HORN OF AFRICA (HOA) INITIATIVE: REGIONAL

ECONOMIC CORRIDOR PROJECT (P174485)

Historically Underserved Traditional Local Community

Planning Framework (HPF)
and Draft Social Assessment

ETHIOPIAN ROADS ADMINISTRATION

Ethiopian Roads Administration New Head Office Building,
Ras Abebe Aregay Street.
P.O. Box: 1770
Tele: +251-11-515 66 03
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

January 2022
Final
Contents
Acronyms ......................................................................................................................................... i
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
2. Relevant Policy and Regulatory Framework .............................................................................. 3
2.1. World Bank ESS7 requirement ............................................................................................ 3
2.1.1. Definition of HUTLC .................................................................................................. 4
2.1.2. World Bank Requirement for project implanted where HUTLC are Presen ................ 5
2.2. Relevant Ethiopian institutional, Policies and Legal Framework ........................................ 8
2.2.1. Ethiopian Constitution .................................................................................................. 8
2.2.2. Ethiopian Institutional Framework ............................................................................... 9
2.2.3. Ethiopian policy and legal requirement ...................................................................... 10
2.2.4 Regional Legal and Institutional Framework ............................................................. 11
Applicability of customary laws ............................................................................................... 13
2.3. Gap Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 13
3. Project Description.................................................................................................................... 15
3.1. Project location................................................................................................................. 15
3.2. Project development objective ........................................................................................ 15
3.3. Project beneficiary ........................................................................................................... 15
3.4. Project component ........................................................................................................... 16
3.5. Potential Negative and Social Impact Arising from Sub-Project .......................................... 16
4. Description of the Project Area Inhabitants .............................................................................. 20
5. Procedure and Step for HPF ..................................................................................................... 21
5.1. Objective: .......................................................................................................................... 21
5.2. Basic Principles ................................................................................................................ 22
5.3. Basic Requirements ......................................................................................................... 23
5.4. Steps for Implementation of HPF ................................................................................... 25
5.4.1. Step one: Targeted Social Assessment ....................................................................... 26
5.4.2. Step two: FPIC ............................................................................................................ 29
5.4.3. Step three: SCDP preparation ..................................................................................... 30
5.4.4. Step four : Implementation, monitoring, reporting, and review ................................. 31
6. HPF Implementation Management System/plan ...................................................................... 31
6.1. Design Phase ..................................................................................................................... 32
6.2. Construction Phase .......................................................................................................... 32
1
 6.3. The institutional responsibilities for implementing the HPF ....................................... 33
6.3.1 Implementing Agencies’Responsibility ....................................................................... 33
6.3.2. Construction Supervision Consultant (CSC) .............................................................. 34
6.3.3. Design and Build Contractor ...................................................................................... 35
6.3.4. FFO ............................................................................................................................. 35
7. Grievance Handling .................................................................................................................. 35
8. Monitoring and Reporting......................................................................................................... 36
Annex 1: Indicative Targeted Social Assessment Content ........................................................... 40
Annex 2 Indicative SCDP Content ............................................................................................... 42
Annex 3: FPIC Inception Report .................................................................................................. 45
1. Objectives of the Assignment & General Approach............................................................. 45
2. Communities Included Within the FPIC Process ................................................................. 48
3. Field Team Composition, Responsibilities, and Organization ............................................. 49
4. Workplan: Steps in the FPIC Process ................................................................................... 51
5. Workplan Deliverables & Timeline ...................................................................................... 52
6. Collaboration with ERA and the Bank ................................................................................. 54
7. Discussion Questions for FPIC Stakeholders during 1st Round of Consultations ............... 54
Annex 4: CSO Assessment ........................................................................................................... 56
1. Objective of this Assignment and General Approach........................................................... 56
2. Field Team Composition, Responsibilities, and Organization ............................................. 57
3. Potential FFO Candidates& Selection Process ..................................................................... 60
Annex A: Definitions of CSO, NGO, and Others ......................................................................... 62
Annex B: FFO Selection ToR ....................................................................................................... 63
Draft Social Assessment Report ................................................................................................... 71
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 73
1.1 Scope and Objective ..................................................................................................... 73
1.2 Methods ......................................................................................................................... 73
2. Project location.................................................................................................................... 73
3. Self-identification of project-affected people ....................................................................... 75
3.1 Population ..................................................................................................................... 75
3.2 Access to Basic Social Services .................................................................................... 76
4. Collective attachment to the land and geography ................................................................. 77
4.1 Historic Territories ...................................................................................................... 78
4.2 Natural Resource .......................................................................................................... 79

2
 4.3 Territorial and resource conflict ................................................................................. 79
4.4 Customary Conflict management ............................................................................... 80
5. The customary cultural, social, and political institutions ..................................................... 81
5.1 Religious ........................................................................................................................ 81
5.2 Economic Activities ...................................................................................................... 82
5.3 Customary social institution........................................................................................ 83
5.4 Customary Tenure system ........................................................................................... 84
5.5 Government legal and policy on Land and natural resources ................................. 84
6. A distinct language or dialect identified ............................................................................... 85
7. Vulnerable groups ................................................................................................................. 85

3
Acronyms
CSO= Civil Society Organization
CSC= Construction Supervision Consultant
DBC= Design-Build Contractor
DRS= Developing Regional State
ERA= Ethiopian Road Administration
ESS= Environmental and Social Standard
FGD= Focus Group Discussion
FPIC=Free Prior Informed Decision
GRM= Grievance Redress Mechanism
GVB= Gender-Based Violence
HoA= Horn of Africa
HPF= Historically Underserved Local Traditional Community Planning Framework
HUTLC= Historically Underserved Traditional Local Community
IPO= Indigenous People Organization/institution
KII= Key Informant Interview
MOT= Ministry of Trade
MoU= Memorandum of Understanding
NGO= Non-Governmental Organization
PLWD= People Living with Disability
RPF= Resettlement Program Framework
SA= Social Assessment
SCDP=Social and Community Development Plan
SEP= Stakeholder Engagement Plan
STD= Sexually Transmitted Diseases
 1. Introduction
The Horn of Africa Initiative: Regional Economic Corridor Project (P174485) is part of a global
initiative for regional integration in the HoA. The project development objective is to improve
regional connectivity and enhance logistics efficiency along the Addis-Djibouti road corridor.
The desired project impacts on development outcomes are on economic welfare (e.g. income,
wages, consumption, and land value appreciation), social inclusion (jobs, underserved
communities, and gender), equity (poverty and inequality), environmental quality (pollution,
preservation of flora and fauna), economic resilience (mitigating potential losses due to large
shocks, including, for example, commodity price shocks, economic and financial crises) and
resilience to climate change impact (e.g. droughts, floods, and landslides).

Implementation of the project is designed with five components: Component 1: Safe, Smart,
Efficient and Climate-Resilient Road Corridor Construction; Component 2: Trade Facilitation
and Logistics Enhancement; Component 3: Localized Complementary Infrastructure and
Interventions; Component 4: Institutional Development and Project Monitoring; and Component
5: Contingent Emergency Response Component (CERC). The first project component involves
the construction of 142km from Mieso to Dire Dawa that is cutting through threeRegionalStates,
where historically underserved traditional pastoral communities are believed to be inhabited. The
road is being designed as a 4-lane fenced, tolled, and closed expressway with a 90m roadway
reserve width. The other two components (components 2&3) consist of a smaller logistics
facility construction and improving localized public Infrastructure: construction of link and
access road, water points, and local trade infrastructure as part enhancing benefit sharing.

The abovementioned three project components, due to their nature and scale of the activity, will
have potential adverse impact and risk on the existed HUTLC (Historically Underserved
Traditional Local community) inhabiting along the road alignment. On the other side, component
3 is designed considering the HUTLC as Sole Beneficiaries of the component’s outcome which
deliver equitable benefit sharing opportunity. The adverse impact or risk anticipated from the
construction and operation of the road and logistic infrastructure may include land possession,
access and mobility restriction to the natural resource (grazing land and water point) and
culturally significant place, community health, and safety risk, exclusion of vulnerable groups
within the underserved, unfair benefit-sharing, etc. Owingto these, ESS7 and the relevant
Ethiopian legislation and policy are necessitated applying throughout the project implementation.
1
The ESS7 set out the Bank commitment that project supported by the Bank enhance
opportunities for HUTLC to participate in, and benefit from, the development process in ways
that do not threaten their unique cultural identities and well-being. The ESS7 also stipulated a
standard that client is to meet throughout the life of an investment and also outline guidance for
this on how to identify the risk and impact, and design measures to avoid, mitigate, and manage
risks as a way of doing business sustainably in a manner that is accessible, culturally appropriate,
and inclusive. The provision in the ESS7 entails 1) targeted social assessment including adverse
impacts identification and risk evaluation mainly exhibited on land, and natural and cultural
resources; vulnerability analysis on differentiated gender impacts and potentially disadvantaged
or vulnerable groups within the community of HUTLC; implementation capacity gap
assessment, and identifying measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or compensate the affected
inhabitant for any potential adverse impacts in manner culturally appropriate consultation 2)
meaningful consultation with different stakeholder 3) obtaining free prior informed consent of
the affected inhabitants in a manner of culturally appropriate process 4) establishing grievance
redress mechanisms (GRM) takes into account the availability of judicial recourse and customary
dispute settlement mechanisms among HUTLC 5) preparation and implementation of plans,
strategies, or other activities intended to strengthen coordination and participation of the affected
inhabitant in the development process.

Comparable to the World Bank policy, the Ethiopian constitution, policy, and legislation
recognize the presence of historically underserved traditional pastoral and agro-pastoral
communities. Also,these legal instruments set out the right of these communities to exercise
“free land for grazing and cultivation as well as the right not to be displaced from their lands”
and the right to “receive fair and collective compensation and fair prices for their products’’ that
would lead to an improvement in their conditions of life and to enable them to obtain an
equitable share of the national wealth commensurate with their contribution. To ensure these, the
government established the Ministry of Federal Affairs (MoFA) intending to promote equitable
economic and social development, with emphasis on delivering special support to historically
underserved traditional pastoral, and agro-pastoral communities located in four regional states.
With this institutional role, the MoFA has been functional since 2001.But, in 2018, it is replaced
by the Ministry of Peace with the responsibility to promote “peace, democracy and equitable

2
development among the regional states in Ethiopia” including promoting equitable economic and
social development of the pastoral and other underserved communities.

Most of the inhabitants along the proposed road corridor fall within the framework of the special
support policy of the government. However, while there are some complementary links between
Ethiopia and the World Bank policy, there is a lack of an operational framework in the former on
how to ensure the equitable benefets and avoid risks and impacts from development
project.Therefore, the preparation of the Historically Underserved Traditional Local Community
Planning Framework (HPF) is aimed to fill this gap.Besides, the preparation of theHPF is
necessitated on account of the requirements of ESS7:1) the undertaking of the proposed
projectaffectsmore than two HUTLC; 2) the nature and scale of the proposed project consist of a
series of multiple sub-project components that led to relocation, loss of land, loss of natural and
cultural resources, and health and safety risk, mobility or access restriction on the HUTLCs; 3)
information about the specific location and impacts regarding some project activities including
campsite, crasher, asphalt plant and construction material sources such as borrow pit sites, quarry
sites, and water sourcesarenotidentified yet.

Thus, this HPF establishes the requirement of ESS7and the national policy and legal
provisions,integrate all these requirements, and provide technical guidance, institutional and
implementation arrangement, and design criteria for the project implementing agencies,
consultant, contractor, and implementing partner for addressing the requirements provided in the
ESS7 and national policy from preparation, through review and approval, to implementation of
subprojects or project components. This document allows all parties to promote equitable access
to project benefits and also to avoid adverse impacts,if such measures are not feasible, to
minimize, mitigate, or compensate for the residual adverse impacts.

2. Relevant Policy and Regulatory Framework

2.1. World Bank ESS7 requirement
Development projects like road and logistic infrastructure demand natural resources and land for
construction. Even though development project is meant to create economic opportunity for all
citizens,,members of the mainstream societiestend to benefit more relative to HUTLCs. This is
because HUTLCs’ economic, social, and legal status often limits their capacity to defend their
rights to, and interests in, land, territories, and natural and cultural resources, and restrict their

3
ability to participate in and benefit from development projects. Thus, in many cases, HUTLCs do
not receive equitable access to project benefits, or benefits are not devised or delivered in a
culturally appropriate form, and they may not always be adequately consulted about the design
or implementation of projects that would profoundly affect their lives or communities.

The World Bank’s ESS7 recognizes that HUTLC has identities and aspirations that are distinct
from mainstream groups in national societies and often are disadvantaged by traditional models
of development and that they are inextricably linked to the land on which they live and the
natural resources on which they depend. HUTLC are therefore particularly vulnerable if their
land and resources are transformed, encroached upon, or significantly degraded. Projects may
also undermine language use, cultural practices, institutional arrangements, and religious or
spiritual beliefs.

2.1.1. Definition of HUTLC

In the ESS the term “Indigenous Peoples” is used in a generic sense to refer exclusively to a
distinct social and cultural group possessing all the following characteristics in varying degrees:

• Self-identification as members of a distinct indigenous social and cultural group and

recognition of this identity by others;
• Collective attachment to geographically distinct habitats, ancestral territories, or areas of
seasonal use or occupation, as well as to the natural resources in these areas;
• Customary cultural, economic, social, or political institutions that are distinct or separate
from those of the mainstream society or culture;
• A distinct language or dialect, often different from the official language or languages of
the country or region in which they reside;
• Communities or groups (who meet the above four conditions), who, during the lifetime of
members of the community or group, have lost collective attachment to distinct habitats
or ancestral territories in the project area because of forced severance, conflict,
government resettlement programs, dispossession of their land, natural disasters, or
incorporation of such territories into an urban area; and
• Communities or groups considered as forest dwellers, hunter-gatherers, pastoralists, or
other nomadic groups are subject to satisfaction of the first four above-mentioned
requirements.

4
2.1.2. World Bank Requirement for project implanted where HUTLC are Presen

It is common that HUTLCs experience disadvantage, exclusion, and discernible social,

economic, and political vulnerabilities in severalways.According to paragraph 7 of the ESS7,
these are the key variables that should be taken in to accoundin designing development plans so
as to promote the equitable access of HUTLCs to project benefits or to mitigate the adverse
impacts of the project.

A key purpose of the ESS7 as defined in paragraph 11 is to ensure that HUTLC present in or
with collective attachment to the project area are fully consulted about, and have opportunities to
actively participate in, project design and the determination of project implementation
arrangements. The scope and scale of consultation, as well as subsequent project planning and
documentation processes, will be proportionate to the scope and scale of potential project risks
and impacts as they may affect HUTLC.

Project financed by the Bank is required to enhance opportunities for HUTLC to participate in,
and benefit from the development process in ways that do not threaten their unique cultural
identities and well-being. To ensure this the Bank operational principle urges early screening,
obtaining their free, prior and informed consent, identifying the risk they may be exposed to,
devising and delivering mitigation measures, compensation, and promoting equitable access to
benefit in a manner that is accessible, culturally appropriate, and inclusive. In its ESS7, the
World Bank has set out requirements to which the borrower should comply with throughout the
project cycle. These are summarized as follow:

• Obtaining FPIC: the borrower of the project is expected to identify the presence of
HUTLC in or they have a collective attachment to the project area as per the
underparagraphs 8 and 9 of ESS7, and accordingly obtain the Free, Prior, and Informed
Consent (FPIC) of the HUTLC. Likewise, ESS7 (paragraph 23) and ESS10 (paragraphs
21 and 22) stipulate the process of obtaining FPIC should involve Meaningful
Consultation tailored to HUTLC and Good Faith Negotiation (GFN).1 HUTLCs may be
particularly vulnerable to the loss of,alienation from, or exploitation of their land
andaccess to natural and cultural resources. In recognitionof this vulnerability, paragraph

1 GFN is also referenced in both the FPIC Inception Report (Annex 3) and the CSO Assessment (Annex 4).

5
 24 of ESS7 stipulates FPIC is required incircumistances where World Bank financed
project: 1) have adverse impacts on land and naturalresources subject to traditional
ownership orunder customary use or occupation; 2) cause relocation of HUTLCs from
land andnatural resources subject to traditional ownershipor under customary use or
occupation; or 3) have significant impacts on HUTLCs’ cultural heritage that is material
to the identityand/or cultural, ceremonial, or spiritualaspects of the affected HUTLCs’
lives.In line with this, as specified below, details of additional requirements are stated in
other paragraphs of ESS7.
• HUTLC customary use rights: common to project-affected communities is that land
cannot be owned or claimed exclusively either by an individual or as a family holding,
nor can it be sold. Instead, land and natural resources are communal property belonging
to the clan members. Clan leaders and council of elders are the traditional authorities
entrusted with the power to control access to and use of land and natural resources. This
makes our strategy to depend on clan leaders and council of elders effective in the FPIC
process.2

• Targeted Social Assessment: the borrower is anticipated to undertake targeted social

assessment, which aims at: 1) documentation of socio-economic information,
specifically on the demographic, livelihood, social service/infrastructure, basic
infrastructure, and customary culture of the HUTLC inhabited in the project area (ESS7
note 23.2, 2); 2) assessing potential positive benefits of the proposed project to HUTLCs,
particularly if they are not the sole beneficiaries of the project (ESS7 paragraphs 16 and
17); 3) assessing the nature and degree of the expected direct and indirect economic,
social and cultural impacts (ESS7: paragraphs 12); and 4) develop intervention measures
to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse impacts of the proposed projects on HUTLCs
(ESS7: paragraphs 13 and 20-22). ESS:7 note 21.1).
• Meaningful consultation: as required in ESS7 (paragraph 23) and ESS10 (paragraphs
19-22), for every project cycle the borrower is expected to make meaningful consultation
and informed decision of HUTLCs in a culturally appropriate and gender and
intergenerationally inclusive manneras. Likewise, as per the reference, the borrower will

2 See also FPIC Process Inception Report, Section 2.

6
 undertake a process of meaningful consultation in a manner that provides
stakeholderswith opportunities to express their views on project risks, impacts, and
mitigation measures, and allows the Borrower to consider and respond to them.
Meaningful consultation will be carried outon an ongoing basis as the nature of issues,
impacts, and opportunities evolve.
• Good Faith Negotiations: implementation of meaningful consultation shall be consistent
with what is described in the SEP and conducted as set outs in ESS7 GN25.3.
Accordingly, Good faith negotiation involves, on the part of all parties: (a) willingness to
engage in a process and availability to meet at reasonable times and frequency; (b)
sharing of information necessary for informed negotiation; (c) use of mutually acceptable
procedures for negotiation; (d) willingness to change initial positions and modify offers
where possible; and (e) provision of sufficient time for the process.

• Disadvantaged or vulnerable groups: the FPIC process will pay particular attention to
groups within affected HUTLCs that may be disadvantaged or vulnerable such as
women, youth, the poor, and persons with disabilitiesand other social minorities.
Addressing any limitations on their participation in the FPIC process helps to ensure that
their interests and concerns are adequately considered and addressed as part of the
process to achieve FPIC and develop the SCDP.
• Historically Underserved Traditional Local Community Planning Framework
(HPF) and Social and Community Development Plan (SCDP): the borrower is
required to providea plan or frameworkpromoting equitable access to project benefits and
mitigating the adverse impact of the project proprortional to the scale andnature of the
project impact and circumstance of the HUTLC. The SCDP and HPF need to outline a
platform and strategy for HUTLC communication, engagement, monitoring, and
Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM) as required in ESS7: para. 34 and ESS10: paras.
23-27. Such a planning instrument shall be prepared flexibly and pragmatically, and its
level of detail varies depending on the specific activities and nature of risks. SCDPs will
reflect key inputs (concerns) and agreements reached in the FPIC process, main findings
of the targeted social assessments, proposed risk mitigation measures, and time-bound
action plans, including measures to promote community participation, related costs, and
resources needed to implement the SCDPs and GRM arrangements.
7
 • Capacity building: the borrower ensures the capacity of the implementing government
and HUTLC’ organizations by assessing and identifying the capacity gap. The capacity-
building support focus on strengthening the policy, institutional, and implementation
capacity of these organizations to better represent and ensure the benefit of the affected
HUTLC and implementation of the SCDP (ESS7: para. 35. Note 23.2)
• Grievance redress mechanism: the borrow shall facilitatea grievance redress
mechanism to address grievances brought by the affected indigenous peoples arising
from project implementation take into account the affected HUTLC's customary laws and
dispute-resolving mechanism(ESS7: para. 34 and ESS10: paras. 26-27). The GRM
ensures that the process entails goodwill and respects traditional values and practices of
HUTLCs.
• Monitoring, Reporting, and Evaluation: the borrower is also required to establish
transparent, participatory, and joint monitoring and reporting mechanisms appropriate to
the projectas required in ESS7: para. 14, note 15.1.
• Institutional arrangement: the borrower also is expected to establishaninstitutional
arrangement to carry out the measures proposed in the SCDP, including others mentioned
before (ESS7: note 17.2).

2.2. Relevant Ethiopian institutional, Policies and Legal Framework

Comparable to the World Bank policy, the Ethiopian Constitution recognizes the presence of
different socio-cultural groups, including historically disadvantaged and underserved
communities, pastoralists, agro-pastoralists, and minorities, as well as their rights to
socioeconomic equity and justice.

2.2.1. Ethiopian Constitution

Article 89(2) of the Ethiopian Constitution stipulates: ‘The Government has a responsibility to
ensure that all Ethiopians get equal opportunity to improve their economic situations and to
promote equitable distribution of wealth among them’. Article 89(4) in particular states:
‘Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples least advantaged in economic and social development shall
receive special assistance. Upon this article, owing to their limited access to socioeconomic
development and underserved status over the decades, the Ethiopian government has designated
four of the country’s regions, namely: Afar, Somali, Benishangul-Gumz, and Gambella as

8
Developing Regional States (DRS). Despite the stipulations of the rights of least advantaged
Nations, Nationalities and Peoples, the constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia doesn’t have any mention of the rights of social minority groups, who are victims of
marginalization among their own fellow nations, nationalities and peoples.

Ethiopia Constitution: Article 40 (5) required that the government ensure the right of the pastoral
community to exercise “free land for grazing and cultivation as well as the right not to be
displaced from their lands” and the right to “receive fair prices for their products, that would lead
to an improvement in their conditions of life and to enable them to obtain an equitable share of
the national wealth commensurate with their contribution. Following this article, the GoE
identified seven areas in the formulation of economic, social, and development policies in
support of the pastoral community. These areas are Afar; Somali; Borena Zone and
FenteleWereda (Oromia); South Omo Zone, Bench-Maji Zone, and parts of DechaWereda in
Keffa Zone (SNNPR); and, Nuer Zone (Gambella).

2.2.2. Ethiopian Institutional Framework

In connection with an institutional framework designed to ensure equity between regions, the
EPRDF government had set up the Ministry of Federal Affairs (MoFA). The responsibilities of
this Ministry included promoting equitable development, with emphasis on delivering special
support to the developing regions. The main purpose of the special assistance was to address the
inequalities that existed between the regions over the decades, thereby accelerating equitable
growth and development. In addition, Equitable Development Directorate General had been set
up within the MoFA, with Directorates put in place to operate under it for the respective
developing regions. Among many other activities, the Directorate General coordinated and
directed case teams to collect, organize and analyze data concerning the gaps in capacity
building, social and economic development, good governance, gender, and environmental
development in the regions in need of special support. Following the dissolution of the MoFA in
2018, the Pastoral Affairs Directorate under the Ministry of Peace was established as a new
institutitionalstructure with the mandate to undertake the aforementioned responsibilities
regarding the developing regions.Yet again, according to the governmentrestructure following
the 6th national election, theissues of HUTLCs are put under the institutional mandate of the
Ministry of Irrigation and Arid Areas, which is a newly established organization. The line bureau

9
or entity with the same institutional mandate is not established yet in the respective regions
(Somali, Afar, Oromia and SNNR) where the HUTLCs exist.

2.2.3. Ethiopian policy and legal requirement

In its article 4.3, the Ethiopian Environmental Policy (1997) specified that when taking decision
1) the user of land has the right to secure and uninterrupted access to it and renewable natural
resources on it (e.g. trees, water, wildlife, and grazing); 2) to recognize and protect wherever
possible the customary rights of access to and use of land and natural resource which are
constitutionally acceptable, socially equitable and are preferred by local communities.

The Rural Land Administration and Land Use Proclamation No. 456/2005 gives the right to
pastoral land entitlement in private and communal form or terms for the pastoral community. All
private and communal pastoral landholding is required to be entitled to and registered by
competent authority as proof of land use right. The right to give entitlement and registration of
private and communal pastureland is made by the regional land administration bureau upon the
regional land administration law.

Where land is expropriated for a public purpose in the case of Ethiopia, the procedure needs to
be transparent, participatory, fair, and accountable. The requirement for land acquisition is
outlined in reg. no 472/2020 and pro. 1161/2019. The requirement is provided in detail in the
RPF. The main requirement includes meaningful consultation with the affected people,
compensation for communal landholding, provision of special support for vulnerable (women,
disabled, orphan and elderly), the need for planning of resettlement package that includes
replacing the house, livelihood restoration, credit service, training and fulfilling social service
infrastructure and facility; the right of the affected people from development and project benefit-
sharing; compensation for social and moral damage (Ethiopian Birr 25-60 thousand),
compensation for economic and physical assets, relocation assistance, the mechanism to resolve
conflicts, etc.

In general, the preparation of HPF shall take into account the provision in the Ethiopian
Constitution and the legislative and administrative procedures regarding land tenure, land
acquisition and use, and resettlement, and references to the pertinent international standards.
Thus, the following national policy and legal framework as relevant will beapplicableregarding
the HPF:

10
 • Ethiopian constitution
• Expropriation of Landholdings for Public Purposes, Payments of Compensation, and
Resettlement of Displaced People Proclamation no 1161/2019 and reg. no 472/2020
• Rural Land Administration and Land Use Proclamation No. 456/2005
• Ethiopian Women's Development Fund Establishment Proclamation No. 24012001
• Public Health Proclamation No.200/2000:
• Ethiopian Water Resources Management Proclamation No.197/2000:
• Environmental Policy of Ethiopia
• Conservation Strategy of Ethiopia
• ERA quality assurance manual 5

2.2.4 Regional Legal and Institutional Framework

Regional Constitutions
The Constitutions of those Regional States (Afar, Somali, Oromia, SNNPRS [the Southern
Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Regional State)], Benishangul-Gumuz and Gambella) where
pastoral/agro-pastoral or underserved communities reside recognize the equal rights of these
communities to benefit from development interventions. The Constitutions of these regional
states share several features in this regard including the need to: strengthen the right of
pastoralists and agro-pastoralists, create a sense of ownership, ensure equal rights of women and
the disabled, create a conducive atmosphere for investment in pastoral areas, establish a system
of rural land administration that promotes the conservation and management of natural resources
in pastoral areas for sustainable development, and provide basic social services, road
infrastructure and other means of communication. The visible lacuna in this regard, except in the
constitution of the newly established South Western Ethiopia Peoples’ Regional State, is the
silence of the regional constitutions regarding the rights of social minorities. While the
constitutions have well stipulated the rights of pastoralists, agro-pastoralists, women and the
disabled, no articles or sub-articles have been dedicated to explicitly stipulating the rights of
social minorities.

Legal Framework

11
In addition, to realize the above stated general development goals, the Regional States issued
legislation and policies specifically targeting the development agendas of the pastoral/agro-
pastoralor underserved communities. Rural Land Administration and Proclamation is worth
mentioning here. Accordingly, Proclamation 128/2013 of the Somali Regional Government
states, as indicated in Article (5/1), to guarantee the rural land-use rights of pastoralists by
ensuring that all men and women pastoralists have a right to access grazing land and use it for
unlimited time.

Also, the Proclamation recognizes the role of traditional land management system. For instance,
Article 7 underscores that land dispute among pastoralists should be settled under the customary
dispute settlement system and the government is to provide assistance to strengthen the system.
Afar Regional State Land Use and Management Proclamation No 49/2009 clearly stipulates the
need for effective land management for the long run development vision of the pastoral
communities through ensuring: (a) the active participation of the pastoral communities in land
use plan and implementation; (b)the user the right not to be displaced from the land; and (c)
women’sequal rights with men in the decision makingregardingissues of land use. The Oromia
Regional State enacted the first Land Use and Administration Law in 2002 under Proclamation
No 56/2002. This Proclamation has been continuously amended in 2003, 2005 and 2007. The
current legislation in force is Proclamation No130/2007. The Proclamation recognizes the right
of the pastoral/agro-pastoral communities in the region to use land for sustainable social and
economic development. The SNNPRS Land Use and Management Proclamation No.110/2007
mainly focuses on farming communities; provisions concerning pastoralists and agro-pastoralists
are scattered, implying the policy gaps for sustainable development in the later. The
Benishangul-Gumuz Regional State Land Use and Management Proclamation No. 85/2010 is not
different from what is outlined above for Somali, Afar, Oromia and SNNPRS.

12
Institutional Framework
In the respective regions, the Bureau of Pastoral Development is responsible to ensure the
institutional coordination at the Zonal and Woreda level for the effective implementation of
development policies, strategies and projects in pastoral and agro-pastoral communities.
Whereas, Zonal Pastoral Affairs Office, Woreda Pastoral Affairs Office and Development
Agents in the Kebele work cooperatively to enforce policies, strategies and projects at the
grassroots.
Applicability of customary laws
Despite mentioning that they are inefficient in land and natural resource use, national legal
frameworks and policies recognize the applicability of customary laws in HUTLCs. The national
legal framework underscores, because of variable and harsh environmental conditions, strategic
mobility of livestock and selective feeding are critical for the survival of the pastoral peoples
(HUTLCs) that utilize a land tenure system different from the highland or mainstream societies.3
In this context, the formal legal framework and judicial system recognize the legitimacy of the
role and operation of indigenous structures, institutions and land rights regimes in the HUTLCs.
Therefore, the national legal framework as well as the judicial system operates to provide an
interface and harmony between the formal and customary lawsso as to better use and
manageland and natural resources in HUTLCs.4 Likewise, the regional legal framework
recognizes the role of customary laws in the HUTLCs. Furthermore, the Proclamation recognizes
the role of traditional land management systems. For instance, the Rural Land Administration
and Proclamation of Ethiopian Somali Region (128/2013) in Article 7 underscores that land
dispute among pastoralists should be settled under the customary dispute settlement system and
the government is to provide assistance to strengthen the system.
2.3. Gap Analysis
Despite the fact that Ethiopia has a constitution that recognizes the right of pastoral people to
free land grazing and cultivation, the right not to be displaced from their lands; the right to

3Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Rural Development Policies and Strategies (2003)
4Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia the Ten Years Development Plan (2020-2030)

13
equitable economic and social development, there are no further legal frameworks and guidelines
for specific safeguards to protect the interest of pastoral peoples, other than those related to land
and grazing. The regional constitutions and legal frameworks thereof have been designed to
some level of adaptation to regional circumstances with an anchor of maintaining harmony with
the national ones. Hence, regional constitutions and legal frameworks, as well, miss specific
safeguards to protect the interest of pastoral peoples such as the ones related to FPIC. Both the
national and regional constitutions—with the exception of the constitution of South
WesternEthiopia Peoples’ Regional State--do not explicitly recognize social minority groups and
their rights.

The Ethiopian rural land administration and land use proclamation recognize the right of pastoral
communities to communal land ownership with a collective title. In practice, the procedure to
register a collective title can take very long. Similarly, the Environmental Policy also guarantees
and recognizes the customary right of pastoral peoples to continue the use and access to a natural
resource (grazing, tree, and water) for which they have the right for use and practice
traditionally.

For the most part, there is consistency between the national system and ESS7 on HUTLC. The
self-identification process of indigenous communities defined in the constitution article (39 &
51) is broadly consistent with international good practice.

However, while there are some complementary links between Ethiopian laws and policy related
to indigenous people (HUTLC in the Ethiopian context) and the World Bank’s ESS 7, there are
no sufficiently detailed regulations or operating procedures or framework to facilitate full
implementation of Indigenous Peoples Plans (SCDPs in the Ethiopian case) and to conduct
targeted Social Assessments, meaningful consultation, and Free, Prior and Informed Consent
(FPIC). The HPF, therefore, is prepared based on the World Bank’s ESS7 by taking into account
relevant Ethiopian policies and regulations. Clear mechanisms for FPIC are outlined in this HPF,
along with procedures for conducting targeted Social Assessment and preparing an SCDP. The
HPF also outlines a Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM), institutional arrangement,
monitoring and reporting, and capacity building.Another policy and legal gap analysis
concerning impact assessment, consultation, and land acquisition are described in more detail in
the RPF, SEP, and ESMF.

14
To assist with guidance on consultations, the SEP developed for the project ensures that there are
clear mechanisms to engage stakeholders through the life cycle of the project, including
HUTLCgroups. This HPF and the SEP should be used together to ensure that consultations are
done in a way that is consistent with the needs of HUTLC as required in ESS7.

3. Project Description
3.1. Project location
The Mieso-Dire Dawa project is located in Awash River Basin in Eastern Ethiopia. The project
alignment crosses two regional states and one city administration. The commencement is at the
north-eastern part of Oromia Regional State (ORS), in Meisso Woreda of West Hararge Zone,
then to go into Somali Regional State (SRS), where most of the project Segment lies in, within
Meisso, Afdem, Bike, and Erer Woredas of the Sitti Zone. Finally, it terminates in the northern
part of Dire Dawa city administration (DDA) in MelkaJebdu. Therefore, the project will affect or
influence all inhabitants living and working in Meiso, Afdem, Bike, Erer, and MelkaJebdu.

3.2. Project development objective

The Project Development Objective (PDO) is to improve regional connectivity and enhance
logistics efficiency along the Addis-Djibouti road corridor. The project aim on reducing the
travel time along the Addis-Djibouti southern corridor; reducing the truck dwell times at the
Djibouti port owing to operational efficiencies generated by the truck terminals and the logistics
portal implementation; reducing truck processing and clearance times at Dewele, and Galafi
border posts and improving the condition of Addis-Djibouti southern corridor (750 km);
improving safety, climate resilience and digital connectivity along the corridor, improve access
to services for rural communities; provision of trade facilitation, roadside market, and other
facilities; improving access to opportunities for women including to women entrepreneurs.

3.3. Project beneficiary

The project’s primary beneficiaries will be the local producers of tradable goods (agricultural
and manufacturing); the road transport sector service providers, the local traders, the target
populations living in the corridor area of influence, the end consumers in Ethiopia and Djibouti,
and the countries’ inland and seaport authorities that would benefit from increased trade
volumes.

15
3.4. Project component
Implementation of the project is designed with five components: Component 1: Safe, Smart,
Efficient and Climate-Resilient Road Corridor Construction; Component 2: Trade Facilitation
and Logistics Enhancement; Component 3: Localized Complementary Infrastructure and
Interventions; Component 4: Institutional Development and Project Monitoring; and Component
5: Contingent Emergency Response Component (CERC). The first project component involves
the construction of 142km from Mieso to Dire Dawa that is cutting through three regional states,
where historically underserved traditional pastoral communities are believed to be inhabited. The
road is being designed as a 4-lane fenced, tolled, and closed expressway with a 90m roadway
reserve width. The other two components (components 2&3) consist of a smaller logistics
facility construction and improving localized public Infrastructure: construction of link and
access road, water points, and local trade infrastructure as part enhancing benefit sharing. Please
refer to ESMF for more detail about the project sub-components.

3.5. Potential Negative and Social Impact Arising from Sub-Project

The project mainly invests in the development of road and trade logistics facilities (components
1&2). Besides, the project intended to finance social service development activities under
component 3, which solely benefits the HUTLC inhabiting across the road alignment. Out of
seventeen sub-components, only six are identified where ESS7 is applicable due to its potential
impact on the HUTLC . These are sub-component 1a, 2d, 2e, 3a, 3b, and 4b. Table 1 summarizes
the potential positive and negative impacts anticipated from these sub-components.

16
 Table 1: potential impacts emanating from six sub-components

No Description of Description of activities Potential benefits Potential adverse Impacts

Project sub-
component
1 Sub-Component • Construction & operation of the express • Improving • Loss and restriction of access to natural assets
1(a): road including overpasses, underpasses, market access or resources or restrictions on land use
Construction of bridges, interchanges, immediate link for HUTLC (grazing and cultivation land) and water use
express road roads, roadside local access roads, agricultural resulting from project activities
drainage infrastructure, and fencing product • Disenfranchising community’s traditional
• Development of the access road for • Increase access to and use of such land and the
quarry, borrow pit, water, sand, spoil availability and resources located on it or inequitable access
soil, and composite supply of to project benefits
• Development & restoration of asphalt agricultural • Loss and restriction of access to social assets
plant, campsite, and other associated inputs or cultural heritage (that is material to the
facilities • Creating identity and/or cultural ceremonial, or
• Operation and reinstatement of quarry employment and spiritual aspects).
site economic • Restriction of Livestock and nomadic people
• Borrow pits Operation and opportunity mobility
reinstatement • Improve access • Involuntary displacement (physical and
• Development of Crusher & asphalt plant to major social economical displacement) and Unfair
• Disposal of Spoil soil institutions like compensation
• Extraction and reinstatement of Water schools, health • Increased exposure to traffic risk incident
and sand facilities, • Increasedhealthand safety risk to local
2 Sub-component • Construction of one-stop border post markets, and community
2(d): (OSBP) at Galafi administrative • Exclusion of vulnerable communities within
Infrastructure • Construction of cross-border freight centers the affected HUTLC from accessing project
for Trade transport terminal at Dewele • Creating an benefits
Facilitation • Construction of cross-border freight enabling • Lack of platform for meaningful consultation
transport terminal at Dicheoto environment for or inclusive decision or HUTLC engagement
humanitarian mechanism in a culturally appropriate manner
assistance
3 Sub-component • Targeting the women and youth • Women and • Marginalizing or disenfranchising vulnerable

17
No Description of Description of activities Potential benefits Potential adverse Impacts
Project sub-
component
2(e) Support to beneficiary groups for development youth receive communities within the affected HUTLC
women and benefit-sharing mechanism equitable access from accessing project benefits
youth traders to project • Lack of platform for meaningful consultation
affected by benefits from or inclusive decision mechanism or
improved income- community engagement in a culturally
efficiency generating appropriate manner
suffering income activities that are
loss due to the carried out by
project women and
4 Sub-component • Construction and maintenance of link youth
3(a): Local roads to towns and key access roads in • increased access
infrastructure Woredas in the project corridor’s area of to several social
improvements influence services (like
• Construction of simple road-side schools, water,
auxiliary markets and selling facilities health centers,
(with a section of each facility reserves education, and
for women traders) along the link and markets) and
access roads
• Construction of water wells at key
locations in the Woredas in the project
corridor’s area of influence based on
water needs of people and livestock
5 Sub-component • Processing and obtaining Free Prior and • Create a policy • No adverse impact
3(b) Eligible Informed Consent (FPIC) framework and
interventions institutional
that arise out of platform for
the FPIC meaningful
consultations consultation or
6 Sub-component • Preparation of a strategic road sectoral inclusive
decision

18
No Description of Description of activities Potential benefits Potential adverse Impacts
Project sub-
component
4(b): Technical environmental and social assessment mechanism or
community
Assistance for
• Preparation of a revised ERA engagement in
Sectoral culturally
Environmental & Social Manual appropriate
Assessments and
manner
Manuals • Update of ERA’s Engineering Design
Development and Quality Assurance Manuals

• RAP assessments for the Addis-Djibouti

Southern route

19
4. Description of the Project Area Inhabitants
More details on this topic can be found in the Social Assessment Report. The implementation of
the project will influence inhabitants of Meisso, Afdem, Bike, Erer, and MelakJebdu Woredas
located in Somalia and Oromia Regional State, and DDA. Among the five-project affected
Woredas, only three woredas: Afdem, Bike, and Erer located in Somali satisfied the DRS
requirement which is stipulated in the Ethiopian constitution Article 89 (4) and ESS7
(historically underserved local community). Owing to the fact that the livelihood characteristics
of the community depend on the land and natural resource mainly ontraditional pastoral practice,
all project-affected Woreda Meisso, Afdem, Bike, Erer, and MelakJebdu meet what is outlined in
the Ethiopian constitution Article 40(5) and ESS7 (traditional pastoral community). It is
important to note that although these groups fulfill DRS and pastoral communities, it does not
mean they will meet all the six criteria described on para 8 &9 of ESS7 (see section 2.1.1). They
are rather acknowledged as Historically Underserved Traditional Local Community(HUTLC).
However, this will need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis following the guidelines in this
HPF.

About 83% of the inhabitants in project affected area, one way or another, are dissidentsofOromo
or Somali clans. According to the last national census report (2007), in Meisso, the largest part of
the local people are ethnic Oromo while accounting for 95% of the inhabitant. Of which most of
the local community are consider themselves as descendent of the Ittu Oromo clan. Despite a
few, there are also descendent of the Oromo's clan, such as Kereyu, Ala, and Nolle. While the
remaining 5% of the population is constituted by Argoba, Somali, Gurage, Afar, Amhara &
Tigre. Whereas, the distribution of Afdem and Erer inhabitants are almost homogenous while
97% of the population belongs to the Somali ethnic group and the remaining 3% consists of
Amhara, Oromo, and Gurage. Most of the inhabitants who belong to the Somali ethnic consider
themselves as descendants of the Somali clan of Issa, though few consider themselves as
Gurgura, Hawiya, and Gedabursi clans. In DDA, the Oromo ethnic group constituted the
majority of the population of the Administration (46%). The next largest ethnic group is Somali
followed by the Amhara and Gurage comprising 24%, 20%, and 5% of the population,
respectively.

20
However, over 90% of the inhabitants in the project area are identified as pastoral (nomad)
communities. The largest pastoral community is inhabited in Afdem (76%) followed by Erer
(58.96%) and Mulu (33.15). The GoE identified seven areas in the formulation of economic,
social, and development policies in support of the pastoral community. These areas are Afar;
Somali; Borena Zone and FenteleWereda (Oromia); South Omo Zone, Bench-Maji Zone, and
parts of DechaWereda in Keffa Zone (SNNPR); and, Nuer Zone (Gambella). Owing to this, three
out of five projects affected woredas are part of the government policy identified as a pastoral
community for special support and relevant for ESS7 application.

Therefore, the Implementation of the benefit-sharing opportunity and the main objective of the
project is expected to be guided by the ESS7 and this HPF. It is also required to carry out the
sub-projects/components in a socially and culturally appropriate manner, recognizing the
distinctive characteristics of the HUTLC.

5. Procedure and Step for HPF

As stated earlier, the need for preparing this HPF is owing to lack of sufficiently detailed
regulations andoperating procedures to enforce the right of HUTLC and facilitate full
implementation of development benefit-sharing as required in ESS7 and Ethiopian policy
andlegislation.Besides this, the findings of the SA neccessitate the the preparation of
HPFsubstaintaiting the requirements of ESS7 that: 1) the undertaking of the proposed project
affects more than two HUTLC; 2) the nature and scale of the proposed project consist of project
components and sub-components with the impact of relocation, loss of land, loss of natural and
cultural resources, and mobility or access restriction on the HUTLCs; and 3) information about
the specific location and impacts regarding some project activities including campsite, crasher,
asphalt plant and construction material sources such as borrow pit sites, quarry sites, and water
sources are not yet identified.

5.1. Objective:
The objective of this HPF is to ensure the establishment of the requirement of ESS7, institutional
and implementation arrangement, monitoring and reporting mechanism, and design criteria to be
applied during the implementation of multiple activities of the project in circumstance HUTLC is
supposed to be affected and targeted for delivering the compensation and benefit-sharing
opportunity. Therefore, the implementing agencies (ERA and MoT) will be guided by this HPF

21
to carry out the sub-projects/sub-components in a manner consistent with ESS7 and the relevant
national policy and legislation. The Expected output of the implementation of this HPF is to
ensure that the implementation of the identified project sub-component complies with the ESS7.

5.2. Basic Principles

Before commencement of any construction work in the case for activities outlined in section 3, it
is deemed necessary to fulfill the requirements and ensure that any adverse impact on HUTLC
from the project is supposed to be avoided through alternative route analysis or, when avoidance
is not possible, to minimize, mitigate and/or compensate for such impacts. The following will be
the basic principle in this regard:

• Ensure via risk avoidance measures to protect as far as possible the targeted HUTLC
from significant adverse impacts associated with the relocation, loss of land, natural and
cultural resources, and health and safety, mobility, and access restriction. This can be
ensured mainly through alternative route analysis, proper route selection based on a
combination of environmental social health safety, and security criteria, and subsequent
design of the selected route as well as possible route and site shifts and local
realignments.
• Ensure delivery of appropriate compensation and mitigation measures for those residual
negative impacts that may not be avoided by route selection and/or realignment by an
appropriate design solution. If such residual impact is unavoidable, the implementing
agencies shall not proceed to compensation and mitigation measures without the
free,prior and informed consent of the affected HUTLC.
• Delivering development benefit-sharing opportunities, which are specifically designed
for HUTLC, shall be accessible, culturally appropriate, and inclusive. It has to be
designed and implemented based on meaningful consultation with HUTLC as to the
cultural appropriateness of proposed services or facilities and seeking to identify and
address any economic or social constraints (including those relating to gender) that may
limit opportunities to benefit from, or participate in, the project. Ensure their ownership
and participation in project design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation.

22
5.3. Basic Requirements
a) Targeting potentiallyaffectedHUTLCs and identifying implementing partners for targeted
social assessment and implementation of the FPIC and SCDP. Please refer to the Social
Assessment and Inception rReportfor possible candidates of HUTLC. The CSO
Assessment (please refer to annex) also presents the available implementing partners who
have a presence in the project location.
b) Ensure that under Component 3 design and delivery of benefit sharing and compensation
for the adverse impact of the project will be based on meaningful consultation tailored to
targeted HUTLC in a culturally appropriate, gender and intergenerationally inclusive
manner. Implementation of meaningful consultation shall be consistent with what is
described in the SEP. Such consultation with Good Faith Negotiation (see Section 2.1.2),
encompassing clear orientations on preparation of the SCDP and its full implementation,
will be key to obtaining the collective support of HUTLCs for project activities leading
towards their Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), which will be documented and
maintained for further project cycle management. A site-specific meaningful consultation
report shall be prepared and documented as part of the targeted social assessment report.
c) Ensure that for each of the targeted HUTLC:1) providing detailed demographic
information, including customary use rights,on their distinct circumstance as necessary
for planning FPIC consultations; 2) analysis of relative vulnerability and identification
ofthe potential adverse and positive impacts of the multiple activities of the project; 3)
proposing a mitigation and compensation strategy for adverse impact including
operational and administrative measure; 4) identifying means for equitable access to
project benefits; 5) suggesting appropriate structure and mechanisms for the delivery and
management of compensation and shared benefits under Component 3; 6) identifying
opportunities that would address the goals and preferences of the affected HUTLC
including improving their standard of living and livelihoods; 7) identifying measures for
legal recognition of the traditional ownership or under customary use or occupation of
land and natural resource; and 8) verifying the circumstance requiring FPIC, facilitating
the platform for consent seeking and negotiation as regards development of the SCDP
and other documents produced through the FPIC process.

23
d) Ensure obtaining free, prior and informed consent of each of the targeted HUTLC. The
circumstances requiring FPIC shall be if only activities listed in table 1 pose loss of land,
natural and cultural resource and restrict access to natural and cultural resource, and labor
influx induced health and safety risk. The FPIC shall be made through a good-faith
negotiation between the implementing agencies and representative of affected
HUTLCselected through customary decision procedurewhile mediating by a neutral third
partyorthe selected FFO field team.The FPIC shall be documented the process and
outcome establishes a record of agreements reached, as well as dissenting views. If FPIC
cannot be ascertained by the Bank, the project design will be adjusted to eliminate the
aspects of the project relevant to the targetedHUTLC.
e) Ensure design of the SCDP with separate sections for each of the targeted HUTLC taking
into consideration the SA reports and the results of consultations with the HUTLCs.
However, there should be one SCDP for the Project with benefits and mitigation
measures specified for different communities; there will likewise be one FPIC process
which will encompass all the affected HUTLCs. The SCDP will be prepared reflecting
key agreements reached during seeking the FPIC of the targeted HUTLC and negotiation,
main findings of the targeted social assessments, proposed risk mitigation measures, and
time-bound action plans, including measures to promote community participation, related
costs, and resources needed to implement the SCDPs and GRM arrangements. The SCDP
will also provide relevant measures to avoid and/or minimize impacts, outline targeted
HUTLC engagement strategy,and available avenues for Grievance Redress Mechanism
(GRM) consistent with the SEP and RPF.
f) A grievance redress mechanismshall be established to address grievances brought by the
affected HUTLC based on their customary laws and dispute-resolving mechanism. The
GRM ensures that the process entails goodwill and respects traditional values and
practices. In circumstance, no customary system is found a site-specific, and second
option whether at woreda or kebele shall be facilitated.
g) Implementation and institutional arrangements shall be established within the
implementing agencies (ERA and MoT) to ensure the implementation of targeted SAs,
the FPIC process, SCDPs, meaningful consultations, and responding togrievances. The
relevant specialist shall be appointed at a different level. Appointment of implementing

24
 partners and third/independent parties will be relevant for managing targeted SA
including meaningful consultation, facilitation of consent process and negotiation, and
implementation of the SCDP. It may require working with or inviting implementing
partners who are currently actively involved in humanitarian and development
programs.But, the capacity of all parties beinginvolved in the implantation of the SAs, the
FPIC process, and SCDPs shall be enhanced ahead of the appointment. The capacity
building shall be made based on identifying the capacity gap. The capacity-building
support focus on strengthening the institutional, and implementation capacity of these
organizations to better represent and ensure the benefit of the targeted HUTLC and
implementation of the SCDP.
h) Ensure in placing a standard monitoring and reporting system: a system for regular and
periodic monitoring and reporting of the SCDP performance shall be established tailored
to every party involved in the implementation.The system shall be transparent,
participatory, and inclusive appropriate to the Project.

5.4. Steps for Implementation of HPF

The proposed program has various activities that mightgive rise to an adverse and positive
impacts on HUTLC inhabiting along the proposed expressway project. The HPF guides that the
design and implementation of these activities adhere to the basic principles outlined above so as
to ensure that the implementation of the project comply with the World Bank requirements and
relevant laws of Ethiopia. To this end, the HPFconfirmsthatthe activities of the proposed project
do not lead to adverse impact on the HUTLCs living along the road. Therefore, the HPFprovides
the framework within which the implementation of the project component and sub-
componentavoids, minimizes or mitigates adverse impacts on the project affected HUTLCs as
identified and recommended in the accompanying SA, FPIC and RAP documents. Figure 1
below, displays the overall HPF implementation procedures and steps for the agencies
involvingin the process, CSC, DBC, CSO and others.

25
 Targeted SA

Reporting & approval

Design stage

Seeking FPIC of
targeted HUTLC

Reporting & approval

SCDP for
targeted
HUTLC
Construction stage

Implementation Review SCDP

Monitoring
and reporting

Figure 1: HPF Process Flowchart

5.4.1. Step one: Targeted Social Assessment

• ERA shall make the appointment of athird party and/or implementing partners to ensure
the preparation of targeted social assessment as well as to facilitate and implement the
subsequent FPIC seeking and SCDP. The lists of possible implementing partners for the
facilitation of the FPIC seeking process and targeted SA are identified in the CSO
assessment report (see annex). The third-party and implementing partners shall be a
neutralbodywho are not representative of the implementing agencies (supervision
consultant)and contractor or sub-contractor of the construction work. Throughout this
framework,the term CSOis used to mean the FFO hired by the ERA (see the CSO

26
 Assessment for details). andimplementingpartneris used to interchangeably, and refer to
the wide array of non-governmental and not-for-profit organizations that have a presence
in project-affected areas such as NGOs (including international NGOs or INGOs),
organizations of Indigenous Peoples (IPOs), academic and research institutions, and
professional associations.See the respective CSO assessment report in the annex for a
description of CSO.
• The CSO is responsible to make targeted social assessments while seeking advice from
the FPIC supervision consultant and project contractor about the potential risk and
mitigation measures.
• Given what is identified in the social assessment reporta more detailed and targeted
Social Assessment for a specific HUTLCwill be preparedconsistentwith the proposed
location or focal points of FPIC facilitation (see for more the FPIC inception report).
Throughout the document, we use the term targeted HUTLC to refer to the affected
HUTLC inhabiting where the inception report is identified for FPIC facilitation. Thus, the
targeted HUTLC is subject totargeted social assessment while using social scientific
techniques of primary data collection, risk assessment, and vulnerability analysis.
• The specific objectives of targeted SA are to: 1) generate baseline information for
targeted HUTLC; 2) identify the direct and indirect impactsforapositive and
adverseeffectof the project on the targeted HUTLC; 3) investigate cumulative or
incremental impact/risks resulted from multiple activities of the project including past
and future development taking into account. This type of impact results from synergetic
effects or added up of two or more impacts. This investigation is mainly required owing
to the combined/synergetic effect of the project impact intensified the magnitude of the
risk that HUTLC exposed to given the scale and nature of the project activities; 4) make
analysis of the relative vulnerability of, and risks to, the targeted HUTLC, given their
distinct circumstances and close ties to land and natural resources; 5) identify gender
impacts as well astheimpacts on potentially disadvantaged or vulnerable groups found
within the targeted HUTLC; 6) identify and propose mitigation measure; 7) identify how
the targeted HUTLC can receive culturally appropriate benefits; 8) identify negotiations
points; 9) investigate availability of traditional decision making institution or platform
for making the consent process; 10) investigate options of different FPIC seeking

27
 strategies including formation of FPIC conglomerations (“Points”), formation of an
advisory council from existing traditional decisions making processes, formation of
anadvisorycouncilbased on the interests of targeted HUTLC; and 11) develop an action
plan for the FPIC process.
• Based on the results of the SA conducted to achieve the above-mentioned objectives,the
FPIC processundertakesameaningful consultation with targeted HUTLCs in a culturally
appropriate and, gender and intergenerational inclusive manner. TheFPIC community
consultation is intended to add inputs on the risk,mitigation,andcompensation measures
identified in targatedSA. Likewise, the FPIC consultations add inputs to update the
mitigation measures andinclusivestrategiesof equitable benefit-sharing opportunity
designed in the SCDP. However, due to personal or socio-cultural factors,it would be
difficult to ensure full and activeparticipationof the entire social group. For
instance,women, social minority groups, and PLWD maybe hesitantfrom expressing their
interests openlyor unable to attend public consultation.In such circumstances,the FPIC
process is vital for seeking detailed or knowledgeable information from the community
leaders, or to make separate Focus Group Discussions [FGD] or Key Informant
Interviews (KII) tailored to community leaders or women, youth, the elderly, disabled, or
other marginalized groups.For a detailed review on possible methods of meaningful
consultation see annex: FPIC Inception Report and refer to the SEP.
• The result from thetargetedSAshall be compiled and reported as outlined in annex 1. The
outcomes from the assessment may entail:1)verifiedcircumstances requiring FPIC given
the scale and nature of the risk or impact of multiple activities of the project into account;
2) pin-pointed negotiation and consent seeking issues and statement or MoU; 3)
identified traditional institution and platform for consent seeking process; 4) a strategy
designed for consent seeking process before processing the FPIC; 5)early defined
principles or commitments applicable to all participating parties in the negotiation and
consent process based the standard principles for the ‘good faith negotiation; 6) schedule
of different rounds of consultationsfor respective negotiation and consent seeking process
(the minimum requirement is three rounds); 8) defined means of communication or
modes of communication in the negotiation process, andresponsibility of different parties
involved in the FPIC; and 9) budget and resource required.

28
 • For each of the targeted HUTLC an independent SA report shall be compiled and
reported for the Bank’s approval (See indicative contentsof the SAreportintheannex).

5.4.2. Step two: FPIC

In justifying the need for FPIC, the HPF underlines the requirement of the World Bank which
recognizes that for HUTLCs relations to the land are not merely amatter of possession and
production but a cultural and spiritual element that they must fully enjoy and respected as their
right to survive.In line with this, as stated earlier, the construction of the proposed road project
involves land acquisition and restriction to access basic resources a matter that seek obtaining the
consent of the affected HUTLCs as per the World Banks’s ESS7. To this end, the FPIC process
aims to ensure that the consent must be obtainedwithout coercion, prior to the commencement of
the proposed project activities, and after the full disclosure of the intent and scope of the project
activities, in a language and processunderstandable to theaffected HUTLCs. While the FPIC
Inception Report and CSO Assessment (see the annexes) provide detailed descriptions, the HPF
sketches the implementation of the FPIC process as follow:
• ERA shall hire the FPIC Facilitator Organization (FFO) among competitive CSOs (see
the annexed CSO Assessment for detail selection criteria) to facilitate the FPIC process
and engage with the project affected HUTLCs to gather their input for SCDP. The FFO
needs to assume a neutral stance towards the project (neither for nor against the project).
The hired FFO’s field team works closely with and under the guidance of the Bank FPIC
consultants.
• In pursuit of the “prior” and “informed” principles of the FPIC process, ERA Team (or
their consultants) needs to disclose project information (what the project is, project
timeline, risks and mitigation measures, next steps)totheaffected HUTLCs prior to
contacting the communities for the FPIC process.

• The FPIC process develops a culturally sensitive approach. First, the FPIC process needs
to understand and being sensitive to community’s way of life and cultural norms. Second,
it selects the representative/advisory council of the IP in the respective FPIC point (six
FPIC points are proposed altogether). The representatives shall be individuals (e.g.
religious leaders and community elders)orcustomaryinstitutions (e.g. Gumma and Maga)

29
 local community members choose to represent their interest in the consultation,
negotiation, decision-making and consent-seeking process of the FPIC.

• The FPIC shall be an iterative process carried out in three rounds of community
consultation taking all the government’s COVID-19 precautions into account. This
involves clarifying the process whereby a decision to grant or withhold consent is
recognized which will be captured in a Consent Process Agreement (CPA) formalized by
the second round of consultations. The SCDP will be similarly developed iteratively
through the three rounds of consultations and finalized in the third round and
incorporated into the draft FPIC Consent Set of Documents. While the third round of
community consultation adjourns the FPIC process, consent does not mean the agreement
of all but the support of the majority of the affected HUTLC for the implementation of
the project.Where consent is withheld, the final FPIC report establishes the causesand the
conditions that would need to be met for the HUTLC under consideration to give their
consent,whether the community will consider renegotiation,and the terms and timing of
an eventual renegotiation. The final report and Consent Set of Documents shall be
submitted to the implementing agencies to act accordingly.
• Those agreements related to risk mitigation measures (the mitigation hierarchy) shall
have complied as contractual agreement to contract management of the construction work
orbecomeanaddendumto contract document signed between the contractor and
implementing agency. Whereas, those commitmentsassociatedwith equitable benefit
sharing opportunity including the risk mitigation measure shall be compiled to prepare
the SCDP.
• The outcome and process of the FPIC shall be reported for the Bank's approval. In
caseHUTLC do not provide theirconsent,theoutstandingpoints of disagreement--
withtheproposeddesign adjustment to avoid the adverse impact of the project--will be
reported for the Bank’sreview and determination of next steps.
• The FPIC Inception Report and CSO Assessment annexed to this document provide
detailed description of the FPIC process.
5.4.3. Step three: SCDP preparation
• The implementing agencies and appointedimplementing partner/CSOsare responsible to
design an SCDP based on the outcome of the SA andtheFPIC process.
30
 • The objective of the targeted SCDP is to promote sustainable development benefits and
design mitigation measures taking into consideration of not only the targeted HUTLC but
also women, PLWD, the elderly, and other vulnerable groups.
• The SCDP shall be reported for World Bank’s approval and the SCDP may include main
findings of the targeted social assessments, including measures to promote the
engagement or participation of HUTLC, and time-bound commitment plans, related
costs, and resources needed to implement and GRM arrangements, M&E, capacity
building, institutional arrangement (See annex -2 or indicative components of the targeted
SCDP).
5.4.4. Step four : Implementation, monitoring, reporting, and review

• For this step, the implementing agencies may either continue to work with the consultant
firm who has conductedSA, ordeveloped SCDPfrom the beginning or may hire a new
consultant frim. However, the organization working as the FFO should not be the same
organization carrying out direct project work such as the SA or developing the SCDP.

• All commitments outlined for risk mitigation and compensation may be fully or
partiallyleft to the contractor withthesupervision of the implementing agency
representatives: supervision consultant and regional or head office social team.

• If mitigation of adverse impact leave for the contractors, the

implementingagenciesmayincorporate the commitment plan in contract management as
addendum of the contract document.

• Prepare and submit a periodic performance report on the progress and performance of the
HPF including planning and implementation of targeted SA, and SCDP.

• Once in a year, the HPFas well as the subsequent SCDPs shall be reviewed if changes are
needed to improve the SCDPs. The SCDP will include a mechanism for periodic review
and evaluation of its implementation, including steps for SCDP revision.

6. HPF Implementation Management System/plan

In order topromoteopportunities for HUTLC to participate in, and benefit from, the development
process, it is essential to establish a system that integrates the proposed activities with the overall
project management. The HPF management system provides a link among the different measures

31
or requirements in the process of the HPF, the impact and mitigation measure andbenefit sharing
opportunity. It also provides institutional arrangements and responsibilities for the
implementation of the HPF requirement during the different project phases.

6.1. Design Phase

Those needs and concerns of the project affected HUTLCs identified and documented in the SA,
FPIC process and relevant documents should taken into account in the design phase. In
particular, the design phase should focus on:

• How to eliminatetheadverse impacts of the proposed project through alternative route

analysis, proper route selection based on environment social health safety, and security
criteria.
• Planning the compensation and mitigation measures according to the FPIC for those
residual negative impacts which cannot be avoided by route selection and/or realignment
by an appropriate design solution.
So long as the project is delivered through the Design-Build (DB) delivery system the detailed
design and subsequent construction of the proposed project are the responsibility of the
contractor. Thus the contractor will develop a Commitment Plan based on the outcome of the
FPIC as well as the mitigation measure drawn from SA and SCDP. The Commitment Plan shall
be signed between ERA and the contractor and included in the contract document as an
addendum.

6.2. Construction Phase

Before mobilization and commencement of the sections of the road construction work, site-
specific facility, social service program, and trade logistic facility, it is important to finalize the
compensation and/or replacement and resettlement of the HUTLC according to the
recommendation drawn from the SA, FPIC, and SCDP.

During the construction phase implementation shall be essentially concerned with implementing
the benefit-sharing opportunity and mitigating the impacts that could result from the road
construction activities, extraction and transportation of construction material, labor influx, and
establishment and operation of site facilities (the detail is listed in table 1). This can be
satisfactorily done primarily through enforcement of the commitment plan.

32
6.3. The institutional responsibilities for implementing the HPF
Implementation of the HPF involves MoT and ERA’s social team from the regional or head
office environmental, social, consultant, contractor, implementing partners like CSO and
representative institution of the projected affected HUTLC as necessary. The responsibilities of
the different agencies involving in the implementation process areasre summarized as follow.

6.3.1 Implementing Agencies’Responsibility

The implementing agency social Team will be responsible for managing the following
responsibility:

• Report a document related to targeted SA, FPIC, and SCDP for the Bank’s approval
before commencing any project component or sub-component.
• Ensure all affected HUTLCsare targeted.
• Ensure the appointment of a renowned third party and implementing partners for
facilitation of the SA, FPIC, and SCDP.
• Ensure SA, and FPIC is prepared before commencement of the construction work.
• Engage in the targeting process of vulnerable and beneficiary groups (women, youth, and
disabled), consent seeking, negotiation process,and consultation. The implementing
agency must present during site selection and land acquisition for the right of way
corridor, trade logistic facility, social service facility, material sources (quarries and
borrow sites), asphalt plant, disposal site, crasher, access roads, and contractor’s site
facilities.
• Ensure appointment of a relevant specialist in the Consultant, contractor team,andthe
implementing partners to make sure the delivery of benefit-sharing opportunity envisaged
for women, vulnerable, and all HUTLC.
• Review the performance reports thatare submitted by the
contractor,SupervisionConsultant,and implementing partner.
• Oversee the implementation of benefit-sharing, compensation and mitigation measures
through site monitoring and internal auditing.
• Report quarterly the performance of the commission plan and targeted SCDPs
implementation.

33
 • Review thetargeted SCDPs based on the compliance and performance audit once in one
year.
• Conducting supervision or auditing after completion of the construction but before the
Contractor handover the project.
6.3.2. Construction Supervision Consultant (CSC)
The main responsibilities of the CSC are:

• Participate in the preparation of the screening report.

• Ensure the DB contractor does not enter into construction or implementation or
possession of the land prior to the consent of the targeted HUTLC.
• Review and provide comment on targeted SA reports of the CSO as well as the
commitment plan of the DB contractor.
• Follow up the process of the SA on behalves of the implementing agencies as the CSC
camping around the targeted HUTLC and also provide technical advice to CSO on
possible impact & mitigation measures for respective activities of the sub-project.
• Approve, and ensure that the requirements and commitments outlined in the HPF, ESS7,
ESS10, relevant national laws, implementing agency quality assurance manual (volume 5
and route selection), and commitment plan addendum to the contract are accordingly
implemented and meet by the contractor.
• The CSC is responsible for a day-to-day follow up and record of the commission plan
and SCDPs implementation.
• If any unforeseen adverse impact is noticed, the CSC will recommend appropriate actions
to the DB Contractor and implementing partners to overcome or mitigate the problems in
time; if necessary, the CSC will seek the advice of the ERA or report the issue(s) to the
ERA for necessary actions.
• The CSC participate not only during meaningful consultation but also in all consent
seeking and negotiation process to provide professional advice on the possible impact,
mitigation, and compensation measure as well as to take note on agreed commitments
during FPIC.
• The SCS provides a periodical report on the performance of the SCDP and Commitment
Plan.

34
6.3.3. Design and Build Contractor
• The DB contractor will be responsible for awareness and control its worker from
engaging in a situation that could harm the targeted HULTC.
• The contractor shall not enter into construction work prior to completion of the FPIC.
• The DB contractor is fully responsible to implement appropriate mitigation measures for
the adverse impact of its work as per the commitments the implementing agencies
pledged to targeted HUTLC in the FPIC.
• The DB contractor participate in the FPIC and take note that will be an input for
commitment plan preparation.
• The DB contractor prepare and submit the progress of the proposed mitigation measures
and commitment plan every month along with the work progress report.
6.3.4. FFO
According to the scope of their appointment, the responsibility of the FFO may include the
following and including those items that are described in the CSO Assessment Report (see
annex):

• Building the capacity of the members of the targeted HUTLC and their representatives to make
informed consent by facilitating accessible, clear, consistent, accurate, and transparent
information about the proposed project and their right in this regard.
• Engage to identify and collect inputs from disadvantaged and vulnerable groups in the
respective HUTLC for mitigation measures.
• Arranging and conducting the FPIC community consultation in three rounds.
• Compiling the background information of the targeted HUTLC.
• Identify relevant and appropriate traditional institutions and platforms for consent seeking
process.
• Devise a strategy for consent seeking process prior to processing the FPIC.

7. Grievance Handling
In the course of project implementation, the borrower is required to establish proper grievance
redress mechanism (GRM). While further details on GRM are set out in SEP of the project, the
guiding frameworks are:

35
 • According to the World Bank, The HPF approach to grievance redress
dictatesthethreeinterlinkedsteps required in the World Bank policy: (i) a risk-based
assessment of potential grievances, disputes or conflicts that may arise
duringprojectpreparation and implementation; (ii) identification of the client’s existing
capacity forgrievance redress; and (iii) an action plan that identifies priority areas for
strengthening grievancecapacity, or if necessary, establishing new mechanisms at the
project level. The grievance mechanism shall be proportionate to the potential risks and
impacts of the proposed project and shall be accessible and inclusive.
• The GRM is expected to address concerns promptly and effectively, in a transparent
manner that is culturally appropriate and readily accessible to all members of the project-
affected HUTLC, at no cost and without retribution.
• Handling of grievances shall be done in a culturally appropriate manner including the use
of the project affected HUTLCs’ traditional conflict mechanism and be discreet,
objective, sensitive and responsive to the needs and concerns of the project-affected
HUTLCs.
• The mechanism, process or procedure of the GRM shall not prevent access to judicial or
administrative remedies.

8. Monitoring and Reporting

The monitoring plan is set up with an indicator helping to verify the performance of the HPF and
the wellbeing of the targeted HUTLC. The result of the monitoring shall be reported quarterly to
verify the progress and performance of the monitoring indicators set out in table 2. The report
also clearly addresses any outstanding concerns/issues, challenges, gaps, and corrective
measures. The report content may constitute a Cover page indicating reporting periods,
Introduction, Activities planned to be implemented during the reporting period; Expected outputs
or outcome for the period and Indicators of the outputs, Activity status at the beginning of
reporting period, Comparison of activity plan, and achievement for the reporting period,
Activity Status to date and gaps, Implementation progress of GRM case management,
Challenges and/or problems encountered in the course of project implementation over the
reporting period, correction action made to reverse the Challenges and/or problems, Plan for the
next quarter.

36
Table 2: Monitoring plan

Activity Monitoring indicator and report Reporting frequency Responsible

Description
Appointment of • Independent consultant and During detailed design ERA and MOT
implementing CSO appointed for the and preparation phases
partners and management of targeted SA, prior to project
third party to FPIC, and SCDP. effectiveness or before
lead and any construction
facilitate the SA, activities
FPIC, and SCDP
Undertaking • Number of targeted social During detailed design ERA and MOT
targeted social assessments conducted for and preparation phases appointed CSO
assessment with each of the targeted HUTLC prior to project
meaningful • Evidence generated on effectiveness or before
consultation of circumstances requiring FPIC; any construction
each of the point of negotiation; issues activities.
targeted HUTLC requiring consent seeking; a
as per the strategy designed for seeking
objectives FPIC; proposed traditional
mentioned in decision-making institution or
step 1 and platform to make FPIC,an
indicative action plan for subsequent
content of the FPIC; etc.
SA • Proposed mitigation or
compensation measuresand
benefit-sharing measuresbased
on meaningful consultation.
• Number of targeted social
assessment reports compiled
and reported for the Bank’s
approval.
Undertaking a • Number of FPIC seeking During detailed design ERA and MOT
minimum of eventsperformed and collective and preparation phases appointed CSO
three round consent of the targeted prior to project
consultations HUTLCwithevidence or effectiveness or before
and obtaining document that verify the any construction
the FPIC of the process and outcome activities.
targeted HUTLC establishes a record of
agreements reached, as well as
dissenting views. This includes
evidence of mutually agreed
written document (MoU)
including minute, attendance,
and signature of the
voters/participants, photo, and

37
 video record.
• Number of FPIC obtained and
submitted for World Bank’s
review and approval.
Preparing SCDP • Number of SCDP compiled At least two months ERA and MOT
and commitment and submitted for each of the after commencement of appointed CSO
plans for each of targeted HUTLCto promote the construction work. and contractor
the targeted equitable access to project
HUTLC in benefit.
accordance with • Number of commitment plans
the finding of compiled for each of the
SA and FPIC targeted HUTLC and
addendum to the contract
document to mitigate or
compensate the adverse impact
of the project.
• Number of SCDP and
commitment plans prepared
and submitted for World
Bank’s review and approval.
Ensure that • No land acquisition, relocation, Quarterly progress ERA and MOT
affectedmembers and compensation are effective report on the appointed
of targeted without the free prior informed implementation of contractor
HUTLC consent of the targeted compensation and
received HUTLC. mitigation measures
culturally • No adverse impact related to throughout the project
appropriate land acquisition and relocation implementation period
compensation intensified deprivation of their
and mitigation livelihood and vulnerability Annual social audit on
upon free prior ofany members of the targeted performance of the
informed HUTLC. compensation and
consent of the • No mitigation or compensation mitigation measure
targeted HUTLC measure delivery undermines throughout the project
their traditional or customary implementation period
land tenure system, their
customary laws, values, and
traditions; their customary
institutions and decision-
making processes.
• No member of the HUTLC
exposed to HIV, SDT, GBV,
Traffic accident, property
damage, involuntary
resettlement, access restriction
to natural resource use, and
mobility.

38
Ensure that all • No benefit is devised or Quarterly progress ERA and
members of the delivered without the report on the MOTappointed
targeted HUTLC consultation and FPIC of the implementation CSO
received targeted HUTLC. ofbenefits sharing
equitable access • At least 50% of the project opportunitiesthroughout
to project benefit benefit address core problems the project
following of the women, youth and implementation period
meaningful PLWD.
consultation and • Accessible, culturally Mid-term and final
collective appropriate, and inclusive evaluation report on the
consent of the benefit-sharing opportunity impact of benefit-
members delivered to targeted HUTLC. sharing opportunity
throughout the project
implementation period
Establish a • A GRM system built upon the Quarterly progress ERA and MOT
mechanism for traditional dispute settlement report on grievance
grievance mechanisms being available registered and response
handling and • an alternative GRM system throughout the project
management being facilitated at kebele and implementation period
with alternatives woreda level
means and
address
grievance arise
from the project
activities
instantly
Building • Capacity-building support Quarterly progress ERA and MOT
institutional and provided for ERA Social team, report on capacity appointed the
implementation DBC, CSOs, and IPO on the building enhancement third party
Capacity of HPF, SCDP, SA, and FPIC throughout the project
different parties implementation period
involved in the
HPF
implementation
Institutional set • Established institutional set up Quarterly progress ERA, MOT
up from report on institutional Contractor,
ERA,andMOTtoContractor, buildingprogress and CSC, CSOs,
CSC, CSOs, and IPO, gap/ challenge and IPO
• Appointed relevant staff
Monitoring and • Quarterly monitoring the Quarterly progress ERA and MOT
reporting implementation progressofthe report on monitoring
commitment plan, HPF, FPIC, finding
SA,andSCDP ERA and MOT
• Annual social audit The annual social audit appointed third
(performance and compliance) report party
on commitment plan and mid- Mid-term and final

39
 term evaluation on evaluation report
SCDPsandHPF

Annex 1: Indicative Targeted Social Assessment Content

The targeted social assessment includes the following elements, as needed:

1) Cover Page: displaying as to which targeted HUTLC the social assessment report is
compiled.
2) Introduction: a summary on the targeted HUTLC, the source of risk or impact and its nature
and magnitude or significance, and mitigation and compensation measures and way forward
for subsequent FPIC
3) Baseline: Gathering of baseline data on the demographic, social, cultural, and political
characteristics of the targeted HUTLC including : their primary livelihood source, how their
livelihoods are attached to the lands; traditional or customary land tenure system of the
targeted HUTLC; areas of spiritual or cultural significance in their traditional territory; how
the land and resourcesareutilizedin accordance with their customary laws, values and
traditions, including cultural, ceremonial or spiritual use, and seasonal or intermittent use of
resources; who, other than the targeted HUTLC, are inhibiting or sharing their land or
resource; territorial dispute with and land claims from neighboring HUTLC or potential for
increased conflicts between HUTLC and surrounding communities over land and/or
resourcescarcity; vulnerable and marginal individuals/groups within the HUTLC; availability
of judicial recourse and customary dispute settlement mechanisms;existingtraditional leaders
or a traditional leadership structure, customary institutions and decision-making processes;
available CSOs around the targeted HUTLC; etc.
4) Impact: Taking the review and baseline data into account, the quantification of project-
affected parties from the targeted HUTLC and the elaboration of a culturally appropriate
process for involving and consulting with the HUTLC at each stage of project preparation
and implementation (see paragraph 23 of ESS7).;
5) Assessment of the direct & indirect and cumulative impacts/risks of the project given the
scale & nature of the project activities into account: Critical to the determination of potential

40
 adverse impacts is an analysis of the relative vulnerability of, and risks to, the affected
HUTLC, given their distinct circumstances and close ties to the land and natural resources, as
well as their potential lack of access to opportunities relative to other social groups in the
communities, regions, or national societies in which they live. The assessment should
consider differentiated gender impacts of project activities and impacts on potentially
disadvantaged or vulnerable groups within the community of HUTLC.Proposealternative
project design/siting to avoid adverse impact; propose means for equitable access to project
benefits; suggest mitigation and compensation strategy for project adverse impact which
includes operational and administrative measure; Determine and propose the eligibility and
the appropriate structure and mechanisms for the delivery and management of compensation
and shared benefits; Identify opportunities that would address the goals and preferences of
the affected HUTLC including improving their standard of living and livelihoods; identify
measures for legal recognition of the traditional ownership or under customary use or
occupation of land and natural resource, with due respect to the customs, traditions, and land
tenure systems of the HUTLCconcerned.
6) The way forward: a) detail informationoncircumstances requiring FPIC wastaking the scale
& nature of the risk or impact of multiple activities of the project into account, b) negotiation
points or inputs for draft MoU;
7) Action plan for seeking FPIC from targeted HUTLC: the action plan may outline: a) points
of negotiation and consent seeking points; b) proposed traditional institution and platform for
consent seeking process; c) inputs to improve the a strategy for consent seeking process prior
to processing the FPIC d) key principles or commitments expected of from all participating
parties in the negotiation and consent process based on the standard principles for the ‘good
faith negotiation; e) schedule of different events (consultation) to be held as part of this
negotiation and consent seeking process (the minimum requirement is three events); f) means
of communication or modes of communication in the negotiation process guiding principle,
g) resource required and itemized action h) responsibilities of different bodies involved in
the FPIC.

41
Annex 2 Indicative SCDP Content
The SCDP includes the following elements, as needed:

1. SCDP Executive Summary: This section concisely describes the critical facts, significant
findings, and recommended actions (required for a standalone SCDP);
2. Assessments of the identified Project activities with impacts on affected HUTLC: This
section provides an analysis of the nature and scale of such impacts.Itshould:
a. Review the legal and institutional framework applicable to affected HUTLC in the
project context.
b. Provide baseline information on the demographic, social, cultural, and political
characteristics of the affected communities; the land and territories that they have
traditionally owned or customarily used or occupied; and the natural resources on
which they depend.
c. Identify key project stakeholders and elaborate a culturally appropriate and gender-
sensitive process for meaningful consultation with affected HUTLC at each stage of
project preparation and implementation, taking the review and baseline information
into account.
d. Assess, based on meaningful consultation with the affected communities, the
potential adverse and positive effects of the identified project investment activities.
Critical to the determination of potential adverse impacts is a gender-sensitive
analysis of the relative vulnerability of, and risks to, the affected HUTLC, given their
circumstances and close ties to the land and natural resources, as well as their lack of
access to opportunities relative to those available to other social groups in the
communities, regions, or national societies in which they live.
e. Include a gender-sensitive assessment of the affected HUTLCs' perceptions about the
identified Project and its impact on their social, economic, and cultural status.
f. Identify and recommend, based on meaningful consultation with the affected
communities, the measures necessary to avoid adverse effects or, if such measures are
not possible, identify measures to minimize, mitigate, and/or compensate for such
effects and to ensure that HUTLC receive culturally appropriate benefits under the
project.

42
3. Assessments of circumstances requiring FPIC and alternative project design/siting to
avoid adverse impacts (refer to the Section on Free, Prior and Informed Consent).
4. Information disclosure, consultation, and participation. This section should:
a. Describes the information disclosure, consultation, and participation process with the
affected communities that was carried out during project preparation;
b. Summarize their comments on the results of the social impact assessment and identify
concerns raised during consultation and how these have been addressed in project
design;
c. In the case of project activities requiring FPIC, document the process and outcome of
consultations with affected communities and any agreement resulting from such
consultations for the project activities and risk management measures addressing the
impacts of such activities;
d. Describe consultation and participation mechanisms to be used during
implementation to ensure HUTLC participation during implementation; and
e. Confirm disclosure of the draft and final documents to the affectedHUTLC;
5. Benefit-sharing arrangements: this section specifies the measures to ensure that the
affected communities receive social and economic benefits that are culturally appropriate,
and gender-responsive.
6. Mitigation measures: this section specifies the measures to avoid adverse impacts on
HUTLC; and where the avoidance is impossible, specifies the measures to minimize,
mitigate and compensate for identified unavoidable adverse impacts for each affected
community.
7. Capacity building: this section provides measures to strengthen the social, legal, and
technical capabilities of (a) government institutions to address HUTLC issues in the project
area; and (b) affected communities’ organizations in the project area to enable them to
represent their communities more effectively and participate in the management of risks and
impacts.
8. Feedback and Grievance Redress Mechanism: this section describes the procedures to
redress grievances by affected HUTLC. It also explains how accessible the procedures are to
Indigenous Peoples and how culturally appropriate and gender-sensitive they are.

43
9. Monitoring, reporting, and evaluation: this section describes the mechanisms and
benchmarks appropriate to the identified investment for monitoring and evaluating the
implementation of the SCDP. It also specifies arrangements for the participation of affected
HUTLC in the preparation and validation of monitoring and evaluation of reports.
10. Governance and Institutional arrangements: this section describes institutional
arrangement responsibilities and mechanisms for carrying out the various mitigation
measures in the SCDP. It also describes the process of including relevant local organizations
and/or NGOs in carrying out the measures of the SCDP with an emphasis on including direct
HUTLC representatives’ participation in SCDP decision-making
11. Budget and financing. This section provides an itemized budget for all activities described
in the SCDP.

44
Annex 3: FPIC Inception Report

Contents
1. ......................................................................................................................... Objectives of the Assignment & General Approach
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
2. .............................................................................................................................. Communities Included Within the FPIC Process
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
3. .......................................................................................................... Field Team Composition, Responsibilities, and Organization
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
4. ................................................................................................................................................ Workplan: Steps in the FPIC Process
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
5. ...................................................................................................................................................Workplan Deliverables & Timeline
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
6. .................................................................................................................................................... Collaboration with ERA and Bank
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
7. ............................................................................. Discussion Questions for FPIC Stakeholders during 1st Round of Consultations
........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 10

1. Objectives of the Assignment & General Approach

1.1 Objectives
This Inception Report lays out a series of activities which will facilitate the implementation of an ESS7
compliant FPIC process for the HOA Initiative: Regional Economic Corridor project in Ethiopia (P174485).
Allied to this will be guidance for the preparation of an FPIC-standard Indigenous Peoples/SSAHUTLC
Plan which aligns with the requirements of ESS7 (to be dubbed the “HOA Initiative Social and
Community Development Plan” or a like title).

An added objective is to raise the capacity of Bank projects and staff in the Region to carry out the FPIC
process successfully elsewhere. By so doing, we can establish the Region as a successful implementer of
an emerging FPIC approach to dealing with the unique challenges and requirements of a linear project,
such as encountered in this HOA Initiative. Similar training for ERA staff is an added objective.

1.2 General Approach

As this is an FPIC-seeking assignment, the approach taken must be in line with the FPIC principles of
transparency, inclusion, and participation: an intensification of the broader stakeholder engagement
principles of “broad community support” and “informed consultation and participation” popular among
the Bank and the other Multilateral Development Banks—and mandated by the Bank’s ESS10 and
included in the SEP. As such the consultations necessary for the FPIC process differ from non-FPIC
approaches in that they:

• Require more time: at minimum three rounds of consultation

• Ensure more robust representation of diverse elements of the project-affected
communities than is usually the case, particularly of women
• Require additional meetings with community representatives

45
 • Involve local governments as an integral part of the process
• Require formal agreement with the designated FPIC communities as to how “consent”
will be recognized (with the understanding that consent does not require unanimity and
may be achieved even if some groups within the affected HUTLC communities explicitly
disagree)
• Require a point-in-time “consent” decision according to the procedure determine by the
affected communities

Partnership will likewise need to be enhanced as the FPIC Facilitator Organization (FFO)5—a CSO field
team--will engage with local people to gather their input for the community development plan to be
prepared, inviting some of them to co-produce elements of the Plan. The FFO working closely with—and
under the guidance of--the FPIC consultants will need to assume a neutral stance towards the project—
neither for nor against the project—if they are to gain the trust of the local communities as an honest
broker of the FPIC process. For this reason, the field team will not be the official discloser of project
information to avoid being seen as project proxies—and thus biased—by the local FPIC communities.

The task of disclosing project information is the responsibility of the ERA team or by their designated
proxy (consultants or firm)6.

These efforts are all aimed at encouraging local communities to partner with the FFO and FPIC
Consultants to facilitate a free, prior, and informed decision as to whether or not they want to deliver
their consent to the specific project component that affects them, the proposed package of mitigation
and benefits packages.

Regarding the latter, the approach will be to work with the project to use the funds designated for
Component 3 to provide culturally appropriate benefits. It is likely that most of the communities along
the affected Expressway stretch will meet the ESS7 criteria (as already affirmed in the RP document),
hence application of the FPIC process and eventually inclusion in the Social and Community
Development Plan (SCDP).

The technical approach should also be sensitive to the reality that the type of FPIC required for this type
of project should match the nature of the project. Whereas a full and robust FPIC approach makes
eminent sense for a hydropower project or a mine when a community’s lives and livelihoods will be
irrevocably transformed, linear projects will likely not have such a significant impact—and certainly not
in the short run. Yet the short run is the key for linear projects, so there is need to find the right degree
of FPIC effort for this type of project: it will clearly be a joint pilot project, evolving as we go.

Thus, data will guide the process as we learn more about the communities on either side of the
expressway right of way. We will formulate the consultation strategy based on the actual social groups
(clans, sub-clans, primarily) which constitute the main social groups the highway will affect. These will
become the main units of FPIC decision-making rather than settlements (although there will
undoubtedly be some of those as fixed villages). We are estimating that we will establish around 6
separate FPIC conglomerations (“Points”) of local clans or sub-clans which will serve as our prime FPIC

5Depending on the availability and competencies of different CSOs, more than one FFO may need to be engaged.
6 Project information disclosureby the entity carrying out the ESIA would be one possibility for this assignment.

46
“clients” who we (the FPIC Consultants and the FFO) will work with to progress to a hopefully affirmative
consent decision.

Documentation of the process will be a joint combined responsibility of the FFO and FPIC Consultants.7

1.3 Methodology
Work for this assignment will rely on close collaboration between the FPIC Consultants and the FFO
chosen to work with us on the ground in Ethiopia. Given the lack of awareness of FPIC approaches
among both local social practitioners and in the government, training for both the FFO and ERA staff will
be necessary. The training will be conducted virtually and observing COVID-19protocols. Nevertheless,
we will endeavor to provide a high-quality implementation approach to carrying out the FPIC process.
Key methods used will include:

• Teleconferences with the FFO to deliver training and plan out the FPIC process

• Teleconferences with government project staff and World Bank team members

• A series of three rounds of consultations held in the local communities which seek to:

✓ Gather local project-affected peoples’ trust of the process

✓ Select FPIC process representatives
✓ Gather local project-affected peoples’ input into the FPIC process determination
✓ Gather local project-affected peoples’ input into the mitigation and benefits-sharing
measures including issues of redressing potential cumulative and indirect social impacts
through implementation of livelihood restoration and improvement programs in addition to
direct project level rehabilitation initiativesto be included into a social and community
development plan (the aforementioned Social and Community Development Plan [SCDP]) as
well as any other documents to be prepared
✓ Facilitate local project-affected peoples’ decision on consent for the above-mentioned plan
and any other documents

• We will guide the FFO to hold key informant consultations with community leaders as well as
separate focus groups with women and other often disadvantaged members of local society.

• Key document circulation among government and Bank project team staffs, incorporating inputs

• COVID-19 Precautions: Currently, there is no pandemic lockdown in Ethiopia or in the project

area. Therefore, the community consultation process will be carried out observing COVID-19
protocols (such as wearing face masks, keeping physical distance, using hand sanitizer) set by
the government. According to the data based on Ministry of Health, the daily number of new
COVID cases is significantly declining. However, as things are uncertain, in case the situation
changes and there is an ensuing lockdown, then the proposed timeline for the FPIC process will
be changed significantly. In such circumstances, the new COVID-19 protocols will be adhered to
strictly.

77Gregory Guldin of CCCS, Deribe Teshome of Dilla University, and Darout Gum’a—the FPIC Consultants--are the independent
specialists who have been engaged by the Bank to coordinate this FPIC facilitation assignment.

47
 2. Communities Included Within the FPIC Process
The total length of the Meisso-Dire Dawa Expressway project is 142 kms. The project traverses 27
kebeles in three regions. Of these project-affected kebeles, 23 are in four woredas (Mulu, Afdem, Bike
and Erer) of Siti Zone Somali Region, three in Meisso woreda in West Hararge Zone of Oromia Region
and one in Dire Dawa City Administration. Given this wide geographic area of the project and for the
technical reason already stated under section 1.2 above, the scoping of the FPIC communities is based
on the actual social groups (clan and sub-clan structures) instead of settlements (although there will
undoubtedly be some of those as fixed villages). Besides, there are a number of socio-cultural and
economic characteristics of the project-affected communities that justify the suitability of social groups
rather than settlements. These characteristics are outlined as follows.
Applying ESS7 screening criteria:the findings of the draft SA and RPF prepared by ERA revealed the
undertaking of components 1 and 3 of the project will: (a) restrict local communities’ access to natural
resources subject to traditional ownership or under customary use or occupation; (b) limit local
communities’ access to public services; and (c) the construction of the road (component 1) involves land
acquisition in 90 meters width across 142 kms that will cause the loss of residential land, loss of shelter
or relocation for 205 households. Therefore, the inclusion of the FPIC process is delimited to those
communities living on either side of the road and directly affected (by one or all of the afore said
criteria) due to the undertaking of the proposed project. On the basis of the quick field visit assessment
recently undertaken by ERA’s team, we roughly estimate project-affected communities are living within
2 kms of either side of the road.8
Ethnic homogeneity: more than 95% of the inhabitants in the 3 kebeles from Meisso woreda belongs to
the Oromo ethnic group. Whereas, in those 23 kebeles from Mulu, Afdem, Bike and Erer woredas more
than 97% of the inhabitants are ethnic Somali9. As the census is taken at the woreda level and the non-
Oromo and non-Somali people concentrate in the respective woreda town, we reasonably assume a
near complete ethnic homogeneity in the 26 rural kebeles affected. The ethnic homogeneity avoids the
problem of language diversity and many other cultural differences that may be raised in the FPIC
consultation process.
Clan system:in all the kebeles that the Expressway passes through except MelkaJabdu, the clan system
is the main form of social as well as political (as relates to the form of collective decision-making)
organization among project-affected communities. In such social groups, clan leaders and councils of
elders are representatives of a community who negotiate on crucial matters such as land and natural
resources (Bamlaku 201910; Tenaw 201611).This eases the selection of community representatives for
the FPIC process to a large degree but nevertheless needs to be supplemented to ensure that other
voices are heard as well.

8The fact that the project traverses 27 kebeles does not mean we consider “a whole kebele” as a unit/focus of the FPIC process.
Rather, within each kebele that the road traverses we delimit the focus to those clans and sub-clans living within 2 kms of either
side of the road. However, the 2 kms boundary will be flexible in cases that dissect villages, clans or sub-clans.
92007 Population and Housing Census of Ethiopia.
10BamlakuTadese (2019). “Ethiopia: The Roles of the Council of Elders (Menguddo)” in Gumma Customary Institution of

Conflict Resolution. DOI:10.24193/csq.26.3 Published First Online: 05/01/2019

11Tenaw, Z. (2016). “Constraints of Pastoral and Agro-Pastoral Livelihood Diversification in Eastern Ethiopia: The Case of

Mieso District, Oromia Regional State,” International Journal of Sciences Basic and Applied Research, 26 (3): 267-274.

48
Livelihood:most project-affected people are purely pastoralist while the remaining are agro-pastoralist
(Catley and Iyasu 201012; Tenaw 2016).
Customary land tenure system:common to project-affected communities is that land cannot be owned
or claimed exclusively either by an individual or as a family holding, nor can it be sold. Instead, land and
natural resources are communal property belonging to the clan members. Clan leaders and council of
elders are the traditional authorities entrusted with the power to control access to and use of land and
natural resources.This makes our strategy to depend on clan leaders and council of elders effective in
the FPIC process.
Selection strategy:the Oromo communities living in the three project-affected kebeles in Meiso woreda
are divided into four major clans, namely: Ittu, Alla, Nolle, and Obera. Whereas most of the ethnic
Somali inhabitants in the 23 project-affected kebeles from Mulu, Afdem, Bike and Erer woredas belongs
to the Issa clan while only a few claimto be members of Gurgura, Hawiya or Gedabursi clan (Social
Assessment Report13). Our selection strategy for the FPIC process will ensure the representation of all
the clans through their clan leader, council of elders, and religious leaders. The inclusion of women and
other marginalized members of a local community will apply the same strategy.

FPIC Points:given the above described similarity of the socio-cultural and economic characteristics of the
project-affected communities, the target of 6 “FPIC Points” is reasonably enough. That means, we will
have one FPIC point for neighboring villages and the meeting place is arranged at an average distance
between them. The meeting place will be arranged in agreement with the participants and considering
the socio-political tensions along the proposed project corridor.14Furthermore, in order to maximize the
homogeneity factor and to avoid possibilities of provoking circumstances, which might emanate from
residues of historical conflicts among ethnic groups inhabiting this conflict-prone geographic area as
clearly described in the HPF document, the meetings will be arranged in such a way that communities
with similar ethnic backgrounds share common FPIC points.

3. Field Team Composition, Responsibilities, and Organization

To carry out the FPIC process, the FPIC Consultants (Guldin, Teshome, and Guma) will guide one or more
FFOs in conducting three rounds of consultations at the community level. This activity will need the
support of the ERA field/social team and will liaise as needed with ERA’s Social Assessment organization
(or whichever entity is tasked with preparing the SCDP). In addition, a key advisor to the process will
include the Bank’s ESFM Consultant.

FFO selection process. The selection of the FFO(s) will be based on the following criteria: Social
assessment experience, language capacities, geographic coverage, size of team, gender mix, social
reputation. The FPIC Consultants will prepare a “CSO Assessment” which will present a list of FFO
candidates for ERA to choose among to engage for the FPIC process. Accordingly, the CSO as FFO will
follow this Inception Report.

12
Catley, A., and Iyasu, A. (2010). “Moving Up or Moving Out? A Rapid Livelihoods and Conflict Analysis in Mieso-
MuluWoreda, Somali Region.” Boston: Feinstein International Center Tufts University and Mercy Corps.
13
Horn of Africa Initiative: Regional Economic Corridor Project (P174485)Meso-Dire Dawa Road Project component Social
Assessment Report
14 The implications of these tensions for the project will be discussed further in the SMP.

49
 Team Composition Responsibilities
FPIC Consultants • Provide overall guidance for both the FFO and ERA staff on carrying
out the FPIC process according to ESS7 and Good International
Practice (GIP).
• Guide round one, two and three community consultations.
• Guide the FPIC documentation process: preparation of consent
process agreement, progress reports for each round of community
consultation, will draft a Guidance Note on SCDP from each round of
community consultation, and other related documents.
• Advise the entity (SA Consultant?) preparing the SCDP as to
community inputs and SCDP content and organization.
FFO(s)’ field team(s) • Facilitate the FPIC process: act as broker of the FPIC process, gather
project-affected peoples’ input into the FPIC process determination,
mitigation and benefits-sharing measures (SCDP), and facilitate
project-affected peoples’ decision on consent for these documents.
• Carry out rounds one, two and three community consultations.
Conduct key informant consultations with community leaders,
separate focus groups with women and other marginalized groups.
• Document the FPIC process for each round of consultations following
the guidance of FPIC consultants.
• Liaise with ERA and the entity preparing the SCDP.
Social Assessment (SA) • Prepare the SCDP following the guidance of the FPIC consultants
Consultant(cy) and with inputs from the FFO(s).
Preparing SCDP
ERA Team (or their • Project disclosure to affected communities prior to the first
proxy such as a round of FPIC consultation: the nature and scale of the project,
firm/consultants) project timeline, benefits and risks, mitigation measures and
next steps. This disclosure must be conducted in a manner
accessible to the local project-affected communities. Draft
disclosure materials will be shared with the FPIC Consultants for
review prior to field deployment. Alerting local project-affected
communities that they will be contacted by the FFO as part of
project preparation.
• Arranging for FFO(s) and FPIC Consultants fieldwork
permissions, as necessary.
• Liaising with local government and ministries, as necessary to
facilitate the FPIC process.
• Logistical support as necessary for the FPIC Consultants

50
 4. Workplan: Steps in the FPIC Process
While the Project is yet to engage an FFO(s) and while the Bank project team—including the FPIC
Consultants—are yet to have a clear picture of the actual local groups on the ground, we know in broad
terms that most of the expressway area will be populated by clans and sub-clans pursuing a pastoral
lifestyle. We are thus building our FPIC process with that social reality in mind.

The key sequential steps we foresee are:

• Selection of FPIC Facilitators (CSO/INGO/IPO/academics, a firm): this might entail more

than one entity. The FPIC Consultants will prepare a “CSO Assessment” which will
present a list of FFO candidates for ERA to choose among to engage for the FPIC process
(see Section 3 above for a fuller discussion).
• Project Disclosure of ESIA to affected communities (what the project is, project timeline,
risks/mitigation measures, next steps) by the ERA Team (or their consultants) needs to
be carried out prior to contacting the local communities. This will be in pursuit of the
“prior” and “informed” aspects of the FPIC process.
• After Project Disclosure, the FFO (with FPIC Consultant guidance) will conduct the First
Round of Consultations with each Project Affected Community (introduction of FPIC
process, selection of community representatives to community advisory council (TBD);
discussion of community priorities/concerns/desired benefits) meeting in designated
FPIC Points.
• Based on the results of the First Round of Consultations, a meeting of the FPIC
communities’ representatives will be held. This First Communities Advisory Council
Meeting (wherein there will be an explanation of the role of the Advisory Council, a
discussion of how consent would be determined, a prioritization of collective
community priorities/concerns/desired benefits, a discussion of Social and Community
Development Plan preparation (SCDP), and solicitation of volunteers, if any, to co-
develop the SCDP draft and related documents.
• With input into the contents of a SCDP, the FPIC Consultants will draft a Guidance Note
on SCDP Preparation to advise the ERA-selected entity which will be developing the
Social and Community Development Plan
• This entity then prepares the First Draft of the SCDP
• The FPIC Consultants will draft a “Consent Process Agreement” for the communities to
consider based on their inputs during the First Round of Consultations
• A Second Round of Consultations is then held in the FPIC Points (during which there will
be a discussion of First Draft of SCDP, discussion of the draft Consent Process
Agreement, and a discussion of the need for other documents, if any)
• Followed by a Second Communities Advisory Council Meeting (review of community
SCDP discussions, decision on Consent Process Agreement, discussion of other project
documents)
• Preparation of Second Draft of SCDP

51
 • Third Round of Consultations (discussion of Second Draft of SCDP and other documents)
in the 6 FPIC Points
• Preparation of Third Draft of SCDP and other documents
• Third Communities Advisory Council Meeting. This would be the key decision-making
meeting during which the communities’ will on a Consent Set of Documents (including a
Consent Statement, the SCDP, an SCDP implementation agreement, and perhaps other
documents) will be measured, leading to a decision to grant or withhold consent.
• With the consent decision made, there will either be i) a Culturally Appropriate
Celebration on Achieving FPIC, or ii) a return for a Fourth Round of Consultations, or c) a
turn to External Facilitation.

5. Workplan Deliverables & Timeline

5.1 Deliverables:
Deliverables will include Executive Summaries and will be provided in English. (Upon finalization, key
documents will be translated into local languages by the FFO engaged by ERA separately).

The Deliverables:

a) Inception Report
b) CSO Assessment
c) Consultations Round One Progress Report, includes draft CPA [Consent Process
Agreement]
d) Guidance Memo for SCDP/Component 3 preparation
e) Consultations Round Two Progress Report, includes finalized CPA and SCDP
recommendations
f) Consultations Round Three Progress Report (may be combined with Draft Final Report)
g) Draft Final Report (includes Consent Set of documents)
h) Final Report

52
 5.2 Timeline
Task # / Key Task (Deliverables in blue text) Target Deadlines15

Milestone
(italicized)

1 Kick-off teleconference & preparation April 2021

2 Desk Review of ESIA, RAP/RPF, consultation records; other

social documents
June 2021
3 Review communities / ESIA data for accurate selection of
FPIC communities: 4 ID criteria +transhumance/nomadism

4 Preparation of Inception Report; FPIC process planning; FFO

remote consultations; revision of Inception Report based on June-July 2021
feedback

5 Disclosure of risks/mitigation & benefits measures by the

TBD
Project

6 CSO Assessment of potential partners; selection; and memo TBD

7 Remote training of and planning with FFO field team(s): FPIC

(building FPIC values; community social mapping/needs TBD
assessment; priorities gathering))

8 Reconnaissance visit to Project Affected Communities by

TBD
FFO Field Team

9 Consultation and advice with project teams (national and

WB); external stakeholders: communications; input to Intermittent
SCDP/component 3 planning

10 First Round of Consultations

TBD
11 Progress Report on 1st Consultation Round (including CPA)
[based on CSO inputs, documentation]

12 Second Round of Consultations

13 Progress Report on 2nd Consultation Round [based on CSO TBD

inputs, documentation]

15
Given the current uncertainties of travelling and community gatherings due to the COVID-19 situation,
as well as the number of communities involved, we had initially indicated hoped for target dates only.
Furthermore, as an FFO has not yet initiated work, it is not possible to devise even an indicated
schedule. Therefore it is likely the process may stretch well into if not beyond Q2, 2022.The same
approach has been applied to the timetables in all the documents in this HPF.

53
14 Preparation of Consent set of documents; revisions TBD

16 Third Round of Consultations

TBD
17 Progress Report on 3rd Consultation Round [based on CSO
inputs, documentation]

18 Draft Final Report Preparation & Submission to WB, others TBD

19 Teleconference with WB, others TBD

20 Final Report revision & submission TBD

6. Collaboration with ERA and the Bank

6.1 ERA
For the FPIC facilitation to be successful, both the FPIC Consultants and the FFO must develop a good
working relation with ERA. This includes the FPIC Consultants advising ERA on:

• the prerequisites for ESIA disclosure (to be completed prior to the First Round of FPIC
Consultations
• the prerequisites for an FPIC-Standard Social and Community Development Plan
(equivalent of ESS7 SCDP/SSAHUTLC Development Plan)
• all FFO and FPIC Consultants activities in the project area
We would request ERA support for the FPIC Consultants and FFO in terms of:

• fieldwork permissions
• logistics and security support as necessary
• required data on local communities and project documentation

6.2 World Bank

The FPIC Consultants and the FFO will both rely on the good will of the Bank to:

• gain access to necessary project documentation and data

• intercede as necessary with ERA management to facilitate actions and permissions
necessary for the FPIC process to proceed as needed

7. Discussion Questions for FPIC Stakeholders during 1st Round of Consultations

During the First Round of FPIC Community Consultations, the FFO teams will cover the following topics:

54
• Introduction to FFO and FPIC process
• General questions regarding information received during ESIA disclosure by ERA Team
or their proxy (to be conveyed to ERA for responses)
• Gathering of community suggestions for mitigation measures
• Gathering of community suggestions for benefits sharing
• Discussion of how a “consent” decision will be reached and recognized (in anticipation
of the preparation of a “Consent Process Agreement”)
• Selection of representatives to a Communities Advisory Council

55
 Annex 4: CSO Assessment

Contents

1.Objective of this Assignment and General Approach

......................................................................................................................................................... 1
2.Field Team Composition, Responsibilities, and Organization
......................................................................................................................................................... 2
3.Potential FFO Candidates& Selection Process
......................................................................................................................................................... 4
Annex A: Definitions of CSO, NGO, and Others .............................................................................. 6
Annex B: ToR for FPIC Facilitator Organisation Selection………………………………………………………7

1. Objective of this Assignment and General Approach

1.1 Objective
This CSO Assessmentdescribes a process which willfacilitate the implementation ofa critical part of an
ESS7 compliant FPIC process for the HOA Initiative: Regional Economic Corridor project in Ethiopia
(P174485)—the engagement of a Civil Society Organization (CSO) or equivalent organization(s) to serve
as the FPIC Facilitator Organization (FFO).16

1.2 General Approach

As this is an FPIC-seeking assignment, the approach taken must be in line with the FPIC principles of
transparency, inclusion, and participation: an intensification of the broader stakeholder engagement
principles of “broad community support” and “informed consultation and participation” popular among
the Bank and the other Multilateral Development Banks—and mandated by the Bank’s ESS10 and
included in the SEP. As sucha CSO or a consultancy firm unaffiliated with this project needs to be
engagedas an FFO to carry out the consultations necessary for the FPIC process, a process which differs
from non-FPIC approaches in that it:

• Requires more time: at minimum three rounds of consultation.

• Ensures more robust representation of diverse elements of the project-affected
communities than is usually the case, particularly of women, elders, and youth.
• Requires additional meetings with community representatives.
• Involves local governments as an integral part of the process.

16
Definitions of CSO, NGO, and other similar terms have been included in an Annex A.

56
 • Requires formal agreement with the designated FPIC communities as to how “consent”
will be recognized.
• Requiresa point-in-time “consent” decision according to the procedure determined by
the affected communities.
• Is carried out with careful attention to culturally appropriate forms of consultation and
decision-making.

Partnership will likewise need to be enhanced as the FPIC Facilitator Organization (FFO)17will engage
with local people to gather their input for the Social and Community Development Plan (SCDP) to be
prepared, inviting some of them to co-produce elements of the SCDP. The FFO working closely with—
and under the guidance of--the Bank consultants will need to assume a neutral stance towards the
project—neither for nor against the project—if they are to gain the trust of the local communities as an
honest broker of the FPIC process. For this reason, the field team will not be the official discloser of
project information to avoid being seen as project proxies—and thus biased—by the local FPIC
communities.

These efforts are all aimed at convincing local communities to partner with the FFO and FPIC
Consultants as we work with them to facilitate them making a free, prior, and informed decision as to
whether or notthey want to deliver their consent to the specific project component that affects them
and the proposed package of mitigation and benefits packages.

We have formulateda consultation strategy based on the actual social groups (settlements/villages,
which may be comprised of clans, sub-clans, primarily) whichconstitute the main social groups the
highway will affect. These will become the main units of FPIC decision-making.We are estimating that
we will establish around 6 separate FPIC conglomerations (“FPIC points”)18of villages, which may be
comprised of local clans or sub-clans which will serve as our prime FPIC “clients” who we (the FPIC
Consultants and the FFO) will work with to progress to a hopefully affirmative consent decision.

2. Field Team Composition, Responsibilities, and Organization

2.1FFO Selection Criteria
Depending on the qualifications and availability of local organizations (be they CSOs, academic groups,
Indigenous Peoples Organizations (IPOs), consultancy firmsunaffiliated with this project,or others), more
than one group may be selected. The selection of the FFO(s) will be based on the following criteria:

• Social assessment experience: has the organization carried out similar community-based
consultations or data gathering exercises either for national or international entities?

17
Depending on the availability and competencies of different CSOsor consulting firms, more than one FFO
may need to be engaged.
18
The 6 FPIC points will include one FPIC point for neighboring villages with the meeting place arranged
at an average distance between them.

57
 • Team technical competencies: does the organization’s proposed team include
anthropological or sociological expertise familiar with the cultures expected to be
encountered during this assignment?Are any members of the proposed team members
of the clans or communities or ethnic groups to be encountered during the FPIC
process?
• Language capacities: can the organization field a team competent in the languages of
both the Oromo and Somali and any other languages that may be spoken in the
affectedcommunities?
• Geographic coverage: can the organization operate along all selected six FPIC Points or
only a section of the proposed highway? Does the organization have experience working
in this road corridor area?
• Size of team: can the organization field a team large enough to carry out each round of
consultations in two-three weeks?
• Gender mix: can the organization field a team composed with a significant participation
of women?
• Social reputation: is the organization well regarded in the local communities along the
proposed highway?
• Availability: does the organization have the ability to field its team within the next
months for repeated visits to the FPIC points?

2.2Overview of FFO(s)’ Methodology

The FFO(s) will be the field team to carry out the FPIC process, while the FPIC Consultants (Guldin,
Teshome, and Gum’a) will guide one or more FFOs in conducting three rounds of consultations at the
community level. This activity will need the support of the ERA field/social team and will liaise as needed
with ERA’s Social Assessment organization (or whichever entity is tasked with preparing the SCDP). In
addition, a key advisor to the process will include the Bank’s ESMF Consultant.

Importantly—and to reemphasize the point made in Section 1.2—the FFO will approach the FPIC
communities not as a representative of the Project or of ERA but as a neutral third-party which is neither
for nor against the project. The FFOs will emphasize and demonstrate by their behavior that their sole
aim is to facilitate the FPIC process so that local communities can freely—without coercion—make their
own decisions regarding project design and benefits/mitigation packages (the Social and Community
Development Plan). They will accordingly endeavor to assist the local communities in getting timely
access to information (via ERA and its agents) and to ensure that their inputs are delivered appropriately
to entities preparing the SCDP.

Key methods to be used by the FFO(s) will include:

• Teleconferences with the FPIC Consultants to deliver training and plan out the FPIC process
• Teleconferences with government project staff and World Bank team members
• A series of three rounds of consultations held in the local communities which seek to:
✓ Gather local project-affected peoples’ trust of the process
✓ Select FPIC process representatives

58
 ✓ Gather local project-affected peoples’ input into the FPIC process determination
✓ Gather local project-affected peoples’ input into the mitigation and benefits-sharing
measures to be included into the SCDP as well as any other documents to be prepared
✓ Facilitate local project-affected peoples’ decision on consent for the SCDP and any other
documents
• Key informant consultations with community leaders as well as separate focus groups with
women and other often marginalized members of local society
• Preparation ofdocumentswhich will provide input to the entity preparing the SCDP
• Document the entire FPIC process;documentation of the process will be a joint combined
responsibility of the FFO and FPIC Consultants.
2.3Duties and Responsibilities of the FFOs’ Field Team
As stated above, the FPIC Consultants will train the FFO(s)’ field team regarding their duties and
responsibilities. Then, at every step of the FPIC process, the FFOs’ field team will work closely with and
under the guidance of the FPICConsultants. The duties and responsibilities of the team include:

• Respect local cultures:the FFOs’ field team must demonstrate an understanding of and respect for
the traditional and customary etiquette and social protocols of project-affected communities.
• Facilitate the FPIC process:this responsibility of the FFOs’ field team will include: (a) mediating
between project-affected communities, ERA and the FPIC consultants or acting as broker of the FPIC
process; (b) arranging and scheduling the FPIC community consultationswith an understanding of
project-affected communities’conceptsand constraints of time. Considering this, the FFOs’ field
team will negotiate with the participants and arrange convenient times and places ahead of each
round ofFPIC consultations; and (c) staying in the field or regularly engage with project-affected
communities to gather their concerns/feedbacks for the next round of the FPIC consultation,
including gatheringtheirinput into the FPIC process determination, into mitigation and benefits-
sharing measures (SCDP), and facilitating project-affected peoples’ decision on consent for these
documents.
• Ensure transparent selection of the community representatives: ahead of the first round of
community consultations, the FFOs’ field team will facilitate the selection of the community
representatives to ensure: (a) that the selection is done according to the interest of the community
members; and (b) that the interest of women, youth, the elderly, disabled, social minority groups
(if any) or other marginalized groups is properly represented.
• Enhance the capacity of project-affected communities: to help themparticipate in the FPIC
process, the FFOs’ field team should raise the awareness of project-affected communities of their
rights to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (consultation) over issues that affect their economic,
social and cultural elements, to self-determination, and to the land and natural resources subject to
traditional ownership or under customary use or occupation. In addition, after every round of FPIC
consultations, the team should have interactive discussions with project-affected communities to
see if there are questions or concerns regarding project-related, rights-related, or FPIC-related
issues and guide the communities appropriately.
• Conduct community consultations: together with the FPIC Consultants, the FFOs’ field team will
carry out the FPIC community consultations (rounds one, two and three) and document the process
and outcomes accordingly.
• Conduct key informant interview/consultation: despitetheirbeingencouragedtoactivelyparticipate
during FPIC community consultations, personal or socio-cultural factors may hinder some
participants such as women, social minority groups and PLWDfrom expressing their interests

59
 openly. Or there may be a need for detailed or knowledgeable information from the community
leaders. In such the cases, meaningful consultation (separate Focus Group Discussions [FGD] or key
informant interviews) tailored to community leaders or women, youth, the elderly, disabled or
other marginalized groups will be arranged. The FFOs’ field team will conduct FGD and key
informant interviews together with or independent of the Bank consultants.
• Carry out consultations and work safely and confidentially: to maintain the confidence and
security of all project-affected people, the FFO teams will respect the wishes of individuals or
groups to remain anonymous or their information confidential if so requested.
• Follow COVID-19 protocols: Carry out consultations following COVID-19 precautions as prescribed
by the Government of Ethiopia and local authorities.

3. Potential FFO Candidates& Selection Process

3.1FFO Candidates from the NGO Environment
Based on the background information obtained from internet sources including the official webpage of
the respective organizations, the following NGOs are listed as potential FFO.

• Pastoral Concern Ethiopia

• Mercy Corps
• International Rescue Committee
• CARE International
• OXFAM-GB
• Lutheran World Federation
• Norwegian Church Aid
• Save the Children UK
• GOAL International
• Action against Hunger
• Plan International
• Farm Africa

We recommend the above listed organizations because:

• These are NGOs operating in the project corridor or neighboring Zones. This has advantages for
quick selection. Because: (a) these NGOs have experience of working with the project-affected
communities (familiar with theirgeographic area, ethnic groups, culture, language) and (b) we
expect these NGOs to have branch/project offices in the Zones where the Meisso-Dire
Dawaexpressway project traverses and hence can easily mobilize their human and logistical
resources if selected as the FFO.

• The listed organizations are international NGOs with long experience of working with the under
serviced or marginalized communities, particularly pastoral communities, women, people with
disabilities and youth which are the target of the FPIC processes. Thus, besides working on
development or emergency and relief, we expect the listed NGOs to take issues of gender,
advocacy, children, youth, poor people or capacity building as their special focus, and under

60
 robust safeguarding policies. Thus, considering these NGOs would ease the selection process as
they may be predisposed to make this work a priority as the work dovetails with their own
organizational priorities and they would therefore likely have qualified and adequate staff to
deploy as the FFO’s field team.

According to the background information we have obtained, some of the listed NGOs (e.g., Mercy Corps,
CARE International, OXFAM-GB) have the experience of conducting similar types of consultations for
Bank and other MDB projects in countries other than Ethiopia. Guldin, for example, collaborated
successfully with Mercy Corps in Indonesia in carrying out social assessment consultations.

3.2Selection Process
Adhere to the selection criteria:It is up to ERA to contact, negotiate and select the appropriate FFOs
among the FFO candidates and/or other consulting firms as per the criteria we set in section 2.1. ERA
may wish to contact CSOs or consulting firms other than the FFO candidateslisted above but if they do
then we recommend that the FPIC Consultants be given an opportunity to comment on the
organizations selected for their adherence to the guidance set out in Bank advisory notes for ESS7.ERA
might decide that more than one organization will be necessary to fully cover the expected 6 FPIC points
given the constraints of time and CSO personnel.

61
Annex A: Definitions of CSO, NGO, and Others

Civil Society Organizations (CSOs)

The World Bank uses the term civil society organizations or CSOs to refer to the wide array of
nongovernmental and not-for-profit organizations that have a presence in public life and express the
interests and values of their members or others, based on ethical, cultural, political, scientific, religious
or philanthropic considerations. This definition of civil society refers to the sphere outside the family,
the state, and the market (A Source Book Working Document 2007, p. 1-2).
Article 15 of the “Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union” defines CSOs thusly: Civil society
refers to all forms of social action carried out by individuals or groups who are neither connected to, nor
managed by, the State. A civil society organization is an organizational structure whose members serve
the general interest through a democratic process, and which plays the role of mediator between public
authorities and citizens.

Based on this broad definition, “CSOs” therefore refer to a wide array of organizations: community-
based organizations/community groups, NGOs, labor unions, organizations of indigenous peoples,
academic and research institutions, social movements of collection actions/identity, charitable
organizations, religious leaders, faith communities, faith-based organizations, professional associations,
foundations and others. But, given the purpose of the FPIC stated in the Inception Report and selection
criteria set in the CSO assessment, all CSOs cannot be considered as potential FFO. Therefore, we may
narrow the potential CSOs to NGOs (including international NGOs or INGOs), organizations of Indigenous
Peoples (IPOs), academic and research institutions, and professional associations.

Non-Governmental Organization (NGO)

NGO refers more narrowly to professional, intermediary and nonprofit organizations that advocate
and/or provide services in the areas of economic and social development, human rights, welfare, and
emergency relief (A Source Book Working Document 2007, p. 2).

IPO/academic and research institutions/professional associations

In general terms these are non-profit organizations that have a formally organized structure or activity
aimed to promote the interest of Indigenous Peoples and other marginalized groups as referred to in
international and national declarations.

62
Annex B: FFO Selection ToR

1. Introduction

The Horn of Africa Initiative: Regional Economic Corridor Project (P174485) is part of a global initiative
for regional integration in the HoA. The GoE through the Ministry of Transport (MoT) and Ethiopian
Road Administration (ERA) is developing this project with anticipated financial support from the
International Development Agency of the World Bank.This type of project requires observance of the
World Bank’s Environmental and Social Standards (ESSs) that are meant to protect people and the
environment from potential adverse impacts.
The Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), thus, is the requirement of ESS7 (see annex for details)
and it is about IPs/Sub-Saharan African Historically Underserved Traditional Local Communities having a
specific right that others should respect in case projects adversely affect their land, natural resources,
cultural heritage or cause relocation. In such a case, ESS7 necessitates the engagement of third party
with neutral stance—neither for nor against the proposed project. Thus, the engagement of the FPIC
Facilitator Organization (FFO) is needed to serve as a broker between the project and its affected parties
or in particular,facilitate the FPIC process.
2. Project Location

The project will construct an expressway from Miesso to Dire Dawa. It is about 142 km long and
traverses three regional states (Oromia, Somali and Dire Dawa) and six woredas (Meisso woreda in West
Hararge Zone of Oromia Region; Mulu, Afdem, Bike and Erer woredas in Siti Zone of Somali Region; and
MelkaJebdu Kebele in Dire Dawa City Administration).
3. Objective of the Selection of the FFO

The objective of engaging FFO is to facilitate the FPIC process resulting in: (a) free,a consent given
voluntarily and without coercion, intimidation or manipulation; (b) informed,clear, consistent, accurate
and transparent project information delivered in a culturally appropriate manner; (c) prior,giving time to
understand and analyze project information and reach consent in advance; and (d) consent,collective
decision reached through the customary decision-making process. To this end, the FFO will work closely
with—and under the guidance of—the Bank consultants.
4. General Approach

As this is an FPIC-seeking assignment, the approach taken must be in line with the FPIC principles of
transparency, inclusion, and participation: an intensification of the broader stakeholder engagement
principles of “broad community support” and “informed consultation and participation” that are
commonly used among the Bank and the other Multilateral Development Banks. The FPIC process
differs from non-FPIC approaches in that it:
• Requires more time: at minimum three rounds of consultation.
• Ensures more robust representation of diverse elements of the project-affected communities
than is usually the case, particularly of women, people with disabilities and other marginalized
group (if any).
• Requires additional meetings with community representatives.
• Involves local governments as an integral part of the process.

63
 • Requires formal agreement with the designated FPIC communities as to how “consent” will be
recognized.
• Requires a point-in-time “consent” decision according to the procedure determined by the
affected communities.
As stated earlier, the FFO will need to assume a neutral stance towards the project—neither for nor
against the project—if they are to gain the trust of the local communities as an honest broker of the
FPIC process. For this reason, the field team will not be the official discloser of project information to
avoid being seen as project proxies—and thus biased—by the local FPIC communities. These efforts are
all aimed at convincing local communities to partner with the FFO and FPIC Consultants as we work with
them to facilitate them making a free, prior, and informed decision as to whether or not they want to
deliver their consent to the specific project component that affects them and the proposed package of
mitigation and benefits packages.
5. Overview of FFO (s)’ Methodology

The FFO(s) will be the field team to carry out the FPIC process, while the FPIC Consultants (Guldin,
Deribe, and Darout) will guide one or more FFOs in conducting three rounds of consultations at the
community level. This activity will need the support of the ERA field/social team. In addition, a key
advisor to the process will include the Bank’s ESMF Consultant.
The FFOs will emphasize and demonstrate by their behavior that their sole aim is to facilitate the FPIC
process so that local communities can freely—without coercion—make their own decisions regarding
project design and benefits/mitigation packages (the Social and Community Development Plan (SCDP)).
They will accordingly endeavor to assist the local communities in getting timely access to information
(via ERA and its agents) and to ensure that their inputs are delivered appropriately to entities preparing
the SCDP.
Key methods to be used by the FFO(s) will include:

• Teleconferences with the FPIC Consultants to deliver training and plan out the FPIC process
• Teleconferences with government project staff and World Bank team members
• A series of three rounds of consultations held in the local communities which seek to:
✓ Gather local project-affected peoples’ trust of the process
✓ Select FPIC process representatives
✓ Gather local project-affected peoples’ input into the FPIC process determination
✓ Gather local project-affected peoples’ input into the mitigation and benefits-sharing
measures to be included into the SCDP as well as any other documents to be prepared
✓ Facilitate local project-affected peoples’ decision on consent for the SCDP and any other
documents
• Key informant consultations with community leaders as well as separate focus groups with
women and other often marginalized members of local society
• Documentation of the entire FPIC process; (documentation of the process will be a joint
combined responsibility of the FFO and FPIC Consultants).

64
 6. Duties or Tasks of the FFOs’ Field Team

As stated above, the FPIC consultants will train the FFO(s)’ field team regarding their duties or tasks in
the FPIC process. Then, at every step of the FPIC process, the FFOs’ field team will work closely with and
under the guidance of the FPIC consultants. The duties or tasks of the team include:
• Respect local cultures: The FFOs’ field team must demonstrate an understanding of and respect for
the traditional and customary etiquette and social protocols of project-affected communities.
• Gathering basic data: After receiving training by the FPIC consultants, the FFO field team will start
their task by gathering basic data/settlement/community level data required to determine the
number of FPIC points.
• Facilitate the FPIC process: This task of the FFOs’ field team will include: (a) mediating between
project-affected communities, ERA and the FPIC consultants or acting as broker of the FPIC process;
(b) arranging and scheduling the FPIC community consultations with an understanding of project-
affected communities’ concepts and constraints of time. Considering this, the FFOs’ field team will
negotiate with the participants and arrange convenient times and places ahead of each round of
FPIC consultations; and (c) staying in the field or regularly engage with project-affected communities
to gather their concerns/feedbacks for the next round of the FPIC consultation, including gathering
their input into the FPIC process determination, into mitigation and benefits-sharing measures
(updating SCDP), and facilitating project-affected peoples’ decision on consent for these documents.
• Ensure transparent selection of the community representatives: Ahead of the first round of
community consultations, the FFOs’ field team will facilitate the selection of the community
representatives to ensure: (a) that the selection is done according to the interest of the community
members; and (b) that the interest of women, youth, the elderly, people with disability, social
minority groups (if any) or other marginalized groups is properly represented.
• Enhance the capacity of project-affected communities: To help them actively participate in the
FPIC process, the FFOs’ field team should raise the awareness of project-affected communities of
their rights to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (consultation) over issues that affect their
economic, social and cultural elements, to self-determination, and to the land and natural
resources subject to traditional ownership or under customary use or occupation. In addition, after
every round of FPIC consultations, the team should have interactive discussions with project-
affected communities to see if there are questions or concerns regarding project-related, rights-
related, or FPIC-related issues and guide the communities appropriately.
• Conduct community consultations: Together with the FPIC Consultants, the FFOs’ field team will
carry out the FPIC community consultations (rounds one, two and three) and document the process
and outcomes accordingly.
• Conduct key informant interviews and FGDs: Despite their being encouraged to actively participate
during FPIC community consultations, personal or socio-cultural factors may hinder some
participants such as women, social minority groups and people with disability from expressing their
interests openly. Or there may be a need for detailed or knowledgeable information from the
community leaders. In such the cases, meaningful consultation (separate Focus Group Discussions
[FGD] or key informant interviews) tailored to community leaders or women, youth, the elderly,
people with disability or other marginalized groups will be arranged. Thus, the FFOs’ field team will
conduct FGD and key informant interviews together with or independent of the Bank consultants.
• Carry out consultations and work safely and confidentially: To maintain the confidence and
security of all project-affected people, the FFO teams will respect the wishes of individuals or
groups to remain anonymous or their information confidential if so requested.
• Follow COVID-19 protocols: Carry out consultations following COVID-19 precautions as prescribed
by the Government of Ethiopia and local authorities.

65
 7. Responsibilities of ERA
ERA shall
• Upon agreement signing, provide FFOs with relevant documents relating to the project;
• Connect FFOs with local government bodies to facilitate smooth FPIC process; and
• Review deliverable documents produced by FFOs and give feedback.

8. The Scope of the Service

The total length of the Meisso-Dire Dawa Expressway project is 142 kms. The project traverses 27
kebeles in three regions. Of these project-affected kebeles, 23 are in four woredas (Mulu, Afdem, Bike
and Erer) of Siti Zone Somali Region, three in Meisso woreda in West Hararge Zone of Oromia Region
and one in Dire Dawa City Administration. Given this geographic area of the project, a reconnaissance
visit to the project site as the initial activity of the FFO’s hired will determine the exact number of the
FPIC points.
The findings of the draft SA and RAP prepared by ERA revealed the undertaking of components 1 of the
project will: (a) restrict local communities’ access to natural resources subject to traditional ownership
or under customary use or occupation; (b) limit local communities’ access to public services; and (c) the
construction of the road involves land acquisition in 90 meters width across 142 kms that will cause the
loss of residential land, loss of shelter or relocation for 205 households. Therefore, the inclusion and
FFO’s field team facilitation of the FPIC process is delimited to those communities living on either side of
the road and directly affected (by one or all of the aforesaid effects) due to the undertaking of the
proposed project.
9. Deliverables

All deliverables shall be prepared professionally and scientifically as per the ToR and acceptable
standards of ERA and the World Bank.Deliverables will include Executive Summaries and will be
provided in English. The deliverables are:
• Documentation of the process of the FPIC including evidence of mutually agreed written
documents such as minute, attendance, and signature of the voters/participants, photo, and
video records.

• Inception Report

• FPIC documents of Consultations Round One Progress Report co-produced with the Bank
Consultants including draft CPA [Consent Process Agreement];

• Guidance Memo: Limited input to SCDP preparation (including guidance as to how to integrate
with Component 3 infrastructure plan

• Consultations Round Two Progress Report including finalized CPA and key recommendations for
the update of the SCDP;

• Consultations Round Three Progress Report; and

• Draft Final Report including Consent Set of documents.

• Final Report missing

66
 10. Time Table

S.No Key Task Target Deadlines19

1 Kick-off teleconference & preparation September/ 2021
2 Desk Review of ESIA, RAP, consultation records; other social documents
3 Review communities / ESIA data for accurate selection of FPIC September/ 2021
communities: 4 ID criteria +transhumance/nomadism
4 Remote training of and planning with FFO field team(s): FPIC (building FPIC
values; community social mapping/needs assessment; priorities September/ 2021
gathering))
5 Inception Report September/ 2021
6 Reconnaissance field visit by FFOs TBD
7 Consultation and advice with project teams (national and WB); external
Intermittent
stakeholders: communications; input to SCDP/component 3 planning
8 First Round of Consultations TBD
9 Progress Report on 1st Consultation Round (including CPA) [based on CSO
TBD
inputs, documentation]
10 Guidance Memo: Limited input to SCDP preparation (including guidance as
TBD
to how to integrate with Component 3 infrastructure plan)
11 Second Round of Consultations TBD
12 Progress Report on 2nd Consultation Round [based on CSO inputs,
TBD
documentation]
13 Preparation of Consent set of documents; revisions TBD
14 Third Round of Consultations TBD
15 Progress Report on 3rd Consultation Round [based on CSO inputs,
TBD
documentation]
16 Draft Final Report Preparation & Submission to WB, others TBD
17 Teleconference with WB, others TBD
18 Final Report revision & submission TBD
NB: Documentation of the process of the FPIC including evidence of mutually agreed written documents
such as minute, attendance, and signature of the voters/participants, photo, and video records is a
continuous task, beginning at reconnaissance field visit by FFO’s and goes through each round of
community consultation.

19
Given the current uncertainties of travelling and community gatherings, as well as number of
communities involved, we initially indicated hoped for target dates only.However, since as of December
2021 an FFO has yet to commence work, it is not possible to schedule out the FPIC process without
consulting with them. There is a strong likelihood the process may stretch beyondQ2, 2022.

67
 11. Reporting requirements and time schedule for deliverables

No. Report description Paper copy E- copy (CD)

Draft Submission Final (No) Submission Draft (No Submission Final (No) Submission
(No) date date date date
1. Inception Report ERA 4 September ERA 4 September ERA 4 September ERA 4 September
25/2021 30/2021 25/2021 30/2021

2. Progress Report on 1st Round ERA 4 November ERA 4 November ERA 4 November ERA 4
Consultation (including CPA) 25/2021 30/2021 25/2021
[based on CSO inputs, TBD
documentation]

3. Guidance Memo: Limited input ERA 4 November ERA 4 November ERA 4 November ERA 4
to SCDP preparation (including 25/2021 30/2021 25/2021
guidance as to how to integrate
TBD
with Component 3
infrastructure plan)

4. Progress Report on 2nd Round ERA 4 December ERA 4 December ERA 4 December ERA 4
Consultation [based on CSO 25/2021 30/2021 25/2021 TBD
inputs, documentation]
5. Progress Report on 3rd Round ERA 4 January ERA 4 January ERA 4 January ERA 4
Consultation [based on CSO 25/2021 30/2021 25/2021 TBD
inputs, documentation]
6. Draft Final Report Preparation ERA 4 Febuary ERA 4 Febuary ERA 4 Febuary ERA 4
TBD
& Submission to WB, others 25/2021 30/2021 25/2021
7. Final Report revision & ERA 4 March ERA 4 March ERA 4 March ERA 4
TBD
submission 25/2022 30/2022 25/2022

68
 12. Required Criteria for the FFO Selection

The selection of the FFO(s) will be based on the following criteria:

• Social assessment experience: organization that has 10 years and above experiences in carrying
out similar community-based consultations or data gathering exercises either for national or
international entities.
• Team technical competencies: organization that can deploy at least 4 key experts with
anthropological or sociological expertise familiar with the cultures expected to be encountered
during this assignment and each key expert is expected to have minimum 5 years related
experiences.
• Language capacities: the deployed organization’s field team is required to be competent in the
languages of both the Oromo and Somali and any other languages that may be spoken in the
affected communities.
• Geographic coverage: the organization is required to operate along all the FPIC Points
• The organization shouldhave previous working experience in the road corridor area.
• Size of team: organization that has a field team large enough to carry out each round of
consultations in two-three weeks.
• Gender mix: organization that has a field team composed with a significant participation of
women.
• Social reputation: organization that is well regarded in the local communities along the
proposed highway.
• Availability: organization that has the ability to avail on the field its team within a short time for
repeated visits to the FPIC points.
• FPIC experience: organization that has previous experience of undertaking FPIC will have plus
point.

13. Circumstances requiring free, prior and informed consent (FPIC)

Indigenous Peoples/Sub-Saharan African Historically Underserved Traditional Local Communities may be

particularly vulnerable to the loss of, alienation from or exploitation of their land and access to natural
and cultural resources. In recognition of this vulnerability, in addition to the General Requirements of
ESS7 and those set out in ESSs1 and 10, the Borrower will obtain the FPIC of the affected Indigenous
Peoples/Sub-Saharan African Historically Underserved Traditional Local Communities in circumstances in
which the project will:

69
 (a) have adverse impacts on land and natural resources subject to traditional ownership or under
customary use or occupation;
(b) cause relocation from land and natural resources subject to traditional ownership or under
customary use or occupation; or
(c) have significant impacts on Indigenous Peoples/Sub-Saharan African Historically Underserved
Traditional Local Communities’ cultural heritage that is material to the identity and/or cultural,
ceremonial, or spiritual aspects of the affected Communities’ lives.
In these circumstances, ESS7 requires the Borrower will engage independent specialists to assist in the
identification of the project risks and impacts.

70
Horn of Africa Initiative: Regional Economic Corridor Project (P174485)
Meso-Dire Dawa Road Project

Draft Social Assessment Report

ETHIOPIAN ROADS ADMINISTRATION

Ethiopian Roads Administration New Head Office Building,
Ras Abebe Aregay Street,
P.O. Box: 1770
Tele: +251-11-515 66 03
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

June 2021

71
Contents
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 73
1.1 Scope and Objective ....................................................................................................... 73
1.2 Methods .......................................................................................................................... 73
2. Project location .................................................................................................................... 73
3. Self-identification of project-affected people ...................................................................... 75
3.1 Population ...................................................................................................................... 75
3.2 Access to Basic Social Services ....................................................................................... 76
4. Collective attachment to the land and geography ............................................................... 77
4.1 Historic Territories.......................................................................................................... 78
4.2 Natural Resource ............................................................................................................ 79
4.3 Territorial and resource conflict..................................................................................... 79
4.4 Customary Conflict management .................................................................................. 80
5. The customary cultural, social, and political institutions ..................................................... 81
5.1 Religious ......................................................................................................................... 81
5.2 Economic Activities ........................................................................................................ 82
5.3 Customary social institution........................................................................................... 83
5.4 Customary Tenure system ............................................................................................. 84
5.5 Government legal and policy on Land and natural resources ....................................... 84
6. A distinct language or dialect identified ............................................................................... 85
7. Vulnerable groups ................................................................................................................. 85

72
 1. Introduction
This project has five project components,of which the construction of a safe, smart, efficient, and
resilient road corridor component has two segments, which are the construction of 142km express road
from Mieso to Dire Dawa and the expansion of further 74km road from Mieso to Awash. During the
concept note preparation, it was agreed that the implementation, for now, shall focus on the
construction of Mieso-Dire Dawa road segment (142km). The construction of the Mieso-Dire Dawa road
segment will cross the National Regional State of Oromia (NRSO), National Regional State of Somali
(NRSS), and Dire Dawa Administration (DDA).

1.1 Scope and Objective

Hence,The social assessment (SA) will focus on NRSO, NRSS, and DDA, through which the Mieso-Dire
Dawa road construction segment cuts across. The project also crosses two-zone administration
boundaries (SittiZone in NRSS and West Haregae in NRSO) and five woreda administration (Afdem,
Mulu, and Errerworedas in NRSS, and Miesoworeda in NRSO).

The main purpose of the SocialAssessment is to generate relevant information for further verification
and screening of indigenous people's presence in the project areas. Hence, this report highlights the
demographic condition and key social factors that will be considered for the screening of indigenous
people's presence in the project areas,which includes the population of various inhabitants in the
project area, cultural or traditional attributes, political context, land territory and tenure, land resource
use, and livelihood base/source.

1.2 Methods
The assessment attempts to generate information based on document review including social
assessment reports of previous Bank-financed project, Ethiopian CCA report, research and technical
report, and government portal.

2. Project location
The Mieso-Dire Dawa project area is located in three national regional states and a city administration:
which are NRSS, NRSO, and DDA. As illustrated in figure 1 below, the road segment that passes through
NRSS will affect Mulu, Afdem, and Ererworedas,which all of which are located in the SittiZone.
Geographically, Erer is bordered in the south by the East Harerge (NRSO), in the west by Afdem woreda
(NRSS), in the east Shenile woreda (NRSS), in the north by zone 3 of (NRSA). Whereas Afdem is bordered
in the south by the Zone of West Harerge (NRSO), in the west by Mieso woreda (NRSO), in the east by
Erer woreda (NRSS), and in the north by zone 3 of (NRSA). Part of the project that cuts across NRSO will
affect Miesoworedas in the West HarergeZone. Mieso is bordered in west and north by Zone 3 of
(NRSA), in the east by Afdem woreda (NRSS).

73
Figure 1: woredas affected by the Mieso-Dire Dawa Express Way project

As summarized in table 1 below, Miessoworeda is established with 49 Kebeles of which 46 are rural
Kebeles and 3 are urban kebeles. Whereas,Afdem and Erer are established with 15 kebeles (11 are rural)
and 14 kebeles (13 are rural) respectively.

In DDA, about 45 kebeles are found, of which 9 are urban kebeles and 36 are rural kebeles.The DDA is
bordered by Shenile woreda (NRSS) in the north, east, and west, and East Harerge Zone (NRSO) in the
south and east.

Table 1: Project Affected regions, zones, woredas, and kebeles

Project Project Project affected No of project affected kebeles

affected affected zone woreda
Rural kebeles Urban Total
regions
kebeles

SRS Sitti Afdem 11 4 15

Errer 13 1 14

Mulu

ORS West Harege Mieso 46 3 49

74
DDA DDA DDA 36 9 45

The Woreda administrations are frontline actors and play a crucial role in the decentralization policy of
the Government. They are administratively independent and have authority over the political and socio-
economic development of their respective Woredas.

The Woreda council decides on environmental and social risk management, natural resource
management, land acquisition, resettlement, livelihood support, budget distribution, and other similar
important matters. Thus, the Woreda administrations are a key stakeholders in the construction of the
proposed 142km road as well as the provision of the necessary services to their population.

In the case of DDA, it is the city Administration that has the power or mandate of environmental and
social risk management, natural resource management, land acquisition, resettlement, livelihood
support, budget distribution, and other similar important matters.

3. Self-identification of project-affected people

3.1 Population
According to the CSA projection (2013), as summarized in table 2, the number of people inhabiting the
five-project affected woredas is about 972,953, of which 53.55% live in DDA, 17.98% in Mieso, and
10.34% in Erer, 9.46% in Molu, and 8.67% in Afdem woreda. Out of which 568,255 (58.40%) are rural
inhabitants. The largest rural inhabitant is located in DDA (33.09%) following by Mieso (23.57%), Mulo
(16%), Erer(14.70%), and Afdem (12.65%). Out of 568,255 rural inhabitants, women account for 49.01%
and men (50.99%).

Table 2: population by affected woreda

Project Total population Urban Rural

affected Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female
woreda
Mieso 174,916 89,052 85,864 40,972 20,592 20,380 133,944 68,460 65,484
Mulo 92,086 47,187 44,899 1,212 711 501 90,874 46,476 44,398
Afdem 84,395 41,618 42,777 12,505 6,298 6,207 71,890 35,320 36,570
Erer 100,556 53,198 47,358 17,039 8,736 8,303 83,517 44,462 39,055
DDA 521,000 262,000 259,000 333,000 168,000 165,000 188,000 95,000 93,000
Total 972,953 493,055 479,898 404,728 204,337 200,391 568,225 289,718 278,507
Source: CCA, 2013

According to the last national census report (2007), in Meisso, the largest part of the local people are
ethnic Oromo while accounting for 95% of the inhabitants, mostof whom of the local community are
consider themselves as descendents of the Ittu Oromo clan. Although a few, there are also descendents
of the Oromo's clan, such as Kereyu, Alla, and Nolle. The remaining 5% of the population is constituted
by Argoba, Somali, Gurage, Afar, Amhara and Tigre. Whereas, the distribution of Afdem and Errer
inhabitants is almost homogenous with 97% of the population belonging to the Somali ethnic group, and
the remaining 3% is consisted of Amhara, Oromo, and Gurage. Most of the inhabitants who belong to
the Somali ethnic group consider themselves as descendants of the Somali clan of Issa, though few

75
consider themselves as Gurgura, Hawiya, and Gedabursi clans. In DDA, the Oromo ethnic group
constitutes the majority of the population of the Administration (46%). The next largest ethnic group is
Somali followed by the Amhara and Gurage comprising 24%, 20%, and 5% of the population,
respectively.

In general, 83% of the inhabitants in the project affected area, one way or another, consider themself as
one of the dominant ethnic groups of the country: Oromo or Somali. Whereas,The rest of the local
people are also decendents of the country’s largest ethnic groups of Amhara, Gurage and Tigre. All of
these groups are recognized by the Ethiopian Constitution as one of the Nations, Nationalities, and
peoples of Ethiopia who have good representation in the House of Federation and also have lots of seats
in the House of Peoples’ Representative. According to the Ethiopian constitution, Nations, Nationalities
and Peoples are collectively organized in the forms of Regional State or Woreda Administration to
exercise their rights to self-determination, including the right to secession; speak, write and develop
their languages; express, develop and promote their cultures; preserve their history; and, self-
government, which includes the right to establish institutions of government in the territory that they
inhabit and equitable representation in state and Federal governments.

However, During the last National Census, over 19% of the inhabitants in the project area were
identified as pastoral communities. According to this report, the largest pastoral communities
isinhabitinAfdem (76%) followed by Erer (58.96%) and Mulu (33.15). The GoE identified seven areas in
the formulation of economic, social, and development policies in support of the pastoral communities.
These areas are the National Regional States of Afar and Somali as well as Borena Zone and
FenteleWereda of Oromia National Reional State; South Omo Zone, Bench-Maji Zone, and parts of
DechaWereda in Keffa Zone of (SNNPR); and, Nuer Zone of Gambella National Regional State. Hence,
three out of the five project affected woredas are amog the areas that the government policy identified
as pastoral communities for special support. In its constitution (Article 40 and 41) the government also
ensured the right of the pastoral communities to exercise “free land for grazing and cultivation as well
as the right not to be displaced from their lands” and the right to “receive fair prices for their products,
that would lead to an improvement in their conditions of life and to enable them to obtain an equitable
share of the national wealth commensurate with their contribution.”

3.2 Access to Basic Social Services

Owing to their limited access to socioeconomic development and underserved status over the
decades,the Ethiopian government has designated four of the country’s regions, namely: Afar,
Somali,Benishangul-Gumz, and Gambella as Developing Regional States (DRS). In this respect, Article
89(2) of the Ethiopian Constitution stipulates: ”The Government must ensure that allEthiopians get
equal opportunity to improve their economic situations and to promote equitabledistribution of wealth
among them”. Article 89 (4) in particular states: ”Nations, Nationalities,andPeoples least advantaged in
economic and social development shall receive special assistance”. The evidence from the following
social service development status of the project area suggested that four out of the five project-affected
areas are underserved because of the poor access to basic social services. In Meisso, Afdem, and Errer
woredas, in 2010/11 there were 192 schools, of which 88 were formal schools and 104 non-formal
schools comprise 104 (ERC, 2011). The non-formal schools include Alternative Basic Education (ABE) and
mobile schools in pastoralist areas. Among the total formal schools, the number of first cycle (grade 1-4)
schools is 51, the second cycle (grade 5-8) 33, and that of secondary (grade 9-10) is 4. Access to
secondary schools appeared to be very poor in Meisso, Afdem, and Errer woredas. According to the
76
Education statistic annual abstract report (MoE, 2017) DDA has 39 kindergartens, 22 secondary schools,
and 106 primary schools. Out of the primary schools, 65 and 41 were found in urban and rural parts of
the Administration, respectively. Additionally, government-owned universities, technical colleges (2),
and 5 private colleges provide education services for the public in DDA.

Table 3 shows the number of health facilities per woreda. As can be seen from the table, there are 5
hospitals, 22 Health centers, 70 health posts, 48 Clinics, and 24 Drug Stores distributed in all woredas. In
DDA, there are relatively better health facilities. However, In Mieso, Erer, and Afdem, the distribution of
health facilities is less.Given the woreda population and settlement pattern, there is limited access to
health services.

Table 3: Health facility in project-affected woredas

Project affected Hospital Health Health Clinic Drug shop

woreda Center post
Mieso 0 4 12 9 7
Mulo 0 0 0 0 0
Afdem 0 2 12 0 0
Erer 0 3 18 0 0
DDA 5 13 38 36 17
Total 5 22 70 48 24

In terms of access to potable water supply, all project-affected areas have poor access to safe potable
water. Tables 4 shows the number of water supply schemes and coverage in each project-affected area.
In all woreda areas, piped water, hand pump, hand-dug well, and motorized scheme are the most
common water sources. Concerning coverage, only 47% of the population has been provided with
potable water supply services. As shown in the table, the service coverage in Mieso and Afedem is
below 38%. This shows that there is very limited potable water availablity in these areas.

Table 4: water supply in project-affected woreda

Project Affected Motorized Hand Hand-dug piped

area Scheme Pump well water Coverage
Meisso 16 0 0 0 37.20%
Mulo 0
Afdem 9 14 0 0 36%
Errer 6 43 4 0 51.50%
DDA 0 0 0 33500 65.00%
Total 31 57 4 33500 47.4%

4. Collective attachment to the land and geography

Though no clear boundary is demarcated between project-affected woredas and neighboring areas
(particularly with NRSA in the north), the total land occupied by the project-affected Woredas is
estimated to be about a 2.2million hectars (HU, 2013).

77
 4.1Historic Territories
Because of the failure to delineate the boundary between Afar and Issa for the last 100 years, a lot of
territorial dispute has emerged. Only the Afar have claimed four out of five project-affected woredas
(Erer, Afdem, Mieso, and Mulu) as ancestral territories.

Several scholars reported that Issa Somali and other Somali groups’ permanent westward move and
encroachment upon the Afar and Oromo territories started many decades before the Ethiopian
conquests of the Afar areas in 1905. Despite the Afar resistance to Issa encroachment, Afar lands
continued unceasingly and without any culmination to this day. As a result, many Afar clans belonging to
the Weima section of Afar have been displaced from their ancestorial land of Mulu, Erer, Hurso, Afdem,
Mieso, and Dire Dawa (Getachew 200120). These clans have been forced to move to the current Afar
territories. Data released from the AAU Institute of Development Studies indicated that the first attempt
to delineate the boundary of Afar and Issa was made in 1944. The decision entails that the land to the
west of the Erer river was decided to be in the Afar territories and that to the east for Issa. However, the
decision also allowed the use of rangelands at times of stress and shortage unlimited by the boundary.
This decision has so far been manipulated by Issa for further territorial expiation and encroachment to
the Afar ancestoral territories by displacing the Afar clans.

Historic information from their ancestors indicates that the settlement of Ittu clan members in
Miesodates back to the early 1900s (Fikadu,200721). They migrated from the highlands of western
Hararghe because the grasslands in the district were very attractive for livestock production (Andy &
Alula, 2010). During this period, livestock was their main source of livelihood and they were pastoralists.
However, due to the country's land policy reform that favored cultivation in different periods, the Ittu
gradually shifted to agropastoral converting more land for cultivation. This shifting contributed to
conflict with Issa and Afar as it restricts the mobility and feeding of their herds. The 1974 land reform
with all land under state ownership, landlords were dispossessed and land instead was allocated to the
Ittu, leading to a growing trend for private enclosure of land.

Unlike the Ittu, the main livelihood of the Issa is pastoralism. Before expanding to Mieso including Erer,
Mulu, and Afdem, Issa territories had been restricted between Dire Dawa to AyshaDewele and Djibouti
in the East and the escarpment of Awash River in the North adjacent to the Afar region. Construction of
the Ethio-DijIbouti railway in the early 1900s, with the Issa from Djibouti, employed as workers and
guards gave rise to later Issa occupation of areas around the railway in what is now Shinile Zone (Andy &
Alula, 2010). Owing to the harsh environmental conditions, grazing land and water points were also a
matter of life and death for the Issa. There is a general belief system that such resources are a gift of
Allah to all humanity that any Somali should have access to (Lewis, 1961). This “egalitarian" system of
access to pastoral resources is so strong that they adhere to their belief that anywhere they step in is
considered a free reign for grazing and watering (Lewis, 1994). This belief system and the construction
of the Ethio-DijIbouti railway and the unclear boundary demarcation favored them to expand their
territories from DDA up to Mieso in the last eight decades. For the Issa, the land between DDA and
Mieso is also considered a trade and contraband corridor (Andy & Alula, 2010).

20
Getachew, K. N. (2001). Among the pastoral Afar in Ethiopia: tradition, continuity and socio-economic
change. Utrecht: International Books.
21
Beyene, F. (2007). The role of customary institutions in managing conflict on grazing land: a case
study fromMieso District, Eastern Ethiopia.

78
 4.2 Natural Resource
All project-affected woredas are endowed with surface and groundwater resources that drain from
adjacent Eastern and Western Harergae highlands. The Harergea highland has contributed to the
formation of 10 perennial rivers in the project areas. The availability of water coupled with the plane
topography nature of the project areas allows the land to have variety of vegetation covers. Land use
and land cover study on the project areas was carried in 2013 by a group of Haramay university’s
working group established for Awash Basin Sediment and Runoff Assessment. As summarised in table 4
below, over 36% of the land has been covered with forest, wood, shrubs, bush, and grass resource to
which they are collectively attached. Given that, most of the inhabitants of the four woredas except DDA
use the resource for livestock feeding, charcoal, and fuelwood production on the one hand, for several
years, this resource also became the source of conflicts with neighboring woredas.

Table 4: Land use land cover

project affected
Mieso Mulo Afdem Erer DDA Total
area
Acacia land 1.97% 1.21% 0.17% 1.67% 1.19%
Agriculture land 3.15% 1.31% 1.00% 4.04% 1.94%
Bare land 0.00% 8.17% 5.63% 1.02% 4.72%
Dispersed acacia 85.54% 0.94% 0.18% 1.03% 24.61%
Dispersed shrub 8.41% 2.23% 2.55% 38.86% 6.60%
Eucalyptus 0.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.12% 0.02%
Forest 0.63% 2.01% 0.02% 0.00% 0.97%
Grassland 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.49% 0.03%
Rocky bare land 0.09% 62.06% 58.34% 21.77% 40.84%
Settlement & infra 0.03% 0.02% 0.00% 1.89% 0.15%
Shrub land 0.15% 0.87% 2.12% 6.47% 1.37%
Desert sand 0.00% 21.19% 29.99% 22.63% 17.56%
Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Source: HU,2013

4.3Territorial and resource conflict

As reported by several scholars, the overall project area is conflict-prone areas. Four woredas out of five
have long-standing conflict histories. These areas are Mieso, Mulo, Erer, and Afdem.

The conflict in Mieso and Mulu has three dimensions. In Meiso- Mullu, the primary conflict actors are
first the Issa and Hawiya clans, second the Weima, and third the Ittu, Alla, and Nolle clans, each
representing the three different ethnic groups of the Somali, the Afar, and the Oromo respectively. In
general, the conflicts occur in areas where the Oromia, the Afar, and the Somali regional states share
porous and controversial regional boundaries (Andy & Alula, 201022, Fikadu, 2007; Fikadu, 201323). The

22
Catley, A., and Iyasu, A. (2010). “Moving Up or Moving Out? A Rapid Livelihoods and Conflict Analysis
in Mieso-MuluWoreda, Shinile Zone, Somali Region, Ethiopia.” Feinstein International Center, Tufts
University, Addis Ababa. https://wikis.uit.tufts.edu/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=38963623
23
Fekadu.G.(2013). The Sources of Ethnic Strives and Tensions among the Issa-Somali and Ittu- Oromo
Pastoral Communities of Eastern Ethiopia.technical report

79
cause of conflicts in the study area is multi-dimensional, complex, and dynamic. The major causes of the
conflict as reported by several researchers involve competition over water and pasture land, absence of
clearly defined boundary, livestock raids and counter raids triggered by prolonged drought, territorial
expansion, ethnic rivalries, and destruction of farmer's crops by pastoralists’ livestock. However,
recently, the conflict has changed its nature along with the proliferation of modern automatic weapons,
the property rights-related factors, the roles of political bodies, revenge on past harms, and the
introduction of ethnic-based boundaries in Ethiopia in 1991 (Fikadu, 2013). While resource-based
conflicts are part of the livelihoods-conflict cycle in Mieso-Mulu woreda, the situation has become more
complicated due to governance and policy factors (Andy & Alula, 2010). These include the uncertainties
around the delineation of the border between Somali and Oromiya Regions; the informal designation of
Mulu town as the administrative center of Mieso-Mulu woreda; land tenure policies and laws that favor
the private acquisition of land and cultivation over communal, pastoralist use of land.

The conflict in Afdem and &Erer often has a feature of inter and intra ethnic. This includes among actors
of Somali clans as well as between the Somali clan of Issa and the Afar clan of Weimaclan. The major
causal factors that lead to violent conflicts between the Somali clan of Issa and the Afar clan of
Weimaclan include expansion of territories, ethnic rivalry, shrinking pastoral resource base, and
livestock raiding (Bekele Hundie24, 2010; Shimles, 201025). While the shrinking pastoral resource base is
an important factor in explaining the Afar-Issa conflict, it is not the only one. Smuggling has also
contributed much to the perpetuation (Bekele Hundie, 2016).

4.4Customary Conflict management

Bamlaku (2019)26 and Tenaw (2016)27 indicated that the Meiso area Oromo clans (Ittu, Alla, Nolle,
Obera) have their customary institutions-Gumma -which are responsible for the prevention, resolution,
and management of conflict and the access, ownership, and management of communal natural
resources for long centuries. Such customary institutions are headed and run by the council of elders
(Menguddo) with a defined administration structure, council, electoral system, procedure of conflict
management, customary rules and regulations, compensation procedure, GRM, and enforcement
mechanism. The processes of Gumma in addressing conflicts involve a series of ritual practices that aims
to reintegrate the unity of the community which was broken down and fractured due to past atrocities.
People are obedient to this customary system. As a result of this, people seem keen not to protract
hostilities that may eventually divide the community members. It is through their elders and community
leaders that the important issues pertinent to unity and social stability will be addressed.

Concerning the Issa clan, conflict is managed by the customary system of the mag (Tenaw 2016) based
on consultation and open discussions between the disputant parties. Mediation is carried out by a
person or persons of high social standing, commonly chiefs or elders, who use their social legitimacy and

24
Hundie, B. (2010). Conflicts between Afar pastoralists and their neighbors: Triggers and
motivations. International Journal of Conflict and Violence (IJCV) , 4(1), 134-148.
25
ShimlesAbebaw (2016), impact and assosiated factors of conflict over resource and Livelihood in
pastoralist community: the case of afar – issa Conflict in amibaraworeda, afar regional state.
26
BamlakuTadese (2019). Ethiopia: The Roles of the Council of Elders (Menguddo) in Gumma Customary
Institution of Conflict Resolution. DOI:10.24193/csq.26.3 Published First Online: 05/01/2019
27
Tenaw, Z. (2016). Constraints of Pastoral and Agro-Pastoral Livelihood Diversification in Eastern
Ethiopia: TheCase of Mieso District, Oromia Regional State. International Journal of Sciences Basic and
Applied Research, 267-274.

80
facilitative skills. Under Somali custom, elders are the key actors in the process of ending hostilities and
negotiating agreements between disputing parties. The guurti elders (a council of clan elders that
traditionally presides over a community) function as judge and jury and their decisions are largely
adhered to and respected. This clan’s process of conflict resolution within the indigenous institution also
focuses on reconciliation, stability, harmony, and safety; and tries to reconcile individuals and groups
based on their cultural norms, values, and practices. The institutional leaders impose different
punishments on perpetrators based on the laws, rules, and regulations of the indigenous institution. The
amount and type of compensation for individuals or groups depends on the type and extent of offense
(killing, amputation, wound, rape,etc).

Conflicts in Afar are managed by the madaa based on Afar customary law (Getachew 2001; Bekele
Hundie 2010). The madaa was able to effectively manage conflicts between Afars and some of their
neighbors in the past (Getachew 2001). Members of the traditional jury are elders selected from
different clans, excluding the clans involved in the dispute. The process is called billiarri, which means
peace-making. In the mediation process, the mediators focus on cooling off the parties by extending the
length of the procedure until they settle their affairs by themselves. The madaa has the authority and
legitimacy to effectively enforce sanctions imposed by the traditional jury. Central to its effectiveness is
the tradition of forgiveness among Afar clans, respect for elders, and the transfer of resources as
compensation. Recently, for Afar and Issa, the traditional framework for managing conflicts (as well
enforcing agreements) is either latent or non-existent (Bekele Hundie, 2010).

Currently, neither the guma nor the magnorthemadaa system of conflict resolution is functioning to
resolve inter-ethnic conflicts among Ittu, Afar, and Issa. However, Getachew (2001) stated conflicts
between Afar &Ittu are traditionally managed by the madaawhereatraditional jury composed of both
ethnic groups would handle the case. However, though they still exist to some extent, these shared
institutions are no longer influential. When violent conflict breaks out among Ittu, Afar, and Issa, an
intervention team composed of security forces, district officials, and local elders is organized and rushes
to the conflict site. The conflict parties are separated by force and fighting clansmen are disarmed. Once
physical hostilities are controlled, a conflict resolution process will be started by a peace and conflict
management team. The peace and conflict management team will contain elders of both clans and
district officials.

5. The customary cultural, social, and political institutions

5.1 Religious
The communities in the project-affected area look homogenous concerning religion. As summarised in
table 6 below, Islam is the dominant figure in all project-affected woredas. Where more than 84% of the
population are Muslims followed by Orthodox Christians (13.5%). Whereas the 1.7% of the pollution are
Protestant and Catholic Christians, other than these, there are very few people (0.5%) who follow
traditional religion and other unspecified belief systems.

Table 6: Religion affiliation in the project affected area

Project
affected Muslim Orthodox Protestant Catholic Traditional other total
woreda

81
Mieso 97.06% 2.66% 0.15% 0.09% 0.03% 0.01% 100.00%
Mulo 99.24% 0.13% 0.01% 0.02% 0.04% 0.56% 100.00%
Afdem 97.99% 0.13% 0.07% 0.04% 0.04% 0.57% 100.00%
Erer 97.79% 1.30% 0.10% 0.02% 0.08% 0.71% 100.00%
DDA 70.82% 25.66% 2.81% 0.43% 0.07% 0.21% 100.00%
Total 84.39% 13.45% 1.45% 0.24% 0.06% 0.30% 100.00%
Source: CSA, 2007

5.2 Economic Activities

The livelihood of the population in the project area depends on livestock, agriculture and employment,
and trade.

According to ERC (2011), in Mieso people living in 23 rural kebeles sustain their living from agriculture
and livestock production. As was mentioned earlier, the total cultivated land was about 20,000 ha. Out
of this cultivated land, the irrigated area accounted for 8%. According to the Woreda Agricultural and
Rural Development Offices (2011) as cited in ERC (2011), the types of crop production and productivity
(i.e. yield per hectare) that was reported includes maize (25ql), sorghum (20ql), sesame (5ql), groundnut
(4ql) tomato (180ql), sweet potato(150ql), onion(135ql), green paper (30ql), cabbage(145ql),
banana(170ql), guava (50ql), mango(160ql), papaya(175ql), chat(10ql), and coffee (5ql). On the other
side, the livelihood of the remaining 23 rural kebeles’ inhabitants relied on livestock production.In these
kebeles, the livestock population was 339719 in 2011. These include 131745 cattle, 39324 sheep,
130180 goats, and 27489 camels, and 10981 donkeys. The major income source for about 96% of the
inhabitant as reported by Kedija (2007)28 was sales of milk, milk by-products, and crop. In addition to
that off-farm activities like selling charcoal, fuelwood and trade were also a means of income for 30% of
the inhabitants.

As reported in several pieces of literature, in Erer, livestock production plays a significant role in their
livelihood. Meseret et al (2018)29 reported 53.75% of Erer inhabitants depend on livestock production
and 46.25% of the population was agro-pastoralist. The majority of the community cultivated a
combination of maize and sorghum. Horticultural fruits such as orange, banana, papaya, lemon, and
mango were common fruits in Erer. The total livestock population in Erer was estimated at 600
thousand (Fekerte, 2008)30.

These include 200,000 cattle, 180,000 sheep, 150, 000 goats and 65,000 camels. The Source of income
for the majority of the dwellers is the sale of live animals and their products. A small proportion gets
their income from the sale of agricultural products, employment in government farmland in (Erer state
farm) as daily labor, saling firewood, and renting their camels for contraband transportation purpose.

28
Hussen, K. (2007). Characterization of milk production system and opportunity for market orientation: A
Case Study of Mieso District, Oromia Region, Ethiopia (Doctoral dissertation, Haramaya University).
29
Meseret, S., Ebro, Abule & Zewedu, T. (2015). Rangeland Degradation and Livelihood Vulnerability of the
Pastoralists in Erer District of Shinile Zone, Eastern Ethiopia. The Journal of Agriculture and Natural
Resources Sciences, 2(3),569-581.
30
Fekerte, F. (2008). On-farm characterization of blackhead Somali Sheep breed and its production system
in Shinile and Erer districts of Shinile zone. An M. Sc (Doctoral dissertation, Thesis Presented to the
School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University of Agriculture, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia. 115p).

82
According to ERC (2011) report, in Afdem, 97% of the total population were pastoral communities. Crop
farming was very limited. Only 1% of the total population were agro-pastoralists practicing small-scale
subsistence farming on 83 ha. From the cultivated land, 72ha is rain-fed and 11ha is irrigated. Thus,
animal husbandry is the major means of livelihood and main source of income. They keep cattle, camels,
sheep, goats, and donkeys for different purposes.

In DDA, the majority of the population directly or indirectly derives its livelihood from service and
industry, and related activities. Because the economy of the DDA is relying on service and industry
business activities, their share in the economy is estimated at 56% and 35% respectively (BoFED,
2016)31. Over 36% of the population's livelihood also relies on these economic sectors (CSA, 2014)32.
According to Urban Employment-Unemployment Survey Report (CSA, 2011)33 wholesale and & retail
businesses constituted the largest share (21%) of employment in DDA followed by the public service and
manufacturing industry.

5.3 Customary social institution

The Oromo clans in Mieso including the Ittu have various social support systems which are practiced
during marriage ceremonies (Kallow/qeretta) and emergency Hirppa(Bamlaku et al 2015)34. In this
system, there will be a contribution of cattle/money/crop for the bridegroom if he is poor. Hirppa is also
the social support system that helps each other when someone faces a problem like the loss of one’s
cattle due to drought, cattle raiding, flooding, and any other forms of manmade and natural calamities.
If someone lost his/her property due to fire, the community has also the responsibility to support
/contribute both in kind and in cash for the loserone in this Hirppa program.

The same Author also indicated that the Issa-Somali have also similar indigenous institutions that are
considered as traditional social protection/security mechanisms. To mention, Zakat which is a
mandatory religious charity usually provided from the wealthier relatives/clan/ sub-clan members to
disadvantaged groups once a year .Irmaansi is when households provide milking animals to households
who have no lactating stocks across seasons to use it and return at the end of the milking period. Maal
(literally means milking) is the sharing of livestock during the milking period. Rai is the culture when
children from poor pastoralists herd for richer relatives and receive food and other benefits as payment.
Keyd is the process of adopting livestock offspring from richer households, sometimes on credit. It also
refers to when pastoralist women reserved the traditionally preserved butter from the special fatty
cows.

The Afar have developed an effective social organization that enhances decision-making and
enforcement through traditional political authority (madaa). Social cooperation and solidarity between
clans (kedo) and lineages (dhalla/gulubu) are reinforced through shared rituals, sharing resources, and
the practice of preferential patrilateral cross-cousin marriage (absuma) (Getachew, 2001).

31
Bureau of Finance and Economic development (BoFED) (2016). DDA Statistical Abstract, Dire Dawa,
Ethiopia
32
Central Statistics Authority, CSA (2014). The 2013 National Labor Force Survey. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

33
Central Statistics Authority, CSA, 2011. Urban Employment-Unemployment Survey Report. Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
34
BamlakuTadesse et al.(2015). The Roles of Customary Institutions in Adaptation and Coping to Climate
Change and Variability among the Issa, Ittu and Afar Pastoralists of eastern Ethiopia. DOI 10.1515/cass-
2015-0025

83
 5.4 Customary Tenure system
The Afar and the Issa maintain similar customary tenure practices. Land, and its resources are perceived
as communal property belonging to the collective patrilateral descent units or groups, the clan, and the
lineage members (Getachew, 2001, Dessalegn 200735). Land cannot be owned or claimed exclusively
either by an individual or as a family holding, nor can it be sold. This land remains within a family, and
the use rights are inherited by sons of successive generations. If a family has no male heir, the tribal
chief may choose to reallocate the land to other families.

In Afar, the clan heads, the clan council members who represent their lineage, and collectively the clan
and the heads of the sanction-executing unit are the elders of the clan land. They are the traditional
authorities entrusted with the power to control the management and allocation of the right of access to
clan land resources and to arrange negotiated rights of access to land and natural resources to their
clans. They control the allocation of exploitation rights to clan members and non-clan members. Alike,
they shoulder community responsibilities as effective and efficient managers of clan land (communal)
resources. Another important task of these elders is to resolve disputes that occur over access to land
and resources. The Afar have developed institutional arrangements that allow access rights to land
resources. These rights refer to culturally constructed rights, duties, and responsibilities defining clan
members’ and non-clan members’ access to the resources of clan land as well as those of the land of
other clans.

The Issa is less hierarchical than the Afar. The head of an Issa family unit will decide when and where
next to move the herds, taking into account the current state of familial and/or friendly relations with
other Issa families whose lands he might traverse. The clan would allow its territory to be used
temporarily by families from another clan but only by agreement and on the expectation that the favor
will be returned.

In the case of Ittu clan, grazing land and its resource are traditionally considered to be communal
property under the management of Gummafor long centuries.

5.5Government legal and policy on Land and natural resources

The land tenure and land reform policies that have been tried and implemented at various periods since
the 1960s have primarily been concerned about agricultural land and the rights of access of settled
peasant farmers. Rights to the land of pastoral populations have either been ignored altogether or given
at best secondary importance. There have been few attempts by public authorities to try to understand
the complex dynamic of pastoral livelihood systems and the management of natural resources for
example 1) the 1994 Constitution stating that pastoralists are guaranteed the right to land for grazing
and cultivation and have the right not to be displaced from their lands, 2) The Federal Rural Land
Administration and Utilization Proclamation No.89/1997 states that both peasants and nomads are
secure against eviction and displacement from holdings on any grounds, other than total or partial
distribution of holdings effected under a decision of the Regional Council. Decision-makers in all three
governments in this period have been motivated by a strong conviction that sedentarization is the best
option for nomadic pastoralism and policy interventions have consistently favored settlement and crop
farming of one sort or another. For instance: Pastor Land. Proclamation 456/2005 encourages private
investors in pastoralist areas where there is clan-based communal landholding” and Article 5(3) states

35
DessalegnRahmato (2007) CUSTOMS IN CONFLICT: Land Tenure Issues among Pastoralists in Ethiopia.

84
that, “Government, being the owner of rural land, can change communal rural land holdings to private
holdings as may be necessary”. Such interventions and government policy have led to agricultural land
expansion and the shrinking of the traditional territories of the pastoral community.

6. A distinct language or dialect identified

The Ethiopian pastoralists belong to 29 ethnolinguistic groups: the three major ones being Afar, Oromo,
and Somali; all belong to the Cushitic ethnolinguistic family, making up 90% of the rangeland population
(PADS, 2004)36.

More recent evidence (ERC, 2011) showed that AfaanOromoo is the predominant language spoken in
Mieso. Over 95% of inhabitants speak AfaanOromoo. The rest 5% of the inhabitants speaks Somali,
Amharic and other languages. On the other side, Somali is the language spoken by a large population
(97%) residing in Afdem and Erer. AfaanOromoo, Amharic, and other languages are spoken only by 3%
of the residents.

The 200737 national census on this subject reported that 48% of the population uses the
AfaanOromoolanguage as a mother tongue. Amharic (26%) and Somali (20%) are the second-largest
spoken language as a mother tongue

The evidence from this review suggests that over 82% of the population inhabiting the project-affected
area speak AfaanOromoo and the Somali language while the rest of 18% of the population speak other
languages.

7. Vulnerable groups
According to the 2007 census report, 19% of the inhabitants in the project area was represented as
pastoral community. As shown in table 7, Afdem and Erer have the largest percentage of pastoral
inhabitants relative to their population. The portions of the inhabitants who are considered as
vulnerable groups account for 4% of the population. This figure includes disabled, the elder (greater
than age 60), the homeless, and orphans (who have no parents). As shown in the table below, the
distribution of the vulnerable is almost homogenous.

Table 7 vulnerable groups per project-affected woreda

Project
Disabled elder
affected pastural homeless orphans
persons (age 60+)
woreda

Mieso 0.77% 1.84% 2.41% 0.09% 1.08%

Mulo 0.79% 33.15% 2.78% 0.01% 0.57%
Afdem 0.47% 76.54% 2.54% 0.02% 0.69%
Erer 0.54% 58.96% 3.21% 0.01% 0.62%

36
Pastoral Areas Development Study (PADS) (2004) Pastoral Areas Development Plan (PADP), General
executive summary (2004). Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
37
Central Statistics Authority,CSA (2007). The 2007 Population and Housing Census of Ethiopia. Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.

85
DDA 1.11% 2.64% 1.45% 0.39% 0.93%
Total 0.89% 19.03% 2.07% 0.22% 0.86%

86