| Summary: | Resettlement as a response to food security has been practised in Ethiopia since the imperial regime. In
all the respective governments, the aim was superficially the same-moving people from drought
affected areas or over populated regions and over utilized land settlement to the so called fertile arable
lands. Despite the different motives the programme has been launched, it has its own positive and
negative impact on the relocated and the host community. Based on this background, this study
explores the impact of the current Ethiopian resettlement on the livelihoods of the host and resettler
community at Isara resettlement site of Dawuro Zone in Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples`
Region (SNNPR) - a region which embraces over 56 ethnic groups.
With the multi-cultural context of this region, the resettlement was carried out within the region from
one zonal administration to the other zonal or special district administration. Accordingly, people from
the Hadiya, Kambata, Tambaro, and Wolayta ethnic zones were moved to Dauwro ethnic zone. The
people relocated from these zonal administrations have different socio-economic, cultural and historical
backgrounds with the receiving zone, Dawuro Zone. According to the national rural development
policy, resettlement was taken as a strategy to alleviate the plight of food security by moving people
within the same region of similar socio-cultural, linguistic and historical make up. But the practice in
SNNPR basically violates this reality and pushed to be implemented as a region. This study looks into
the challenges of this context to maintain livelihood in the new area of settlement. It answers the
following questions: what impacts does the resettlement have on the host and resettler community.
What livelihood activities are practised by the resettler and host community? What is the current status
of the livelihoods for the resettlers and host communities?
The study clearly shows that the current resettlement practice at Isara site has predominantly negative
impact on the livelihoods of the host and resettler communities. This impact was traced back to the
poor provision of social and agricultural input services to the relocatees and the inconsistency of the
promised infrastructural and social service institutions in the site. Above all, the inappropriate use or
deforestation of the locally available livelihood resource made the matter worst. Meanwhile the
growing number of relocated people in the new site aggravated the clearing of more forest land to
agricultural settlement. This inevitably caused the ecological imbalance in the site. This contradicts
with the basic livelihood concept which incorporates - the capacity, resources affordable and the
activities to make a living. Here the demolished local forest and land resources cut of f the above
livelihood cycle. Likewise, the capacity where the labour force is the dominant source, is affected
by the poor psycho-social support for the relocated and challenge of social networking in the new
site hinders the work force motivation and welfare. The poor health and education services in the site
hold back the health status of the productive power and thus affect the capacity to make livelihood.
Over all, the resettlement launched at Isara site has resulted in the loss of natural resources, and thus
has dwindled the effort to sustain their livelihood for the present and future.
|
|---|