, but nowhere is it as bad as in Africa, especially in Ethiopia (Devereux, 2006). High variability and uncertainty, with frequent and severe droughts and floods, characterize the Ethiopian climate. Ethiopia is also one of the most vulnerable countries to the effects of global warming, which is expected to increase the occurrence and severity of extreme weather events, reduce rainfall and soil moisture, alter crop suitability and productivity, increase pest and disease outbreaks, degrade natural resources, and increase water scarcity (USAID, 2022).

To address the vulnerability of the poor to various calamities, the Government of Ethiopia (GoE) has formulated various interventions by designing social protection (SP), disaster risk reduction (DRR), and climate change adaptation (CCA) policies and programs/projects (Ogato, 2013). The most widely known SP program in Ethiopia is the Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP). PSNP aims to lessen the exposure of poor households to CC risks. PSNP is a major component of the food security program, and it is supplemented by household asset-building activities and risk-financing possibilities to increase support in the event of emergencies (Weldegebriel & Prowse, 2013; Welteji et al., 2017). The existing pastoral PSNP programs are, however, not suitable for pastoral environments because agrarian program experiences are applied in pastoral areas where basic government structures are in place and infrastructure is well established to deliver assistance. Pastoral areas also have different social dynamics, making the application of agrarian experiences difficult (FDRE, 2012).

According to the UN, around 3.5 million people in the Somali Region¹ are facing a humanitarian crisis due to three consecutive below-average rainy seasons that have caused severe drought, livestock deaths, food insecurity, and displacement. The region has been one of the most affected by the climate crisis in the country, with floods and droughts being major disasters. The flood crisis is linked to the riparian ecosystem, which includes the Shebelle, Genale, and Dawa rivers. These rivers strongly affect the surrounding communities, and different risk analysis reports and assessments corroborate this conclusion (OCHA, 2022).

Ethiopia’s pastoral DRR landscape is composed of many interventions with the involvement of many GOs and NGOs (UNDRR, 2022). The Pastoral Community Development Project, the Pastoral Livelihoods Initiative, Complementary Community Investment (CCI), the Humanitarian Response Fund, and the Household Asset Building Programs are some of the programs used to manage disaster risks. In pastoralist areas, particularly, the Pastoral Community Development Program (PCDP) has been in place to establish effective models of public service delivery, investment, and DRR and to increase the resilience of pastoral communities to external shocks (UNDRR, 2022).

In addition to SP and DRR interventions, a significant capacity has been built on CCA. Mention can be made of the Climate-Resilient Green Economy Strategy (CRGE). The CRGE Strategy (2011) was the first national policy document that strategically focused on CC responses (Echeverría & Terton, 2016). Before the CRGE strategy, the Ethiopian Constitution; the 1997 Environmental Policy; the 2002 Environmental Impact Assessment Proclamation; the 2003 Rural Development Policy and Strategies (RDPS); the 2007 Forest Management, Development, and Utilization Policy; the Forest Development, Conservation, and Utilization Proclamation (542/2007); the 207 National Adaptation Plan of Action (NAPA); the 2011 Ethiopian Program of Adaptation to Climate Change (EPACC); and the 2010 Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions were in place as part of Ethiopia’s pledge to mitigate the effects of CC (FDRE, 2022).

Although the GoE has to be acclaimed for its efforts to support pastoral livelihoods by designing SP, DRR, and CCA measures, it still faces obstacles to overcoming the problems of CC (FDRE, 2012). One of the challenges is the lack of coordination between SP, DRR, and CCA institutions because of conflicting mandates, lack of local responsiveness, and severe capacity shortages among government agencies. SP, DRR, and CCA projects are multidimensional and have been overseen by various governmental and nongovernmental (Addis & Assefa, 2013; FDRE, 2012). Thus, service provisions have gaps in terms of standards, coverage, accessibility, complementarities of programs, and institutional arrangements (FDRE, 2012). There are notable similarities between the three frameworks in terms of conceptual understanding and implementation. The problem is that distinct structures and processes are developed, which results in duplication of efforts and wastage of limited resources (FDRE, 2012). Therefore, there is a need to find ways in which the efforts of various institutions and projects can be combined and integrated to build effective and sustainable climate-resilient livelihoods (Addis & Assefa, 2013; FDRE, 2012).

Given the potential roles of the three frameworks, several studies have assessed the role of SP, DRR, and CCA interventions in mitigating risks and building sustainable livelihoods. Examination of PSNP interventions in Ethiopia shows that, even though the program has increased food security and well-being, its benefits are insufficient to fully protect participants from shocks (Béné et al., 2013). Likewise, a case study that takes climate risks into account through drought insurance shows fairly modest positive and negative changes in the frequency and amounts of beneficiaries and cash payments with an extreme range of climate model projections of rainfall by the 2020s (Conway & Schipper, 2011). However, no attention has been given to the question of how to strengthen climate-resilient livelihoods by integrating the three frameworks through the adoption of the adaptive social protection (ASP) approach. No possible ways of merging the practice of SP, DRR, and CCA were examined to devise pastoral-based ASP programs/projects in the Ethiopian context. The objective of this study is thus to (a) explore whether SP, DRR, and CCA are integrated into development programs and projects; (b) examine areas of duplication of activities in projects and programs; and (c) identify appropriate institutional response options that can help pastoralists address the challenges of CC and disaster risks.

Adaptive Social Protection Approach

LDCs experience a variety of climate-related shocks, such as floods and droughts, and other financial, food, and commodity prices, as well as conflict-related stresses (Bowen et al., 2020; Schnitzer, 2019). Global processes and CC crises are worsening the risks faced by poor and vulnerable people in rural areas, mainly those engaged in agriculture and other ecosystem-based livelihoods (Davies, Guenther, Leavy, Mitchell, & Tanner, 2009a, 2009b). Due to CC, the scale and frequency of shocks are predicted to rise, severely impacting the pastoral poor. These pressures make it problematic for the poor to shield their livelihoods, which frequently have long-term effects on their welfare (Bowen et al., 2020; Schnitzer, 2019). Heavy reliance on subsistence farming and pastoral activities means that rural people feel deeply the effects of CC shocks. This has significant implications for welfare and livelihood security (Davies et al., 2009a, 2009b).

Demographic factors like migration and urbanization exacerbate the consequences of climate-related disasters (Heltberg et al., 2009). Therefore, initiatives to address poverty and vulnerability need to recognize not only CC-related challenges disturbing the livelihoods of the poor but also socioeconomic factors that make people vulnerable (Béné et al., 2018). In such contexts, state and non-state actors are paying more attention to policy solutions that seek to address the root causes of poverty and vulnerability as well as reduce the growing risk of climate shocks and the effects of disasters (Devereux & Sabates-Wheeler, 2004; Heltberg et al., 2009; Shikur, 2020). Consequently, three social policy approaches—CCA, DRR, and SP—have become important (Davies et al., 2009a, 2009b; Heltberg et al., 2009).

One policy approach that has successfully shielded rural livelihoods from shocks is SP (Béné et al., 2018; Farrington et al., 2004). According to Davies et al. (2009a, 2009b):7), SP describes “all initiatives that transfer income or assets to the poor, protect the vulnerable against livelihood risks, and enhance the social status and rights of the marginalized.” Its goal is to expand the fruits of economic growth while reducing the socioeconomic exposure of marginalized people (Correa et al., 2023; Devereux & Gorman, 2006; Devereux & Sabates-Wheeler, 2004; Jones et al., 2010). According to Davies et al. (2009a, 2009b), this definition of SP provides four categories of instruments, including protective instruments (offer assistance in times of shortage), preventive instruments (prevent scarcity), promotive instruments (improve earnings and capabilities), and transformative instruments (attempting to tackle issues about equality and marginalization) (Devereux & Sabates-Wheeler, 2004). Properly designed SP interventions can support rural households not only to expand their asset positions but also to use them efficiently and adopt lucrative activities (Correa et al., 2023).

DRR describes “the development and application of policies, strategies, and practices that minimize vulnerabilities, hazards, and unfolding disaster impacts throughout a society in the broad context of sustainable development” (Davies et al., 2009a, 2009b:9). The goal of DRR interventions is to promote livelihood resilience by preparing for and mitigating the effects of disasters, hazards, and shocks before they occur. Beyond humanitarian and rehabilitation efforts, CCA focuses on averting and diminishing the negative effects of disasters (Djalante, 2012; Madu et al., 2018). CCA is concerned with reducing the threats that CC poses to an individual’s well-being and economic activities. DRR targets making livelihoods more resilient to the effects of disasters, hazards, and shocks before the occurrence of disasters (Smit & Pilifosova, 2003). It goes beyond humanitarian and rehabilitation interventions to thwart and reduce disaster-related risks. The goal of CCA is to reduce the risks that CC poses to people’s lives and means of subsistence (Turner, 2006). DRR programs/projects can lessen the impacts of disasters or transfer burdens outside the affected community. In agriculture, programs for DRR have been implemented to mitigate the effects of food shortages and avert pervasive famine. These programs comprise initiatives such as early warning systems, infrastructure investments, SP instruments, risk assessment and awareness creation, environmental management strategies, education, and training activities (Correa et al., 2023; Davies et al., 2009a, 2009b).

Due to their geographical location, lack of financial means, and reliance on economic activities susceptible to CC, rural families in LDCs are more exposed to the effects of CC than people in other countries (Praveen & Sharma, 2019). This situation consequently gives rise to multiple risks that can hinder economic growth, poverty reduction, and achievement of country-specific development goals in LDCs (Abeygunawardena et al., 2004; Stern, 2006). In response to these problems, a growing body of knowledge and practice has emerged around CCA to prepare for and respond to CC. Reducing the hazards that CC poses to the lives of rural households is the goal of CCA. CCA is all about the capacity to react and adapt to the actual or potential impacts of CC conditions in ways that mitigate harm or capitalize on any opportunities that CC may present (Akinyi et al., 2021; Smit & Pilifosova, 2003).

CCA and DRR are similar in that they both protect against the undesirable effects of severe events. In addition to the current historic weather-related shocks, CC has additional difficulties, such as increased heat waves, rising sea levels, storm severity, and quick glacier retreat (Adger et al., 2002). Although risks associated with climate change have always been a part of natural resource-dependent livelihoods, global processes, and crises are transforming and intensifying the dangers for vulnerable rural households engaged in agriculture (Davies et al., 2009a, 2009b; Gitz et al., 2016). Table 1 lists the key characteristics of SP, CCA, and DRR.

Table 1.

Main Features of SP, CCA, and DRR

	SP	CCA	DRR
Core disciplinary grounding	Development and welfare economics	Social development and physical sciences	Physical sciences and social development
Dominant focus	Implementation of measures to manage risks	Enabling processes of adaptation	Prevention of disaster events and preparedness to respond
Main shocks and stresses addressed	Multiple-idiosyncratic and covariant	Climate-related	All natural hazard related including climate and geophysical
International coordination	Informal and OECD task group	UNFCC	UN-ISDR Hyogo Framework for Action
Main funding	Ad hoc multilateral and bilateral, NGOs, national community-based, and faith-based organizations	Coordinated international funds-Global environment facility, UNFCC/Kyoto protocol funds, and ad hoc bilateral	Coordinated international funding-ISDR, GFDRR, Red Cross, and ad hoc civil-sponsored and bilateral

Source: Davies, et al. (2009a). Adaptive social protection: Synergies for poverty reduction. IDS Bulletin, 39(4), 105–112.

The three approaches have much in common in that they are all concerned with handling the threats that shocks pose to economic growth while creating resilient communities. They make use of similar and complementary instruments, including cash transfers, asset building, early warning, and the provision of improved crop varieties, and often target the most vulnerable and chronically rural poor (Arnall et al., 2010). Despite common elements, they have been practiced separately in Ethiopia and other countries. However, if applied in isolation, they will not be sufficient given the more complicated spectrum of threats that impoverished people confront (Davies et al., 2009a, 2009b; Heltberg et al., 2009; Arnall et al., 2010). There are also many benefits to exploring alternative strategies and determining how to maximize efficiency while minimizing duplication of efforts and resources (Arnall et al., 2010). In light of this fact, the ASP was developed by the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) and the UK Department for International Development (DFID) to strengthen cost-effective, efficient, climate-resilient, and disaster-resilient livelihoods. Researchers from the UK’s IDS discovered that while DRR, SP, and CCA come from different backgrounds, all three approaches aim at strengthening livelihood resilience and reducing exposure to various factors, such as long-term changes in climate conditions and their distribution over time and space (CCA), disasters and extreme events (DRR), and chronic poverty (SP) (Davies et al., 2013).

The term ASP describes a set of policy measures that combine the fundamentals of SP, DRR, and CCA in programs and projects to strengthen rural households’ resilience against CC and disasters (Arnall et al., 2010; Davies et al., 2013). The principal proposal of ASP is that synergies can be gained if SP, DRR, and CCA are brought closer together (Ziegler, 2016). The three frameworks have many common elements in that they reduce vulnerability to climate- and disaster-related shocks and enable rural households to secure livelihoods. Given that shocks and stresses are increasingly entwined, there are likely benefits to combining the three approaches (Vincent & Cull, 2012). The philosophy behind ASP is that more integration and knowledge exchange across these three approaches would have a greater effect on vulnerable rural households and help them escape poverty. The term represents the interconnectedness of stresses and shocks and the possible synergies that may result from combining the three approaches into one (Vincent & Cull, 2012) (Figure 1).

Research Methods

The objective of this study was to examine the links among SP, DRR, and CCA approaches. To this end, a meta-analysis of 122 programs and/or projects implemented in the Somali region was conducted.² Programme and project documents were from major government-run schemes, UN agencies, and NGOs. The documents were collected from the region’s economic and development bureau. The programs/projects were in different stages of implementation; 26 (21.3%) were at the initial stage, and 15 (12.2%) were phased out; however, the majority, that is, 81 (66.4%) were in progress when the research was conducted. The reviewed programs/projects’ implementation period spans from 2018 to 2023, with a gross budget of USD 3.5 billion. According to the program/project documents, the interventions have directly or indirectly benefited about 1.7 million people in the region.

The 122 programs/projects were characterized based on whether they used an SP, DRR, or CCA strategy or a mixture of these strategies to build livelihood resilience. To determine to which approach the programs/projects belong, we first assessed the objectives of each program/project. Thus, based on the work of Davies et al. (2013), a program/project is deemed to have an SP strategy if its primary goal is to lessen the exposure of households to livelihood threats and shocks (e.g., enhancing the rights and social standing of marginalized community groups) and whether it is employing SP tools to accomplish its goals. DRR approaches are classified by their focus on natural disasters. CCA strategies, on the other hand, are defined by their goal of supporting vulnerable households in adapting to CC. It is to be known that specific projects are not limited to a single strategy but can use a variety of activities to attain their objectives (Davies et al., 2013). To identify programs/projects for the integrated strategy, we consider programs/projects with clear goals and/or tools utilizing many approaches. The identified categories were then assessed against the 3P-T (prevention, protection, promotion, and transformation) framework.

Primary data were collected from primary sources in four woredas of the region: Adigala, Afdem, and Harshen; Awbere; and Jigjiga town. Primary data were gathered using KIIs (12) and FGDs (3). Key informants and focus group discussion participants were selected using purposive and snowball sampling techniques. The KII and FGD participants were pastoralists and members of the wider rural community, as well as GO and NGO officials working on pastoral livelihoods in the selected woredas³ and Jigjiga town. After collecting data from both primary and secondary sources, quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, whereas qualitative data were analyzed thematically.

Results and Discussion

Distribution of Evaluated Programs and Projects

In this section, we present the distribution of programs/projects in the Somali region. As shown in Figure 2, the majority of programs/projects were located in the Fafen Zone (i.e., 52, 29.8%), followed by Liben (33, 18.97%) and Shebele (21, 12.07%). Fafen zone has many programs/projects for many reasons. It is related to other zones because it has good infrastructure, and the zone hosts the regional capital, Jigjiga town. In addition, the zone accommodates the three refugee camps of Aw-Barre, Sheder, and Kebribeyah, as well as many IDPs displaced from the Oromia region. Moreover, due to their proximity to Jigjiga city, most woredas in the Fafen zone are believed to be secured so that humanitarian workers can easily move from place to place to discharge their responsibilities. The other zones that are far from Jigjiga city, especially zones that border Somalia experience severe security problems because of the movement of armed forces around them. Consequently, UN agencies and other NGOs are concentrated in the Fafen zone, which is relatively safer. The Erer and Nogob zones had the lowest number of programs/projects in the region. Here, we can learn that most projects, particularly those implemented by NGOs, are designed to target refugees and IDPs. As such, they are concentrated in zones with many refugees and IDPs. By contrast, those programs/projects run by the government and supported by UN agencies and other NGOs are relatively distributed across the different zones of the region.

Integration of Social Protection, Disaster Risk Reduction, and Climate Change Adaptation Programs and Projects

The fundamental motive for this study is the belief that SP, DRR, and CCA programs and projects are exercised separately despite their common goal of reducing rural households’ vulnerability. The three approaches have developed their objectives and are managed by different government structures. CCA, for example, is placed and managed by the Ministry or Bureau of Agriculture and Environment Protection, whereas DRR is placed in the Disaster Risk Management Commission. Social protection, on the other hand, is conferred on the Ministry or Bureau of Labor and Social Affairs. International Organizations and NGOs have replicated and used similar arrangements.

The goal of this study is to determine how SP, DRR, and CCA can be combined in practice and to discuss the lessons that can be used in future vulnerability reduction efforts. Out of the reviewed 122 projects and programs, 98 (80%) were determined to be implementing a single approach (low integration)⁴ (see Figure 3); 22 (18%) of the programs/projects have integrated two approaches (medium integration); and a small proportion, that is, 2 (1.6 %) have integrated all three approaches (high integration), which is the ASP approach. This implies that the level of combination of the three approaches and the practice of ASP is insignificant in the region. As shown in Figure 3(b), the SP approach took the lead in the programs/projects, accounting for 50 (41%) of the projects. The DRR approach accounted for 46 (37.7%) of the examined projects, whereas the CCA accounted for only 2%. From here, we can learn that among the analyzed programs/projects, the majority have adopted the SP and DRR approaches. CCA interventions are the least recognized sector in programs/projects. A higher level of integration was observed in the SP and DRR programs than in the SP and CCA and DRR and CCA programs/projects.

DRR and SP are the most common mix-ups of approaches in programs/projects. SP and DRR programs/projects tend to integrate more than CCA. In contrast, CCA and the other two approaches—SP and DRR—are not integrated. The results show that ASP programs/projects (the integration of the three approaches) are lacking. At times, when SP is integrated, it is primarily observed with DRR. In summary, the document analysis shows that GOs, NGOs, and development agencies did not create any links between the three approaches. The absence of linkages has limited the benefits that can be obtained from integrating the three approaches. In addition, the coverage of such initiatives is sparse in terms of policy framework.

When we look at the combination of SP-DRR interventions, scholars (e.g., Hellmuth et al., 2011; Heltberg, 2007) argue that the blend of SP and DRR is increasing because many new strategies for vulnerability reduction have come into being and have increased from time to time. According to Hellmuth et al. (2011), one of the specific innovations is the use of vulnerability mapping, demonstrating the fact that GO and NGO communities are making some efforts to integrate DRR with SP in program/project design and implementation. According to Davies et al. (2013), this may be a reaction to current efforts to move DRR away from reactive, post-disaster coping mechanisms such as food assistance toward more proactive, long-term planning, and management.

Duplication of Program and Project Activities

In addition to the fragmentation and absence of linkages between SP, DRR, and CCA programs/projects, our analysis revealed a problem of duplication of activities by several projects and programs. In this regard, participants in the FGDs indicated that similar activities or interventions were in place in the region through different programs and projects. FGD participants, for example, raised concerns that there are duplications among the various phases of the Pastoral Community Development Program (PCDP), PSNP (Productive Safety Net Program), DRSLP (Drought Resilience Sustainability Livelihood Program), and the RPLRP (Regional Pastoral Livelihood Resilience Project), among others. We also identified that the objectives of each of these programs/projects have different names but are similar in terms of their intervention areas and strategies, except for a few variations in technical and institutional arrangements. The information collected from the KIIs also indicated that there were overlaps in activities between the aforementioned programs.

A review of the objectives of the two programs (PSNP and PCDP) indicates that they are not completely similar in all aspects, yet there are overlapping activities between the two. Although the technical languages of the two documents exhibit a certain degree of disparity, the fundamental strategic and policy goals fall under the same pipeline. Discussions with experts at different levels indicated that the two programs are highly similar but are managed by different institutional structures. For instance, PSNP’s public works and HABP’s livelihood support activities are based on community development plans that are developed in collaboration with PCDP and PSNP but not a single process. When programs flow down to the lower-level units for implementation, they usually converge toward the same pattern, which eventually leads to the duplication of efforts.

There are both geographic and activity overlaps between the PSNP, PCDP, HABP (Household Asset Building Program), and WaSH programs. To begin with, PSNP combines unconditional cash transfers and employment in public works. A complementary intervention identified in this program is public works through payment transfer. Similar to this, there are corresponding PCDP interventions, namely, investments in public service infrastructure through the Community Investment Fund (CIF). For the two programs, there is a shared implementing institution at the lower levels. What is apparent in this regard is that there is a coordination deviation.

When it comes to other programs like HABP, it focuses mainly on the identification and creation of income-generating activities (IGAs) for chronically food-insecure households. In light of this, there are also other programs like PCDP to identify and develop viable IGAs for households identified for support through discussions with the community. HABP also focuses on promotion and capacity building for Rural Savings and Credit Cooperatives (RuSACCOs), which are similarly implemented in PCDP. Concomitant with this, there are other projects supporting cooperatives with support similar to RuSACCOs. The other similar intervention identified was infrastructure development implemented by both the PCDP and WaSH programs. RPLRP (Regional Pastoral Livelihoods Resilience Project) also emphasizes livestock value chain development, controlling domestic and cross-border livestock diseases, and the development of natural resources. These activities are also implemented through PCDP and PSNP interventions. The other area where duplication of efforts identified was the Community Investment Fund (CIF) for PCDP and public works for PSNP.

Discussions with GO and NGO representatives revealed that project-implementing agencies and oversight bodies are fairly similar, especially for initiatives that use decentralized and participatory techniques. For example, the structure and capacity of the food security task forces of PSNP at the woreda and kebele⁵ levels and the woreda and kebele development committees of PCDP, NNP (National Nutrition Program), and CBN (Community-Based Nutrition) are very alike. Similarly, PCDP, RuFIP (Rural Financial Intermediation Program), and HABP use the FCA (Financial Conduct Authority) and related structures to implement support for RuSACCOs. Considering the nature of the project’s oversight and implementation, it could therefore be carried out together. Relatedly, most of the projects do capacity-building interventions aimed at enhancing the implementation capacities of their implementers. To attain this goal, they approach the same agencies for support with the same objectives, resulting in duplication of effort, double indictment of resources, and reduced effectiveness.

As previously mentioned, PCDP, PSNP, HABP, and RuFIP have complementary and overlapping activities. These should be organized in tandem to minimize duplication of efforts and capitalize on existing synergies. The execution process excludes instruments to learn and share best practices, which would contribute to further success at all levels. Additionally, to support the implementation capacity of the government at woreda levels, some programs/projects (e.g., PSNP, HABP, and PCDP) have parallel arrangements. One of the main problems described by the FGD participants because of the parallel implementation of activities is the loss of ownership and difficulty in identifying a single institution.

Associated with the duplication of efforts and costs is the overlapping of using community structures to implement programs/projects. Communities and CBOs function as implementing agencies for the different programs/projects. CBOs are involved in need identification, appraisal of problems, implementation of programs/projects, and monitoring and evaluation. Implementation of programs/projects at the community level involves kebele development committees. As such, the socioeconomic problems that the committees identify for various programs/projects do overlap. The interview results indicated that there are overlapping socioeconomic structures, such as CBOs and women and youth associations which help to identify community problems. The use of a similar structure by various programs/projects is thus the driving force for duplication of efforts because the nature of the problems and arrangements to curb them are already intertwined and potentially correlated. The planning processes adopted by, for example, PSNP and PCDP also overlap in the visited study woredas.

Having similar interventions by different programs/projects is cost-intensive and worth significant money. In low-income countries like Ethiopia, duplication of activities has financial implications. To avoid duplication of efforts and costs, there must be a re-arrangement of cost minimization through integration and coordination of programs/projects. Indeed, the cost of running similar activities by different institutions can serve as a community development project as part of a sub-project under another. However, such programming is less effective unless it involves implementing ASP programs. In that case, for instance, as part of community contributions, PSNP recipients who receive financial transfers will be allowed to provide labor to PCDP sub-projects instead of working on PSNP public works, which was primarily the case in the previous trend. The defects in the programs under operation require the planning process outlined above and others that will be integrated into the three approaches (SP, DRR, and CCA), as anticipated under ASP.

Contribution to Promote Livelihood Resilience

After identifying the pattern and degree of integration between the three approaches, we examined how integration can build livelihood resilience using the 3P-T (protective, preventive, promotive, and transformative) framework. Table 2 shows the distribution of programs/projects, whether they are protective, preventive, promotive, or transformative (Devereux & Sabates-Wheeler, 2004).

The lack of proactive social protection interventions that follow at least the essential elements of a comprehensive SP model that involves protective, preventive, promotive, and transformative approaches is a cause for concern in the region. As shown in Table 2, most programs/projects feature protective 50 (41%) and 32 (26.2%) consist of preventive components. About 19 (15.6%) of the programs and projects involve promotive features, and only 12 (9.84%) of the projects involve transformative features. The remaining nine (7.38%) programs/projects combine both protective and preventive measures.

Table 2.

Distribution of Programs/Projects by Categories of Their Objectives.

Categories of objectives	Frequency	Percentage
Protective	50	40.98
Preventive	32	26.23
Promotive	19	15.57
Transformative	12	9.84
Protective and preventive	9	7.38
Total	122	100.00

Source: Somali Regional State, Bureau of Planning and Economic Development, 2023

The 3P-T frameworks were also analyzed against the integration of SP, DRR, and CCA. As such, in the case of programs/projects using only the SP approach, the analysis indicates that preventive measures (40%) followed by promotive measures (26%) are common (see Table 3). Preventive strategies can directly address the reduction of poverty. Social insurance was one of these solutions for those who were economically vulnerable, had fallen into poverty, and required assistance to cope with the shocks to their livelihood (Davies et al., 2013). Among SP programs/projects that have preventive features are (a) home-grown school feeding projects; (b) projects that aim at improving access to quality health for mothers and children; (c) those projects aimed at ensuring the supply of life-saving medical supplies; (d) interventions on adolescent nutrition; (e) those that provide medical and nutrition assistance to vulnerable populations; and (f) projects that aim at improving hygiene practices and access to WaSH facilities for vulnerable and displacement-affected populations, among others.

Promotive programs/projects aim to improve real incomes and capabilities, which is achieved through a range of livelihood-enhancing programs, such as micro-credit and school feeding (Davies et al., 2013). SP programs/projects implemented and reviewed in the region include (a) resilience building and the creation of economic opportunities for the vulnerable; (b) those that aim at improving access to livelihood rehabilitation services for vulnerable people; and (c) programs/projects on integrated agriculture development. There are also transformative programs/projects in the area, including (a) a project that supports women and girls to realize their rights to life, health, and productive lives free from violence and abuse; (b) projects that aim at improving women’s empowerment and empower the youth for work; and (c) projects that aim to enhance quality and universal access to Indigenous people’s reproductive health care.

Table 3.

Categories of Program and Project Objectives and Integration of SP, DRR, and CCA.

	Preventive		Protective		Promotive		Transformative		Protective and preventive		Total
	Freq	%	Freq	%	Freq	%	Freq	%	Freq	%	Freq	%
SP	20	40	5	10	13	26	10	20	2	4	50	100
DRR	4	8.7	42	91.3	-	-	-	-	-	-	46	100
CCA	-	-	-	-	2	100	-	-	-	-	2	100
SP + DRR	8	36.4	3	13.6	4	18.2	-	-	7	31.8	22	100
ASP	-	-	-	-	-	-	2	100	-	-	2	100

Source: Somali Regional State, Bureau of Planning and Economic Development, 2023.

The other sets of programs/projects are DRR interventions. As shown in Table 3, 91.3% of the DRR programs/projects are protective in nature. This finding makes sense because, in the immediate wake of a disaster, protective measures are usually associated with transitory interventions that aim to enhance people’s coping mechanisms (Mitchell et al., 2010). Some of the DRR programs/projects implemented in the region include (a) integrated multi-sectoral emergency WaSH responses for displacement-affected populations; (b) emergency nutrition responses to extremely vulnerable people; (c) integrated humanitarian assistance for displacement-affected communities; (d) multi-sector support and COVID-19 risk mitigation for IDPs; (e) integrated emergency nutrition and WaSH interventions for drought-affected communities; (f) emergency responses to COVID-19; (g) emergency food security and livelihood interventions; and (h) emergency response to desert locust. All these initiatives seek to safeguard and assist impoverished and vulnerable people, such as women, children, the elderly, those with disabilities, the displaced, the jobless, and the ill.

The third group of programs/projects comprises those that integrate SP and DRR. As shown in Table 3, 36.4% of the 22 programs/projects that combine both SP and DRR interventions have preventive features, and 31.8% of them have both protective and preventive features. Some of the SP + DRR projects that have protective features include (a) SRHR response to internally displaced persons (IDPs); (b) desert locust control and resilience building projects; (c) integrated emergency WaSH and nutrition response projects; (d) SGBV service capacity developments for IDPs; and (e) supporting people affected by displacement to access timely protection assistance in achieving durable solutions, among others. Likewise, SP + DRR projects with both preventive and protective features include (a) a project to improve safety, protection, and access to WaSH and other basic services for displaced and conflict-affected communities; (b) a project that aims at fostering food security and resilience of IDPs and HCs; (c) an integrated emergency project on WaSH and NFI assistance to IDP returnees and venerable communities; (d) an integrated emergency multi-sector response to COVID-19 and improving nutrition status among children; (e) fostering food security and resilience of IDPs and HCs for supporting their recovery and resilience; and (f) integrated child protection and GBV response to IDPs, among others.

The last group of programs and projects involves those that integrate the three approaches, which is referred to as the ASP approach. In this regard, the findings indicate that only two projects have the ASP feature. These are (a) integrated interventions to save lives and restore livelihoods for pastoralists and (b) a sustainable livelihood project.

Most of the SP and SP-DRR programs/projects examined in this research focused on preventive and protective features. Programs/projects that combine all four categories of measures (prevention, protection, promotion, and transformation) are absent. In sum, combining these measures into one program/project usually has the impact of extending the intervention’s operational life span, which reinforces its support for longer-term goals pertinent to interventions, such as CCA programs. The findings indicate that where the three approaches are integrated into ASP, they give attention to transformative programs/projects above transformative, preventive, and protective measures.

Conclusion and Policy Implications

The study identifies significant gaps in the integration of CCA, DRR, and SP interventions in the Somali region of Ethiopia. As such, building on the values of the ASP approach, this study offers some insights to enhance disaster- and climate-resilient livelihoods. A well-designed ASP strategy targets vulnerable rural households, who need urgent protection and support more than others. Apart from vulnerable rural households, the GoE can take advantage of employing an ASP approach because it can parcel resources and increase the success of interventions. When designing interventions, program/project implementers and policymakers should consider the possibilities of integrating the three approaches into an ASP framework.

To address the integration gaps and enhance the resilience of vulnerable communities, policymakers need to consider the broader adoption of interventions across four key dimensions such as sustaining, mainstreaming, replicating, and scaling up. With only 1.6% of the assessed interventions adopting ASP, the likelihood of sustaining integrated approaches is minimal in the study area due to weak institutional arrangements and lack of coordinated efforts. Policies should prioritize strengthening governance structures to support long-term sustainability. Thus, mainstreaming looks the right option with 18% of projects having the potential to be mainstreamed into existing development frameworks. This mainstreaming may promote to ASP. The majority of programs/projects adopt a single approach that can be replicated and scaled up to subsequently adopt ASP.

Policymakers should also focus on embedding DRR and SP strategies into national and regional development plans while improving the inclusion of CCA. To replicate successful models, efforts should be directed toward documenting best practices, particularly where DRR and SP are effectively combined. These practices can inform the design of new projects in similar contexts. Scaling up requires strategic investments in capacity building and resource allocation. Enhanced coordination among stakeholders and clear policy directives are essential to expanding the reach and impact of integrated interventions.

Integration of the three approaches into ASP indeed requires appropriate institutional frameworks and collaborations. To bring about essential coordination among the three approaches and have ASP, concerned stakeholders need to design coherent and complementary policies and strategies across sectors. One of the important characteristics of an ASP is the involvement of several state and non-state actors in its design and execution. As such, strong government guidance is central to ensuring the integration of uncoordinated stakeholders, based on clear documentation and assignment of respective mandates and accountability.

Creating consistency in national policies and plans can serve as a starting point for ASP. The GoE formulated and created the Climate-Resilient Green Economy Plan (CRGEP) in 2019, the National Policy and Strategy on Disaster Risk Management in 2013, and the National Social Protection Policy in 2012. Ethiopia’s social protection strategy, for example, aims to shield people from deprivation, increase resilience, insure against shocks, and boost human capital and opportunities for income-generating activities. The Ethiopian DRM policy also aims to increase the shock resilience of low-income and vulnerable households. Beyond the SP and DRM policies, Ethiopia’s CRGEP has ASP commitments. The objective of the CRGEP is to protect the country from the negative effects of climate change and foster the growth of a green economy to achieve its goal of becoming a middle-income country by 2025. Here we learn that the goal of shielding rural households at risk from CC and shocks connected to disasters is shared by the three strategies. As such, the basis for coordination is policy coherence within certain sectors, which is a critical issue to reach at ASP. Since the ASP encompasses the engagement of many sectoral organizations, many government departments, and NGOs, each of the organizations needs to have its own management structure, incentives, and accountability. Government-led coordination across different state and non-state actors and program delivery models is essential to the overall efficacy of ASP.

The presence and support of a single entity that coordinates responses and collaborates closely with other national agencies, sub-national authorities, NGOs, and international organizations are some of the variables that can lead to more efficient program coordination to respond to shocks (Bailey, 2018). In addition to policies and plans, the identification of an organization in charge of ASP coordination typically dictates the extent of governmental supervision. In this regard, the Ethiopian National SP program is housed in the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, the DRM policy and strategies are placed in the DRM Commission and the Ministry of Agriculture, and CRGEP is housed in the Ministry of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Authority. Based on government interests and structures, choosing one ministerial office among those mentioned and hosting the ASP are fundamental government interventions.

The ASP also engages in the establishment of strategic alliances between NGOs and the government. In this regard, the available literature demonstrates a wide range of participants in Ethiopia’s humanitarian efforts. They include national and international NGOs, civil society, and other organizations. These organizations are the owners of programs/projects assessed for this study. These organizations, therefore, need to work together to reduce any gaps or overlaps in providing the required services. The coordination of humanitarian interventions with government structures is also an ongoing problem for the humanitarian system. To respond to this problem, the identified ASP coordinating institution must have a variety of institutional governance structures in place as well as a well-institutionalized coordination system defined by sectors. The ASP coordinating entity, which can be headquartered in the government, is expected to collaborate with humanitarian teams. Data exchange between ASP offices and humanitarian players can lead to increased coordination, better information sharing, and collaboration. Humanitarian coordination mechanisms will play a crucial role in improving relationships when ASP aligns with the humanitarian system. In the end, this may reduce duplication of efforts and reduce costs.

Significant research and knowledge gaps exist, especially about the particular means of achieving ASP in various circumstances. This contributes to the absence of consideration of ASP in national policy priorities. More research is needed to assess these effects as well as investigate how an ASP strategy can affect the vulnerability of vulnerable rural households in various regions of Ethiopia while considering various projects and programs. In addition, future studies should focus on the lessons that should be shared across Ethiopia’s regions regarding how donors and national-level institutions can help to overcome current institutional obstacles to integration, and how best practices can be converted into policy changes within federal and regional governments.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to Jigjiga University, Ethiopia, for funding the research project, from which this article is extracted.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest concerning the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Jigjiga University (NA).

ORCID iD

Getahun Fenta Kebede

Notes

Author Biographies

Getahun Fenta Kebede is an Assistant Professor at Addis Ababa University, where he is engaged in research, teaching, and providing community services. He holds PhD Degree in Local Development and Global Dynamics. His research interests include poverty, climate change and resilience, social protection, inclusive development, livelihood systems, migration, informal economy, social capital and entrepreneurship.

Belay Wowber Gurmu is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Jigjiga University, where he actively contributes to the academic community through his role in teaching, research and community services. With a profound passion for research, Mr. Belay specializes and is interested the field of gender and development studies.

Zerihun Berhane Weldegebriel is working as an Associate Professor at the Center for African and Asian Studies, Addis Ababa University and serves as a Vice President of the Ethiopian Evaluation Association. His research areas include climate change adaptation, social protection, livelihoods systems, disaster risk management, food security, poverty, inequality, and migration.

References

Abeygunawardena

Vyas

Knill

Foy

Harrold

Steele

Sperling

(2004). Poverty and climate change: Reducing the vulnerability of the poor through adaptation.

Addis

Assefa

(2013). Social protection systems in pastoral areas of Ethiopia: The case of Fentale district, Oromia Region. In Informal and formal social protection systems in sub-saharan Africa (p. 177). African Books Collective.

Adger

W. N.

Huq

Brown

Conway

Hulme

(2002). Adaptation to climate change in the developing world. Progress in Development Studies, 3(3), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1191/1464993403ps060oa

Akinyi

D. P.

Ng’ang’a

S. K.

Girvetz

E. H.

(2021). Trade-offs and synergies of climate change adaptation strategies among smallholder farmers in sub-saharan Africa: A systematic review. Regional Sustainability, 2(2), 130–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsus.2021.05.002

Arnall

Davies

Tanner

(2010). Adaptive Social Protection: Mapping the Evidence and Policy Context in the Agriculture Sector in South Asia. Presentation for the STEPS Conference 2010. Pathways to Sustainability.

Bailey

(2018). Institutions for adaptive social protection: External linkages and the humanitarian sector.” Background Paper. Oxford Policy Management.

Béné

Cannon

Davies

Newsham

Tanner

(2013). Social protection and climate change. A paper prepared for the OECD-DAC Task Team on Social Protection.

Béné

Mehta

McGranahan

Cannon

Gupte

Tanner

(2018). Resilience as a policy narrative: Potentials and limits in the context of urban planning. Climate & Development, 10(2), 116–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2017.1301868

Bowen

Del Ninno

Andrews

Coll-Black

Johnson

Kawasoe

Williams

(2020). Adaptive social protection: Building resilience to shocks. World Bank Publications.

10.

Conway

Schipper

E. L. F.

(2011). Adaptation to climate change in Africa: Challenges and opportunities identified from Ethiopia. Global Environmental Change, 21(1), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.013

11.

Correa

J. S.

Daidone

Davis

Sitko

N. J.

(2023). Social protection and rural transformation in Africa. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 15(1), 305–327. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-101422-100158

12.

Davies

Béné

Arnall

Tanner

Newsham

Coirolo

(2013). Promoting resilient livelihoods through adaptive social protection: Lessons from 124 programmes in South asia. Development Policy Review, 31(1), 27–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7679.2013.00600.x

13.

Davies

Guenther

Leavy

Mitchell

Tanner

(2008). Adaptive social protection: Synergies for poverty reduction. IDS Bulletin, 39(4), 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2008.tb00483.x

14.

Davies

Guenther

Leavy

Mitchell

Tanner

(2009a). Climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction, and social protection: Complementary roles in agriculture and rural growth? IDS Working Papers, 2009(320), 01–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2040-0209.2009.00320_2.x

15.

Davies

Guenther

Leavy

Mitchell

Tanner

(2009b). ‘Adaptive social protection’: Synergies for poverty reduction. IDS Bulletin, 39(4), 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2008.tb00483.x

16.

Devereux

(2006). Vulnerable livelihoods in Somali region, Ethiopia. In IDS Research Report (Vol, 57). Institute of Development Studies.

17.

Devereux

Gorman

(2006). Looking at social protection through a livelihoods lens. IDS in Focus.

18.

Devereux

Sabates-Wheeler

(2004). Transformative social protection. Institute of Development Studies. IDS Working Paper 232.

19.

Djalante

(2012). Review article: “Adaptive governance and resilience: The role of multi-stakeholder platforms in disaster risk reduction”. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 12(9), 2923–2942. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-12-2923-2012

20.

Echeverría

Terton

(2016). Review of current and planned adaptation action in Ethiopia. Retrieved from: https://Review_of_current_and_planned_adaptation_action_in_Ethiopia_(dspacedirect.org)

21.

Farrington

Slater

Holmes

(2004). The search for synergies between social protection and livelihood promotion: The agriculture case. Overseas Development Institute.

22.

FDRE . (2012). Government of the federal democratic republic of Ethiopia national social protection policy. FDRE.

23.

FDRE . (2022). Ethiopia’s third national communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Available at: https://TNC_Ethiopia_Submission_V5.pdf_(unfccc._int).

24.

Field

C. B.

Barros

V. R.

(Eds.), (2014). Climate change 2014–Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability: Regional aspects. Cambridge University Press.

25.

Gezie

(2019). Farmer’s response to climate change and variability in Ethiopia: A review. Cogent Food and Agriculture, 5(1), Article 1613770. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2019.1613770

26.

Gitz

Meybeck

Lipper

Young

C. D.

Braatz

(2016). Climate change and food security: Risks and responses. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Report, 110(2), 3–36.

27.

Hellmuth

M. E.

Mason

S. J.

Vaughan

van Aalst

M. K.

Choularton

(eds) (2011). A better climate for disaster risk management. International Research Institute for Climate and Society (IRI), Columbia University.

28.

Heltberg

(2007). Helping South Asia cope better with natural disasters: The role of social protection. Development Policy Review, 25(6), 681–698. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7679.2007.00392.x

29.

Heltberg

Siegel

P. B.

Jorgensen

S. L.

(2009). Addressing human vulnerability to climate change: Toward a ‘no-regrets’ approach. Global Environmental Change, 19(1), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.11.003

30.

Jones

Ludi

Levine

(2010). Towards a characterization of adaptive capacity: A framework for analyzing adaptive capacity at the local level. Overseas Development Institute.

31.

Madu

C. N.

Kuei

C. H.

Madu

I. E.

Ozumba

B. C.

Nnadi

V. E.

Odinkonigbo

U. L.

Ezeasor

I. C.

(2018). Introduction to disaster risk reduction and management. In Handbook of disaster risk reduction & management (pp. 1–29). World Scientific Publishing Company Pte Limited.

32.

Mitchell

Van Aalst

Silva Villanueva

(2010). Assessing progress on integrating disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in development processes. Retrieved from: https://Assessing_Progress_on_Integrating_Disaster_Risk_Reduction.pdf_(ids.ac.UK)

33.

OCHA (2022). Horn of Africa drought: Regional humanitarian Overview & call to action (revised 21 september 2022). Retrieved from: https://horn_of_Africa_drought:_Regional_humanitarian_overview_&_call_to_action_(revised_21_september_2022)_-_Ethiopia_|_ReliefWeb

34.

Ogato

G. S.

(2013). The human ecology of disasters in Ethiopia: The quest for participatory disaster management and sustainable livelihood improvement of pastoral communities. American Journal of Human Ecology, 2(1), 21–27.

35.

Praveen

Sharma

(2019). A review of literature on climate change and its impacts on agriculture productivity. Journal of Public Affairs, 19(4), Article e1960. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1960

36.

Schnitzer

(2019). How to target households in adaptive social protection systems? Evidence from humanitarian and development approaches in Niger. Journal of Development Studies, 55(sup1), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2019.1687877

37.

Shikur

Z. H.

(2020). Agricultural policies, agricultural production and rural households’ welfare in Ethiopia. Journal of Economic Structures, 9(1), 50–121. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40008-020-00228-y

38.

Smit

Pilifosova

(2003). Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainable development and equity. Sustainable Development, 8(9), 9.

39.

Stern

(2006). The economics of climate change: The stern review. Cambridge University Press.

40.

Teshome

(2016). Rural households’ agricultural land vulnerability to climate change in Dembia woreda, Northwest Ethiopia. Environmental Systems Research, 5(1), 14–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40068-016-0064-3

41.

Tofu

D. A.

Mekuria

M. M.

Ogato

G. S.

(2023). Climatic extremes’ resilient livelihoods of rural households in the Eastern Ethiopia. Agriculture & Food Security, 12(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-023-00446-0

42.

Turner

(2006). Adaptation policy frameworks for climate change: Developing strategies, policies, and measures, edited by Bo Lim and Erika spanger-Siegfried. Arctic, 59(1), 96–97. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic371

43.

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) . (2022). Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction 2022: Our world at risk: Transforming governance for a resilient future. UNDRR.

44.

USAID . (2022). Ethiopia climate change fact sheet - U.S. Agency for International Development. (USAID).

45.

Vincent

Cull

(2012). Adaptive social protection: Making concepts a reality: A guide for practitioners. Institute of Development Studies.

46.

Weldegebriel

Z. B.

Prowse

(2013). Climate‐change adaptation in Ethiopia: To what extent does social protection influence livelihood diversification? Development Policy Review, 31(s2), 035–056. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12038

47.

Welteji

Mohammed

Hussein

(2017). The contribution of the productive safety Net program for food security of rural households in the case of bale zone, southeast Ethiopia. Agriculture and Food Security, 6(1), 1–11.

48.

Ziegler

(2016). Adaptive Social Protection–linking social protection and climate change adaptation. GIZ Discussion Papers on Social Protection.