RAPID ASSESSMENT OF RECENT DEVELOPMENTS OF INVESTMENTS IN BIOFUEL FEEDSTOCK PRODUCTION IN

WOLAITTA, ETHIOPIA

CASE STUDY OF THREE WOREDAS: OFFA, DAMOT WEIYDE AND KINDO KOYSHA

BY: GEBREMEDHINE BIREGA (ECOYM)1

YASIN BOTTO (Wolaita Zone)

AUGUST 2008 WOLAITTA SODO

1 Gebremedhine Birega, a man from Wolaita, BA/MA in PSIR, Strategist, Military Intelligence Analyst and International Relations Expert by profession, has had long time experience in government, Consumer Activist; and has worked as Regional Thematic Coordinator on Seed Sovereignty-Security/Alternatives to Genetic Engineering/Intellectual Property Rights and Biosafety, in which Bio-fuels has been identified as newly emerging issue, for the African Biodiversity Network. Currently, works as a founding Director of ECOYM, local CSO advocating for active participation of consumers through sustainable and reasonable consumption to address climate change in Ethiopia and beyond.

Table of contents page 1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................2

2. Materials and Method ..................................................................................................... 3

2.1. Description of the study area ................................................................................... 3

2.1.1. Location ............................................................................................................ 3

2.1.2. Climate.............................................................................................................. 4

2.1.3. Soil/ geomorphology......................................................................................... 4

2.1.4. Population ......................................................................................................... 6

2.1.5. Livelihood......................................................................................................... 6

2.1.6. Land use ............................................................................................................ 8

2.2. Methodology............................................................................................................ 8

3. Factors affecting the land cover and the current threat................................................... 8

4. Possible impacts of jatropha and castor plantation in the study areas ............................ 8

4.1. Environmental impact of the proposed jatropha and castor plantation in the area . 9

4.1.1. Impact on biodiversity ...................................................................................... 9

4.1.2. Impact on Ecosystem services ........................................................................ 12

4.1.3 Social Impact .................................................................................................. 13

4.1.4. Land rights ...................................................................................................... 14

4.1.5. Labor conditions..............................................................................................17

5. Suitability of the proposed area for jatropha and castor plantation in the study areas . 17

5.1. Ecological Suitability............................................................................................. 17

5.2. Socioeconomic Suitability ..................................................................................... 18

6. Attitude towards jatropha and castor plantation in the study areas ............................. 18

6.1. Attitude of the local people.................................................................................... 18

6.2. Attitude of Local Government ............................................................................... 18

6.3. Attitude of the Campanies ..................................................................................... 19

7. Conclusion and Recommendation ................................................................................ 19

7.1. Conclusion. ............................................................................................................ 19

7.2. Recommendation. .................................................................................................. 20

Reference...........................................................................................................................21

Annex I List of persons interviewed during the study.......................................................22

List of tables, figures and pictures included in the study page

Tables: Table 1: Percentage distribution of agro ecologies of the three study woredas ................ 4

Table 2: Soils identified by farmers in three study areas.................................................... 5

Table 3: soil types by color..................................................................................................5

Table 4: Population of study area........................................................................................6

Table 5: Diversification activities .......................................................................................7

Table 6: Land use Pattern in Study Areas............................................................................8

Table 7: Total Area and Population Density........................................................................8

Table 8: Land holding and land use by socio-economic group in Wolaita.......................10

Table 9: List of crop species grown in the individual farm ..............................................11

Table 10: Needy Population in the study area...................................................................14

Table 11: Productivity of different crops in the Study area (q/ha)....................................15

Figures:

Figure 1: Temperature of the study area .............................................................................4

Figure 2: Altitude of the Study Area .................................................................................4

Figure 3: Rain fall of the Study Areas.................................................................................4

Pictures:

Picture 1: Inter-cropping and multi-storey agro-forestry systems in the study area.......... 9

Picture 2: Kenaf monoculture plantation in Kindo Koysha site by GEE..........................12

1. Introduction Agro fuels are being promoted at an alarming speed in Ethiopia. Among the reasons for such promotion are the need to diversity energy sources and lower the exposure to the price volatility in international oil market; new job creation in rural areas; reduction of harmful pollutants from vehicles exhaust; reduction of green house gas emission; contribute to soil and water conservation; building local industrial base; and others.

It has been claimed that a total of 23,305,890 hectares of land is available for production of feed stack for bio diesel in Ethiopia. The recently finalized “Strategy for Bio-fuel Development and use in Ethiopia” is expected to help a lot in realizing such huge potential of the country. The strategy argues that jatropha caracas would be the major feed stock to be followed by castor bean for biodiesel; and sugarcane for bio-ethanol.

Major objectives of the strategy, among others, include: • Enhancing environmental sustainability; • Defining roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders; • Supporting research and development; • Enacting new bio-fuel policy; and • Establishing bio-fuel development program.

Further, it has been said that Ethiopian farmers will benefit from the bio-fuel development program first as out growers of feed stocks on the degraded land, without affecting their food security; and then as beneficiaries of bio-fuels for house hold energy, electricity generation, running agricultural machineries, etc. Farmers in Wolaitta zone of Southern Nations, Nationalities and People’s Region (SSNPR) are among those involved in out grower schemes of castor for biodiesel for the Global Energy Inc. Ethiopia, one of the active companies in Wolaitta. Another active company is Sun bio-fuels, a UK company engaged in plantation of jatropha in the area. This research report is intended to make assessment of the current status of the two companies and farmers' involvement in production of fuel feed stocks in Wolaitta on the one hand; and implementation of the above-mentioned strategy in the zone on the other. The report has six parts. After this introduction, factors affecting the land cover and the current threat will be discussed in the next chapter to be followed by discussions on possible impacts of jatropha and castor plantation in the study areas in the third chapter. Fourth chapter will be dedicated to discussions on suitability of the area for jatropha and castor plantation. Attitude of local population, government officials and the companies towards jatropha and castor plantation in the study areas will be forwarded in the fifth chapter. Last, but not least, conclusion and recommendation will be forwarded.

2

2. Materials and Method 2.1. Description of the study area With a total area of 438,370 hectares, Wolaitta is inhabited by over 1.7 million people. Its average population density of over 370 people / km² makes it one of the most densely populated areas of the country. Population density in some parts of the Zone is as high as 700 people / km². The major economic activities are agriculture (production of legumes, root crops and some cereals), and livestock rearing. The source of food is 50 per cent from agriculture, 40 per cent from the market and 10 per cent from animal products (IFRCRCS, 2008: 2).

Wolayita Zone is dominantly dependant on belg rains (March to May), which this year have been late and below-normal, resulting in very poor prospects for the June and July belg crops. Some 61,035 hectares of land which was supposed to be covered by belg growing crops were not productive due to lack of rain. In addition, a small showery rain that normally falls in the months of November and December (locally called Sapian), which is important for the growth of root crops such as cassava, sweet potato and irish potato, was totally absent this season. This resulted in poor production of these widely used root crops in many parts of the zone, which normally constitute a vital means in covering the food gap (Ibid).

Wolayita is recognized for both its fertility and population pressure - a combination that can deceive people who are not familiar with the area. During times of food stress, the term "green famine" is often used to describe the situation. In recent years there has been a progressive increase in food insecure households and production per capita is said to be steadily diminishing. This is attributed to an acute shortage of land due to population pressure, natural resources degradation, erratic rainfall and drought, crop and livestock pests and diseases coupled with human diseases all leading to a much reduced asset base and precarious food security (Dechasa, 1999: 2).

Moreover, the physical appearance of cattle is very poor and livestock deaths have notably increased. The drought has also caused unusual high migration figures in almost all woredas. Finally, reduction in school attendance, one indicator of rising food insecurity, has been increasing since February 2008. According to government figures, a total of 27,167 students have left the schools in Wolayita Zone, particularly in the lowlands, which according to local sources is an unusually high number (Ibid).

2.1.1 Location Wolayita Zone is one of the nine zones of the Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples’ Regional State (SNNPRS). Wolaitta is located at 390 km. south of the capital, between 6º40'' and 7º58'' N Latitude and 37º14'' and 37º56'' E Longitude. Currently, the Wolaitta zone is sub-divided into thirteen woredas, namely: Boloso Bombe, Boloso Sore, Damot Gale, Damot Fulasa, Damot Sorre, Damot Weyde, Duguna Fango, Humbo, Kindo Didaye, Kindo Koysha, Offa and Sodo Zuria. Wolaita shares boundaries with four other zones of the SNNPRS. These include from north with Kembat and Timbaro zone; from south with Gamo and Gofa zones; from east with Sidama zone; and from west with Dawro zone.

3

2.1.2 Climate Generally wolaitta has a wonderful climatic conditions. Wolaitta zone encompasses agro ecologies of dega (highland), woynadega (mid altitude) and kola (low land) with proportion of 9%, 56%, and 35%, respectively distributed in thirteen woredas. Percentage distribution of agro ecologies of the three study woredas is shown in table 1 below.

Table 1: Percentage distribution of agro ecologies of the three study woredas

Woreda Kolla Woyna Dega Dega Kindo Koysha 36 64 0 Offa 30 55 15 Damot Weyde 65 20 15 Zone 35 56 9

Source: Zonal Agriculture and Rural Development Department and the Agriculture and Rural

Development Desks of Damot Woyde, Kindo Koysha and Offa Woredas

Figure 1: Temperature of the study area Damot weyde = 160c – 300c Kindo Koysha = 250c – 400c Offa = 140c – 280c Zone = 150c – 200c Source: Zonal Agriculture and Rural Development Department and the Agriculture and Rural

Development Desks of Damot Woyde, Kindo Koysha and Offa Woredas

Figure 2: Altitude of the Study Area Damot weyde = 1300 – 2100 m.a.s.l Kindo Koysha = 700 – 2280 m.a.s.l Offa = 1200 – 2000 m.a.s.l Zone = 1500 – 2500 m.a.s.l Source: Zonal Agriculture and Rural Development Department and the Agriculture and Rural

Development Desks of Damot Woyde, Kindo Koysha and Offa Woredas Figure 3: Rain fall of the Study Areas Kindo Koysha = 900 – 1300 mm Offa = 800 – 1400 mm Damot weyde = 700 – 1300 mm Zone = 800 – 1400 mm Source: Zonal Agriculture and Rural Development Department and the Agriculture and Rural

Development Desks of Damot Woyde, Kindo Koysha and Offa Woredas

2.1.3. Soil/geomorphology a. Soil type: Scientists classify soils according to their chemical, physical and biological

properties, which they relate to the parent materials from which the soil is derived. Scientists give soils names that are impossible for farmers and most development workers to

4

understand. For scientists to assess the properties of soils, samples have to be collected and taken to laboratories for analysis. This analysis can take months, whereas farmers can classify their soils on the spot from evidence at the time (colour, texture, productivity, moisture content) and knowledge of past performance.

Farmers in the study area differentiated soil types in their area and have local names for different soil types. Farmers consider soil as a living entity that grows, matures, becomes old and even dies so that even grass cannot grow. A ‘sick’ soil can be cured with the right inputs, and a ‘tired’ soil can be rejuvenated. Farmers are aware where each soil type exists, and are able to map the distribution of each soil type within their own Kabeles. At the household level, farmers are also able to identify variability between soils at the field level. Farmers often identified at least five different soils types in each Kabele, as shown in Table 1 below:

Table 2: Soils identified by farmers in three study areas

No. Soils identified Altitude zone 1 Bossolo, Kareta, Talla (reddish and black),

Bokinta, Gobo Higher altitude

2 Salisatya, Barta, Gorbo, Gobo (red and brown) Talla (Gobo talla, Gorbo talla and Aeka talla)

Medium altitude

3 Gobo, Shafe-ancho, Chare, Gorbo, Talla Low altitude Source: discussions with farmers

Criteria used by farmers to differentiate between soil types Farmers in all the three study woredas were able to characterize each soil type separately. Some characteristics were unique to a particular soil type. The characteristics used by farmers were mainly physical properties that directly or indirectly affect the performance and productivity of crops.

Table 3: soil types by color No Local name of the Soil colour 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Kareta Talla Bokinta Gobo Barta Shafe-ancho Chare Bossolo Salisatya Gorbo

Black Black, reddish brown, Red Red Whitish Red Brown No colour mentioned No colour mentioned Changing color with depth

Source: Own compilation based on discussions with farmers

b. Soil Fertility: refers to the extent to which soil needs fertilizers and responds to them. The Farmers rate Talla and kareta soils as highly responsive to fertilizers and productive of crops and crop diversity. On the other hand, Bossolo, Shafe- ancho, Bokinta and Salisatiya soils are rated as having poor fertility. Gorbo soil was rated as suitable for almost all crops, and is not easily affected by heat, rainfall or drought. The Wolaitta perception of soil fertility is demonstrated in their description of fertile (arada) and infertile (lada) soils. Fertile (arada) soils: Found on gentle slopes, and have deep topsoil. They are described as black, rich, fat,

5

strong, manured, near house and hoed. Arada soils are resistant to erosion, and have good water-holding capacity. Arada soils can become lada soils with poor management and vice-versa. Infertile (lada) soils: Found on steeper slopes, and are described as shallow, red, poor, thin, weak, not manured, far from the house and ploughed.

c. Erodibility: farmers rate bossolo, kareta and reddish gobo soils as very susceptible to erosion.

d. Soil moisture: bossolo, shafe-ancho, bokinta and gobo soils are identified as where crops wilt quickly. Kareta retains moisture for a longer period after rains have stopped. shafe-ancho and chare soils become waterlogged during the rainy season, and are therefore often chosen for taro production.

e. Physical characteristics: Talla soils crack and become sticky when drying, leading to stunted growth and pests. Gobo is finer than Bossolo, and Shafe-ancho and Salisatya are coarse textured.

f. Depth of topsoil: Gobo, Charia and Gorbo soils are deep, while Bokinta, Barta and Shafe-ancho are shallow.

g. Workability: Talla and Chare soils are hard to plough in dry and wet conditions. Gobo, Gorbo and Barta are easily worked under any conditions.

2.1.4. Population of the Study Areas The total population of zone is estimated at 1,726,578. About 92% of the population resides in rural area. Population breakdown of the study area is shown in table 3 below.

Table 4: Population of study area

No Woreda Male Female Total 1 Damot Weyde 55,723 56,848 112,5712 Kindo Koysha 59,211 60,407 119,6183 Offa 61,903 63,154 125,0574 Zone 854,656 871,922 1,726,578

Source: Wolaita zone finance and economic development main department

2.1.5. Livelihood of the Study Areas Rural people on Wolaitta zone in general and in the three study areas in particular, non-farm and off-farm activities are carried out by a significant proportion of adults and make an important contribution to livelihoods. It shows that there is a high involvement of women in diversification and that the contribution of diversification activities to cash incomes is particularly important for poorer households. The single most important activity is trading, while labouring for others is also important. In highland Wolayta non-farm activities (particularly trading and labouring for others) have a long history as enabling manse for the community to gain access to key resources. These arrangements were deeply embedded in complex social relations. As these institutional arrangements have changed, so diversification activities have become more visible. Consideration of the historical and social contexts is thus critical for a firm understanding of livelihood change and the changing role and importance of diversification activities (Carswell: 2001).

People in wolaitta engage themselves in diversified by adopting a range of activities. Thus income sources may include ‘farm income’, ‘non-farm income’ (non-agricultural income sources, such as non-farm wages and business income), and ‘off-farm income’ (wages of

6

exchange labour on other farms – i.e. within agriculture, including payment in kind) [Ellis, 2000:11]. Diverse crops and herds mean that if one fails, others survive.

More business relationships can increase the benefits available to the family to handle emergencies as well as provide income. A livelihood portfolio increases stability and the ability to maintain and improve a level of living and quality of life while managing stress and shocks. Non-farm and off-farm activities are vital for the support of livelihoods, and trading, as the single most important diversification activity, has a long history in the area. Illustrating the importance of trade for livelihood in the study area, Ato Falaha Unei, chairman of Sorto Peasant Association in Kindo Koysha woreda has the following sayings in Wolayta: ‘Giyan akenaneane gitane shempena heyesay minena’ ��� ›?���’@ Ó�” g”ü“ H>¾dà T>’“ literally meaning “The poor cannot be strong without trading and support from the rich”2 Further strengthening the role of trade in supporting livelihood he added another saying: ‘Zaleena dure manqes gogena hatay tinqes’ ³M›?“ Æ_ T”oe ÔÑ@“ H�à Ö=”oe ‘As water which does not flow ultimately smells bad, so a rich person who does not trade ultimately becomes poor’. The sayings also demonstrate that both the rich and poor are involved in trading. It occurs at various scales: at one end of the continuum are large scale traders, who own several donkeys, while at the other end are the many individuals (often women) who trade small amounts of produce between the various markets, carrying it themselves. The term ‘trade’ thus covers a multitude of activities that range in scale and demand quite different investments according to the scale of the enterprise. Accordingly, rural populations in Wolaitta zone are known for their resiliency and inventiveness of constructing diversified means of living by adapting to their environment and managing complexity as livelihood. A range of diversification activities are undertaken in these three study areas as illustrated in Figure 4 below.

Table 5 - Diversification activities

No. Diversification activities Description 1 Trade Livestock, coffee, grain, enset products, drugs, lumber, food, cloth, soap,

kerosene, honey, cotton, meat, etc 2 Unskilled wage labor

(on daily basis) Food for work, agricultural labour, painting, porter, sand collection, State Farm labourer, etc.

3 Artisanship potter, blacksmith, tanner, etc. 4 Formally employed teacher, health worker, vet, NGO worker, local agent of party, council member,

maid, guard 5 Handicrafts carpenter, spinning, basket making, roof thatching, mat making 6 Forest products charcoal, wood, grass, lumber 7 Fishing fish catching, repairing nets and equipment, transporting fish 8 Service provision shoe shining, barber, trapping mole rat, butcher, mechanic, professional mourner,

transport, musician, grain mills, traditional medicine, tailor, brokerage, conflict resolution, money lender, preacher, circumcision, rain maker, fortune teller

9 Rental income animals, tools, bicycles, tents, land Source: Discussion with farmers and other local people in the study area

2 Interview with Ato Falaha Unei, chairman of Sorto Peasant Association in Kindo Koysha woreda 07 August 2008.

7

2.1.6. Land Use Wolaitta zone has a total land area of 438,370 hectares of which 235,828 hectares are cultivated,17,022ha is cultivable, and 48,082 hectares used for grazing areas. The balance 140,159 hectares of land is used for other purposes. Land use pattern of the study area is shown in table 3 below.

Table 6: Land use Pattern in Study Areas

No. Woreda/zone Cultivated Land

Cultivable Grazing Land

Forest and bush Land

Others

1 Kindo Koysha 48,678 5,703 1,227 8,041 2,632 2 Offa 14,299 1,090 10,766 26,224 1,795 3 Damot Weyde 38,163 8,358 5,470 18,491 3,500 4 Zone 235,828 17,022 48,082 91,427 31,710

Source: Wolaita zone finance and economic development main department

Table 7: Total Area and Population Density

No. Woreda and zone Total area (ha) Pop. density/km2 1 Kindo Koysha 77,641 314 2 Offa 54,372 288 3 Damot Weyde 74,832 390 4 Zone 438,370 360

Source: Wolaita zone finance and economic development main department 2.2. Methodology The necessary data for this rapid rural assessment were generated by using primary sources including farm and household visits, direct observation, and interviews with farmers, development agents, officials, global energy representatives and local authorities; and secondary sources including books, articles, research monographs, official documents, and other publications.

3. Factors affecting the land cover and the current threat Factors affecting the land cover in the study area could be categorized: physical, chemical and biological. Physical factors include; high population pressure leading to clearing forest and expansion of agriculture; overuse of fuel wood and charcoal; fire break out usually in lowlands due to elongated rise of temperature and sometimes man made; and overgrazing. Recurrent droughts have further aggravated the situation, leading to repeated cycles of famine in recent years. Use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and other agricultural chemicals could be taken to comprise chemical factors. The current trend of biofuel feed stock production pattern, known for monoculture and if introduces genetically modified seeds would be major threat affecting the land cover in the study area. (Paulos, 2001: 28) 4. Possible impacts of jatropha and castor plantation in the study areas The development of biofuels can provide both opportunities and risks, which are dependent on a myriad of factors. The entire production chain needs to be considered from how feedstock is

8

produced (including the impacts of growing and processing crops), to their conversion, transport and end use. The impacts range across social, economic and environmental areas, many of which depend on a number of country and even site-specific factors such as choice of feedstock, the place where it is grown, the cultivation practices used, climate, water and infrastructure. These all play a significant role in determining if the production of a certain biofuel to have negative or positive impacts on the environment (CBD, 2008: 4).

4.1 Environmental impacts of the proposed jatropha and castor Biofuel/agrofuel feedstock production has multiple environmental impacts that might affect biodiversity. Chief among these impacts is land-use change, which also greatly influences the extent to which biofuels/arofuels contribute to the mitigation of greenhouse-gas emissions. Latest researches and possible scenarios suggest that the biodiversity gains resulting from avoided climate change and nitrogen emissions were offset by the need for additional land use to provide biofuels/arofuels3. Other environmental impacts concern water consumption, the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and the possible invasiveness of some species used in biofuels/arofuels production. In addition, large-scale biofuels/agrofuels production also has socio-economic impacts. Detailed discussions presented below.

4.1.1. Impact on Biodiversity/ Agro biodiversity Farm sizes are generally small and on average farmers cultivate about 0.3 ha/farm in Wolaitta. At the same family size is high (8 persons/family) resulting in an overall average density of 360 persons/km2 (Eyasu, 2003:3). Due to high population density, farmers cultivate diminutive holdings in which they grow a number of cereal, root crops and pulses. Crop mixtures and combinations include double cropping, inter-cropping and multi-storey agro-forestry systems. See picture 1 below. Land use within individual holdings comprises arable crop fields associated with private grass/wood plots. The latter is used for cut-and-carry feeding of animals as free grazing areas are not easily available. Within the arable area, two farm section units can be identified - the enset garden close to the hut and non-enset crop fields away from the homestead. A large number of enset and coffee plants are grown in a relatively small land area around homestead. See table 7 below Broad-leaved trees such as Cordia africana, Millettia ferruginea and Erythrina burana and some fruit trees (mango or avocado) are planted in the enset-coffee garden as shade with undergrowth of annuals (cereals, root crops and spices). This creates a multi-storeyed agro-forestry system. These mosaic nature of species serve as various environmental functions (soil conservation through canopy and surface cover, provision of habitat for useful micro fauana and flora, etc).

Table 8: Land holding and land use by socio-economic group in Wolaita

No Wealth group Total land holding (ha)

Enset-coffee area (ha)

Field crops area (ha)

Total Cultivated (ha)

Wood and grass area (ha)

1 Rich 1.2 0.2 0.7 0.9 0.3 2 Medium 0.8 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.2

3 This could be seen from Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD) and Netherlands Environmental

Assessment Agency (MNP). (2007). Technical Series 31: Cross-roads of Life on Earth — Exploring means to meet the 2010 Biodiversity Target. Solution oriented scenarios for Global Biodiversity Outlook 2. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. Available from http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-31.pdf

9

3 Poor 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.1 4 Overall mean 0.6 0.15 0.4 0.5 0.1

Source: Adapted from Eyasu Elias, 2003

Species and variety diversity at household level is an outcome of crop and variety choices of farmers. Species diversity refers to multiple crops while variety diversity refers to multiple varieties of the same crop. The enset culture has developed farming systems that are characterized by a high degree of intra- and inter-species diversity. In this culture cereal, root crops and tubers are important elements of the overall farming system, supplemented by livestock raising. Enset cultivation promotes agricultural diversification and soil fertility management through organic manuring. As shown in table 8 below, about 20 different crop species are grown within an individual farm plot associated with forest and fruit trees in a complex cropping pattern that involves cereals, root crops, vegetables and pulses. An average farmer in Wolaitta cultivates 6 cereal crops, 6 vegetables, 4 root crop category and 4 pulse crops in a single farm following a complex mixtures and combinations of annual and perennial crops. This shows intensive and integrated nature of the farming system and its species richness. For this reason, the above farming system areas can be regarded as a museum of domesticated plants. This shows the degree of agro-diversity maintained by farmers. In the contrary to such agricultural practices, a private limited company namely Global Energy Ethiopia (GEE) currently has launched commercial monoculture cultivation of castor plant on fertile farm lands of small holder farmers with subsistence agriculture in three study woredas, namely Kindo Koysha, Offa and Damot Woyde in Wolaitta zone. Total land area covered with monoculture castor and number of farmers involved in the three study areas is 2, 350 hectares and 9, 215 respectively. The distribution of this farm land among the three study woredas is about 900, 650 and 800 hectares respectively. Number of farmers involved in the out grower scheme is reported to be 3,500, 3, 200 and 2, 515 respectively as well.

All interviewed farmers in the three study woredas confirmed that initially they agreed with the company to practice intercropping. However, later they were instructed not to intercrop and in some cases uprooted the already intercropped crops. The claimed objective of such denial was to obtain the maximum yield from castor and attract more farmers for next season. This expansion of monoculture production of castor implies erosion/loss of agricultural biodiversity in the three study areas. Castor plantation is not only promoted on agricultural lands in the study areas but also planned to be promoted on village common lands given by government. But the GEE informed that they could not launch castor plantation on the said land due to financial constraints and accessibility problems. The village common lands allotted to production of castor is 4, 000 ha in two of the study areas: Kindo Koysha and Offa. Another company, namely Sun Biofuel started cultivation of jatropha plant on a village common lands about 3000 ha at Mancha site, in Dana kebele of Offa woreda. According to farmers around Jatropha farm the land was supporting food security through grazing and pastures for livestock until its allotment. The common lands in Mancha was used by live stocks as a grazing land and used for the collection of fuel wood but now the entry is restricted and the company stopped our cattle from entering the area around the Jatropha farm” said some of the villagers. The expansion of Jatropha cultivation means promoting of a monoculture, implying a decrease in biodiversity.

10

Table 9: List of crop species grown in the individual farm

No Crop type Category Scientific name 1 Enset Root crop Ensete ventricosum 2 Coffee Cash crop Coffea arabica 3 Maize Cereal Zea mays 4 Wheat Cereal Triticum aestivum 5 Teff Cereal Eragrostis tef 6 Sorghum Cereal Sorghum bicolor 7 Barley Cereal Hordeum vulgarre 8 Finger millet Cereal Elusine caracanas 9 Sweet potato Root crop Ipomea batatas 10 Taro Root crop Colocassia esculenta 11 Yam Root crop Diascorea sp 12 Cassava Root crop Manihot esculenta Crantz 13 Haricot bean Pulse Phaseoules sp 14 Filed pea Pulse Pisum sativum 15 Faba bean Pulse Vicia faba

Fenugreek Pulse Trigonella sp 16 17 Cabbage Pulse Brassica carinata

Garlic Vegetable Allium sativum 18 19 Amaranths Vegetable Amaranths sp 20 Irish potato Vegetable Solanum tubersum 21 Cucumber Vegetable Cucumis oblongata

Pepper Vegetable Piper sativum 22 Source: Eyasu, 2003: 5

Castor bean or Ricinus communis, according to plant quarantine regulation No. 4/1992, is one of the restricted plants, where any person shall not import into Ethiopia without an import permit issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (Article 4 of Regulation No 4/1992). However, it has been imported by the GEE from China and planted in the three woredas, has not been permitted by the plant protection Department of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development or no such permit document could be found. GEE has obtained import permit to import Kenaf or Hibiscus cannabinus4 which is found at the demonstration fields of the company in Kindo Koysha and Offa woredas. See the monoculture kenaf plantation picture 2 below. None the less, nothing is known about agreements regarding its plantation together with bio-fuel feed stock-castor. Another bio-fuel feed stock, jatropha being used by the Sun Biofuel in Mancha site of Offa woreda, is reported to have been imported from India and Tanzania. Yet nothing is known or documented with the competent authority on the import permit.5

4.1.2 Impact on Ecosystem services

4 For details on kenaf plant see http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/cropfactsheets/kenaf.html 5 Confirmed during discussion with Ato Melese Haile, Crop protection export at the crop protection

department of ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development August 25, 2008.

11

Ecosystem services are obtained natural ecosystems, usually subdivided into five categories: provisioning such as the production of food and water; regulating, such as the control of climate and disease; supporting, such as nutrient cycles and crop pollination; cultural, such as spiritual and recreational benefits; and preserving, which includes guarding against uncertainty through the maintenance of diversity6. It has been argued that if crops are grown on degraded or abandoned land, such as previously deforested areas or degraded crop - and grasslands, and if soil disturbances are minimized, the production of feedstocks for biofuels could potentially have positive impacts on biodiversity by restoring or conserving habitat and ecosystem function (SCBD, 2008: 4). On the other hand, during the 9th Conference of Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity, it has been also stated that in general biofuel production and use can have adverse effects on biodiversity, human well being and ecosystem service, including where the production process and use are associated with:

The loss, fregmentation and degradation of valuable habitats such as natural and semi-natural forests, grass lands, wet lands and peatlands, their biodiversity components and the loss of essential ecosystem services;

Increased water consumption, increased application of fertilizers and pesticides, increased water pollution and eutrophication;

The uncontrolled cultivation, introduction and spread of genetically modified organisms;

The uncontrolled introduction and spreed of invasive alien species; and others. As physically observed in the study areas, jatropha and castor are grown in the farm lands or common lands or the pasture lands. In all the three study areas synthetic fertilizers (DAP and Urea) and different chemicals (pesticides) are used to increase yield from both jatropha and castor plantations. Seeds were imported from Australia7, China8, India9 and Tanzania10. The strategic plan of the government was to use marginal land or wasteland for biodiesel plant cultivation. However both the GEE and Sun Biofuel campanies used good fertile land (farms and grazing lands) for jatropha and castor plantation in the study areas, like any other crops. Therefore, production of these monoculture biodiesel plants and use of fertilizers and chemicals are believed to result in serious adverse impacts on ecosystem services in the areas. 4.1.3 Social Impact Like any innovation, increased production of energy crops has the potential to exacerbate socioeconomic inequalities by concentrating benefits on the well-off. Higher feedstock prices will benefit energy crop producers, but they would adversely affect poor food deficit farmers and consumers (Braun and Pachauri, 2006: 3). Plant feedstock flexibility, in this case castor bean and jatropha, would be major source of competitiveness with food production resulting in adverse social impact of agro fuel in the study

6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem_services 7 Kenaf seed by Global Energy Inc. 8 Hybrid castor seed by Global Energy Inc. 9 Jatropha seed by Sun Biofuel 10 Jatropha seed by Sun Biofuel.

12

areas and beyond in Wolaitta. Moreover, increased land pressure might lead to decreasing food production and unnecessary conflicts over resources among the community members. Castor bean has been considered, mainly by the GEE, as the most interesting feed stock compared to other feed stocks for biodiesel production mainly due to low technological requirements for its production. Castor can be produced in poor quality lands (low levels of rain and fertility), making it a good option for family – based small – holder agriculture setups.

However, recognizing the fact that agro fuels would have potential social impact, governments in other large scale bio fuel producing countries introduced valuing support programs. For instance, one of the claimed potential social benefits from bio fuel has been its job creation for the rural community. And yet this has not been immune from criticisms. Because, although the ratio of jobs per energy unit has been estimated to be promising when compared to oil production, however the figures are proved to have been hiding important issues related with the quality of the jobs created and their impact on unemployment. Moreover, if the current trend of land use change from growing food crops to castor bean and jatropha for fuel continues, the already food insecure people in the three woredas would face more severe food shortage. Currently, there are about 44% or 157, 479 needy people benefiting from the productive safety net and emergency assistance programs, in the study areas as could be seen from table – below. Table 10- Needy Population in the study area No Woreda/Zone Productive

safety net Emergency Total needy Total

population % are of

needy 1 Damot Woyde 20, 125 34, 000 54,125 112,571 48.08 2 Kindo Koysha 28 753 35,062 63,815 119,618 53.35 3 Offa 23 383 16, 156 39,539 125,057 31.62 4 Zone 332 917 345,844 678,761 1,726,576 39.31 5 Total of 3 woredas 72 261 85,218 157,479 358,346 43.95 Source: own compilation based on information obtained from the ARDD of wolaitta zone

Furthermore, lack of bargaining power among the farmers coupled with unclear provisions of the so called “contract agreement” between the GEE and small holder farmers believed to further aggravate the adverse social impact in the areas. The farmers neither have copies of the contract agreement nor know the detailed content of the said agreement. The current low price set for castor beans11 after harvest, especially seen in comparison with the ever increasing food prices, and usual productivity of the land and corresponding possible harvest of different crops, as shown in table 11 below, would not benefit the farmers but the other party. For example, possible loss from maize, haricot bean and cabbage, the three common crops usually intercropped in almost all farmers in Wolaitta, due to castor plantation would be 12983 ETB per hectare.12 It has been noted that the exact price to be paid for farmers has not been officially known or farmers engaged in the out grower scheme are not empowered to bargain for a fair price for their products. This would very likely result in more loss to farmers.

11 Both the GEE and the farmers interviewed confirmed that the price for castor bean after harvest would be

between 45 and 65 ETB per quintal. 12 Own compilation based on the available data

13

Therefore, large increases in the prices of staple foods will mean malnutrition and hunger to the people in the study area, who among the most poorest and food insecure farmers. Some of them will tumble over the edge of subsistence into outright starvation, and many more would die from a multitude of hunger-related diseases. 4.1.4 Impact on Land Rights To determine the impacts of agrofuel feedstock production on land rights, it would be fair to see in comparison with the existing legal frame works of the country on land right and community participation. Constitutional Provisions: The Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, (Art.89.5) states that “Government has the duty to hold, on behalf of the people, land and other natural resources and to deploy them for their common benefit and development.” Article 43 (2) provides for: "Nationals have the right to participate in national development and, in particular, to be consulted with respect to policies and projects affecting their community”. As per Art. 52.2.d of the same consititution, regional states shall “administer land and other natural resources in accordance with the Federal Law”.

14

Table 11: Productivity of different crops in the Study area (q/ha)

Source: Agriculture and Rural Development Department of Wolaita zone The revised 2001 Constitution of the Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peiples Regional State in its Article 40.3 provides for “The right to ownership of urban or rural land and natural resource is exclusively vested in the state and in the peopl. Land is the common property of the people of the Regional state and shall not [be] subject to sale or to other means of exchange”.

13 Own compilation based on the available data 14 Own compilation based on the available data 15 Own compilation based on the available data 16 Own compilation based on the available data 17 KK refers to the abbreviated name for Kindo Koysha, one of the three study weredas 18 DW refers to the abbreviated name for Damot Woyde, one of the three study weredas

Woredas No Crop Type

KK17 Offa DW18

Average13 of three weredas

Price per14 quintal in

ETB

Total crop price per hectare

Nominal15 offered price by

GEE/ha

Possible loss16 due to castor plantation

1 Barley 10.73 10 8 9.57 750.00 7,177.50 4,250.00 2927.50 2 Faba Bean 6.01 9 8.77 7.93 650.00 5,154.50 4,250.00 904.50 3 Cheak Pea - 7 8 7.5 700.00 5,250.00 4,250.00 1000.00 4a Haricot bean 6.45 7.71 9.5 7.88 650.00 5,122.00 4,250.00 872.00 4b Haricot bean 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 625.00 5,000.00 4,250.00 750.00 5 Peas 5.97 8.0 8.42 7.46 650.00 4,849.00 4,250.00 599.00 6a Irish Potato 58.0 50 57 55.0 220.00 12,100.00 4,250.00 7850.00 6b Irish Potato 65.0 65.0 NA 65.00 220.00 14,300.00 4,250.00 10050.00 7a Sweet Potato 100 80 84.89 88.30 250.00 22,082.50 4,250.00 17832.50 7b Sweet Potato 65.0 65 NA 65.0 250.00 16,250.00 4,250.00 12000.00 8 Teff 6.93 6.37 7.01 6.77 960.00 6,499.20 4,250.00 2249.20 9 Telba - - - - - 10 Wheat 16.92 10 7.21 11.39 600.00 6,834.00 4,250.00 2584.00 11 Sesame 2.75 NA NA 2.75 800.00 2,200.00 4,250.00 -2050.00 12 Cotton NA 7.2 13.64 10.42 700.00 7,294.00 4,250.00 3044.00 13 Taro 70.0 70.0 80.0 73.30 250.00 18,325.00 4,250.00 14075.00 14 Yam 90.0 90.0 70.0 83.33 400.00 33,332.00 4,250.00 29082.00 15a Cassava 90.0 60.0 90.0 80.0 100.00 8,000.00 4,250.00 3750.00 15b Cassava NA NA 90.0 90.0 100.00 9,000.00 4,250.00 4750.00 16 Ginger 80.0 NA NA 80.0 80.00 6,400.00 4,250.00 2150.00 17 Maize 18.0 18.2 20.0 18.73 700.00 13,111.00 4,250.00 8861.00 18 Sorghun 10.0 7.2 10.0 9.1 700.00 6,370.00 4,250.00 2120.00 19 Wolayta potato NA 45.0 NA 45.0 30.00 1,350.00 4,250.00 -2900.00 20 Pepper 10.0 NA NA 10.0 3,200.00 32,000.00 4,250.00 27750.00 21 Onion 80.0 NA NA 80.0 400.00 3,200.00 4,250.00 -1050.00 22 Carrot 150.0 NA NA 150.0 100.00 15,000.00 4,250.00 10750.00 23 Cabbage 150.0 NA NA 150.0 50.00 7,500.00 4,250.00 3250.00 24 Tomato 150.0 NA NA 150.0 550.00 82,500.00 4,250.00 78250.00 25 Garlic 100.0 NA NA 100.0 800.00 80,000.00 4,250.00 75750.00 26 Beet root 150.0 NA NA 150.0 200.00 30,000.00 4,250.00 25750.00

15

Regarding ownership of land by farmer, sub-article 4 provides for “the farmers of the State have the right to obtain land without payment and not to be displaced from it. The details of its implementaiton shall be prescribed by law”. Other Legal Provisions: The rural land administration and use proclamation No. 456/2005 under article 8 provides the following: (1) Peasant farmers, semi-pastoral and pastoralises who are given holding certificates can lease

to other farmers or investors land from their holding of a size sufficient for the intended development in a mananer that shall not displace them, for a period of time to be determined by rural land administration laws of regions based on particular local conditions.

(2) The rural land lease agreement to be concluded in accordance with sub-article (1) of this Article shall secure the consent of all the members who have the right to use the land and be approved and registered by the competent authority.

(3) a land holder may, useing his land use right, undertake development activity jointly with an investor in accordance with the contract he concludes, such contract shall be approved and registered by the competent authority.”

The Rural Land Administration and Utilization Proclamation No. 53/2003 of the SNNPRS in Part Tow, Article 6.5 provides for “By giving priority attention to peasant and the pastoralists; investors ... have the right to use in rural land based on the development objectives they present and plant of land vtilization”. Article 7.2 of the same law provides for “Any peasant or pastoralist has the right to lease the land under his possession when there is an agreement of the familly”. Sub-article 7.3 stipulates that "the right to take the land by lease is given only to investors who need to make their livelihood on agriculture, peasants and pastoralists". The need to issue a rule determining size of the land, type of the lease, contract duration has been stipulated under sub-article 7.4. Article 24 states that where any user of the land is found contravening this proclamation or rules issued on this proclamation, he shall be penalized in accordance with the pertinent law. Article 27 stipulates that "Any law, rule and customers practices contradicting with this proclamation shall not be applicable regarding the provisions of this proclamation. When the bio-fuel (agro-fuel) feed stock production in the Wolaitta zone is seen against the above mentioned legal frameworks, one can easily comprehend that most of the legal provisions are not respected. For instance, the said contract agreement between GEE and farmers was not concluded with legal landholders-smallholder farmers, but with chairmen of respective peasant associations. Moreover, the contract agreement was not approved and registered by concerned authority. In all administrative aspects, both the zonal and woreda officials are responsible. However, when it comes to the agro-fuel feedstock production, the companies do not have proper working relationship with neither the zonal nor the woreda administration bodies. As a result, the latter could not monitor or follow-up the detailed activities and implementation of the said production processes or they are not aware of what is happening with respect to land possession by the GEE in particular.

16

Even if we assume that the said contract agreement is approved and registered with concerned competent authority, it would not be legal, especially in view of sub-article 7.3 of proclamation No. 53/2003 of the SNNPR, which states that: “ ..... the right to take the land by lease is given only to investors who need to make their livelihood on agriculture, peasants and pastoralists”. While sub-article 6.4 of the proclamation provides for: "The right of getting land for communal use of both peasant and the pastoralists, that is, for grazing, social and cultural affairs and religion shall be reserved", the community around Mancha site of the Sun Bio-fuel, in Dana PA of Offa Woreda, complained that they are denied the right to graze cattle and collect fire wood other resources from the communal land after it has been handed over to the said company. 4.1.5 Impact on Labor conditions The two companies claim that they have created job opportunities to the rural communities in the study areas and more jobs will be created in accordance with the expansion of their activities. However, data on the actual number of new jobs created, contract agreements with laborers, salary scale, safety measures, insurance and other fringe benefits could not be obtained either from the community members or from the companies. As the respondents in Mancha area said, they are being paid 9.00 (nine) ETB (about 1 USD) a days for 15 days in a month, by the Sun Biofuel Company, with the assumption that they would work on their land for the rest of 15 days of the month. If appropriate systems and legal measures are not put in place, and policy makers do not closely follow-up the whole process, it seems to be likely that the impact on labor conditions of the community would be more severe. 5. Suitability of the proposed area for jatropha and castor plantation 5.1. Ecological Suitability According to Shiva (2008:23) jatropha and castor can grow in arid to semi arid conditons. They can withstand long periods of drought and can also be grown on stony and shallow soil. And hence, it has been claimed the study areas due to their aridity and semi-aridity natural conditions are ecologically suitable to cultivate biodiesel plants. However, field observation in the three woredas indicated that both GEE and Sun Biofuel companies used good firlile lands but not marginal or waste lands. Especially GEE used farm land of smallholder farmers for castor cultivation. Sun Biofuel used fertile grazing land for Jatropha cultivation. With the motivation to harvest more yield, they choosed fertile lands which could have been used for other food crops. In addtion GEE officers reported that castor can grow on any kind of land but it loves to grow on good fertile and to give high yield. Therefore, the ecological suitability of the proposed area was not in accordance with general argument for growing biodiesel plants or government intentions.

5.2 Socioeconomic Suitability Although bio-diesel could be made from a broad spectrum of crops like oil palm, soy bean, count, rapeseed, groundnuts, sesame, sun flower, castor and Jatropha, some researcher's advice the use of jatropha in the African context. The main reason behind is that jatropha is said grow under poor environmental conditions and it is not in the food chain. Growing castor by making use of fertile farm lands of small holder farmers of Wolaitta means adding an insult to the injury of the people who have been suffering from food insecurity for many years. Therefore, growing

17

jatropha and castor on the fertile lands would not be suitable socially and economically for the community. 6. Attitude towards jatropha and castor plantation in the study areas Different stakeholders have different attitudes depending on their exposure and expectations from the said investment. 6.1. Attitude of the local people Most of the farmers in the study areas said that:

• they agreed to grow castor on their fertile farm land mainly because they were instructed to do so by the government officials, mainly development agents (DAs);

• the development agents, from respective agriculture and rural development desks, who were advising them on how to increase agricultural production and productivity, are the one who came with GEE and told them that more benefits would be gained if they grow the said castor;

• some of them even do not know the existence of contract agreement except they would benefit from the selling of castor beans, of course after deducting the cost of fertilizer and hybrid seeds;

• denial of inter-cropping by the GEE is not fair as it has been agreed at the beginning; • there would be disagreement on the sale of castor bean after harvest as there is no

consensus on fixed price; • the advantage from planting different crops would be much more advantageous had it

been not an instruction from government; • For instance, W/ro Wogare Alambo, an elder woman farmer in the Sorto PA of Kindo

Koysha woreda said that they “accepted castor as a better option introduced by the government to improve livelihood and the end result kerosene would be used as a household energy source. Otherwise castor can’t be eaten like other crops”.

• Other farmers in Mancha area, surrounding the Sun Biofuel site, said that even if farmers are adversely affected due to denial of grazing land and collection of fire wood for the land is allotted for jatropha cultivation, they could not forward any demand as the decision is made by the government.

6.2 Attitude of local government bodies Government officials at all levels are:

• positive on the benefit of biofuels, especially due to its claimed potential to diversify energy source, rural development, to address problems related with climate change, improve the livelihoods of rural population, etc.

• in agreement that they could not closely follow-up and establish working relationships with the companies;

• cooperating with the companies wholeheartedly with the assumption that all necessary verifications are done at higher levels;

• not aware of lack of copies of contract agreements with individual farmers; • not aware from the beginning that the farmers are denied the right to inter crop; • not happy with the local brain drain of DAs due to pull factor from the GEE; • in agreement and committed to monitor the companies and establish working

relationships.

18

6.3 Attitudes of the Companies Efforts have been made to consult with representatives of both companies. Only the GEE representatives cooperated to some extent. Accordingly, the following points could be summarized from discussions:

• as soon as they settled the financial constraint they encountered at present, they will shift to the large scale castor production on the land obtained from the government;

• supplied hybrid castor seed and fertilizer free of charge to farmers to take up castor cultivation for the next three years;

• castor should be seen as other cash crops like tobacco; • entered in to a written agreement with farmers through their representative/ chief kebele

administrator; • farmers are not allowed to sell the castor seeds to anybody else, except GEE; • inter cropping is not encouraged as it might result in low yield and resultant decrease of

number of farmers in the next season; • The farmers will be paid the market price competitive with maize, at the harvest time; • in all standards they are doing their best to bring about livelihood improvement to the

local community; and • until this report is compiled, they could not show the project document and the contract

agreement with the pretext they are legal document and company secret. 7. Conclusion and Recommendation 7.1 Conclusion Wolaitta is a densely populated zone with average density of 360 people/km². Average land holding is 0.33ha. 92% of about the 1.7 million population lives in rural areas and dependent on agro-biodiversity based, inter-cropping, mixed and double farming. Usually, a farmer in Wolaitta grows about 22 types of different food crops on his//her small holder farm land. None the less, 678,761 or 39.31% of the total population are food insecure or needy of emergency food aid attributing to different factors. In spite of this alarming situation, the two companies namely, Sun Biofuels and Global Energy Ethiopia (GEE) are engaged in the production of fuel feed stocks mainly jatropha and castor in the three Woredas covered in this study. Sun Biofuel is growing jatropha on 3,000 ha of land at Mancha site in Offa Woreda. GEE is growing castor on 2,350 ha fertile farm land of 9,215 small holder farmers in the three Woreads. Promotion of bio-fuels feedstock production is believed to have several potential benefits like diversifying energy source, rural development, addressing climate change, improving livelihoods of rural population and etc. Yet, as learnt from physical observation, there are potential challenges for the poor in the study areas. It can lead to a loss of agro-biodiversity, excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides, thereby degrading the land and water that poor farmers depend on. For people in Wolaitta, with a limited natural resource base, bio-fuels could divert land and water away from the production of food and feed thereby increasing food insecurity. There is no clear contract agreement between the GEE and the farmers. This resulted in confusion on the initiative as if it is a government order. The price of castor at harvest is not yet

19

20

fixed. This led to arbitrary decision making by the GEE for instance to deny inter-cropping in spite of agreement in the beginning and to introduce fluctuating and self contradicting prices. Generally, there are varying attitudes towards the ongoing feed stock production in the study areas. The socio-economic benefit of the land outweighs if food crops are grown than the expected advantage from castor production. As the castor is grown in agro-biodiversity ecology, it is not that likely there would be big adverse impact on the environment. The import permits of jatropha and castor seeds could not be found with the competent authority but Kenaf, which has been planted in the two demonstration fields with the knowledge of the local government bodies. The increased use of hybrids seeds, synthetic fertilizer, pesticides and other chemicals might be the threat of agro-biodiversity. 7.2 Recommendations In order to make use of the opportunities from biofuel feed stock production, and improve the livelihood of the poor people in the study woredas and beyond, the researchers would like to recommend the following points.

1. The cultivation of jatropha and castor at the cost of food crops should be stopped; 2. The marginal or waste lands should be clearly demarcated and allocated for biofuel

feedstock production with full participation of the local community; 3. Farmers should be clearly consulted and growing fuel feedstocks production on their own

marginal lands should be implemented on their consensus and full prior informed agreement without affecting their fertile land for food crop production;

4. The current land allocation pattern needs to be revised in line with the existing laws and policies;

5. Precautionary principle should be applied before blindly promoting agrofuels in Wolaitta; 6. Concerned government bodies should closely follow-up and monitor the whole process

of feedstock production in Wolaitta zone; 7. Comprehensive participatory assessments of all impacts including social, cultural and

environmental aspects, should be undertaken periodically;

21

References: Ashebir Borena. (2008), Project proposal on raising the income of poor households in Damot Woyde Woreda.

http://www.academicjournals.org/INGOJ/PDF/Pdf2008/January/Borena.pdf Ayele Tessema. (2005), Household livelihood adaptation in a high population density area in Ethiopia: The case of

Wolaita Zone. PhD Proposal in Development Studies Submitted to the Centre for International Environment and Development (NORAGRIC), Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB). www.umb.no/statisk/noragric/staff_cv/phd_tessema_proposal.pdf

Braun J. von and R.K. Pachauri. (2006), The Promises and Challenges of Biofuels for the Poor in Developing Counties” by, IFPRI 2005-2006 Annual Report Essay, November 2006. http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/energy/biofuels/ sessions/ s4 05 von braun biofuel spoorbrussels_5-7-07.pdf

CARE Ethiopia. (November 2005), Food and Livelihood Security Situation Monthly Update for twelve Woredas of East Hararghe, West Hararghe, East Shoa, Borena and Afar http://www.ocha-eth.org/Reports/downloadable/CARENovember2005Food&LivelihoodSit. Updatefinal.pdf

CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) (May 2008), Conference of the Parties to the Ninth Meeting. The Potential Impacts of Biofuels on Biodiversity : Matters arising from SBSTTA recommendation XII/7. Note by the Executive Secretary. Bonn, Germany.

Carswell, Grace Livelihood. (2001), Diversification increasing in importance: Evidence from southern Ethiopia. Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.

Cotula, Lorenzo, Nat Dyer & Sonja Vermeulen. (2008), Fuelling exclusion? The Bio-Fuels Boom and Poor People’s Access to Land. London: International Institute for Environment and Development and Published by Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. www.iied.org/pubs/pdfs/12551IIED.pdf

Ellis, F., 2000, Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Eyasu E. Is soil fertility declining? (ND) http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdfs/7390IIED.pdf Eyasu Elias. (2003), Case Studies on Genetic Diversity, Coffee and Soil Erosion in Ethiopia. Paper prepared for the

Roles of Agriculture International Conference 20-22 October, 2003 – Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization

GoE (Government of Ethiopia). 1971, A Decree to Provide for Plant Protection. Dcree No. 56/1971. 30th Year Number 33. Addis Ababa,

September 4, 1971. 1992 Plant Quarantine Regulation of the Council of Ministers. Regulation No. 4/1992. 52nd Year, Number

2. Addis Ababa. October 2, 1992. 1995 The Constitution of the Federal Democratic of republic of Ethiopia. Proclamation no. 1/1995. 1997 Seed Regulation of the Council of Ministers. Regulation No. 16/1997. 3rd Year, Number 31. Addis

Ababa. March 10, 1997. 2000, Seed Proclamation No. 206. 6th Year No.36 Addis Ababa – June 6, 2000. 2005 Rural Land Administration and Land Use Proclamation No. 456/2005. 11th Year, Number 44. Addis

Ababa July 15, 2005. SNNPRS (Southern Nations, nationalities and Peoples’ regional State)

2001 The Revised Constitution of the Souther nations, nationalities and peoples’ regional State. Proclamation No. 35/2001.

2003, Rural Land Administration and Utilization Proclamation No. 53/2003. 8th Year Number 2. Awassa, March 1, 2003.

IFRCRC (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent). May 2008, Ethiopia: Food Insecurity. http://www.ifrc.org/docs/appeals/08/MDRET005.pdf

Paulos Dubale. (2001), Soil and Water Resources and Degradation Factors Affecting Productivity in Ethiopian Highland Agro-Ecosystems Northeast African Studies - Volume 8, Number 1, 2001 (New Series), pp. 27-51

Pound, Barry & Ejigu Jonfa (Editors). (2005), Soil Fertility Practices in Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia: Learning from Farmers. Policy & Research Series. http://www.farmafrica.org.uk/documents/72.PDF

Rothkopf, Garten. (2007), A Blueprint for Green Energy in the Americas. http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=945768

Shiva, Vandna. (2008), Food vs Fuel: The Economic and Ecological Costs of Industrial Biofuels. New Delhi: Systems Visison.

Sielhorst, Sven, Jan Willem Molenaar and Don Offermans. (2008), Biofuels in Africa: An assessment of risks and benefits for African wetlands. http://www.wetlands.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=vPIIvbwvqTs%3D&language=en-US

22

Annex 1: List of Persons Interviewed During the Study

No Full Name Position Location

1 Abebe Dana Farmer, Mayo Offore PA, DWW Mayo Offore

2 Abushe Mana Farmer, Mayo Offore PA, DWW Head, DPPO, DWW Mayo offore

3 Achame Abebe Woman farmer haworara Kamobeta

4 Adisu Waldasa Youth farmer at Dana PA Dana PA

5 Alemayehu Tefera Administration Office Head Offa Woreda Gesuba

6 Almaz Lema (F) Farmer, Sorto PA, KKW Sorto

7 Amarech Bikamo Woman Farmer /trader Sodo Zuria

8 Amenech Tube Tura Head, ARD Desk KKW Belle

9 Asrat Tamirat Youth farmer haworara Kamobeta

10 Ayelech Malabo Woman/Consumer Sodo Zuria

11 Bachana Baltu Former, Kindo koysha Sero Esho

12 Balcha Enaro Farmer, Dakaya PA, Offa Dakaya

13 Balcha Falte Farmer, Mayo Offore PA, DWW Mayo Offore

14 Belete Bergena Administration justice and security Team Leader of Wolaitta zone Administration

Wolaitta Soddo

15 Berhanu Bitine Farmer, Mayo Offore PA, DWW Mayo Offore

16 Berhanu Moliso Representative, ARDD. D/W/W Bedesa

17 Bezabih Zaza Deputy Administrator, Kindo Koysha Woreda Belle

18 Birhanu Abera Farmer Mencha PA, Offa Mencha

19 Birke Bachore (F) Farmer, Dana PA, Offa Dana

20 Dargaso Balcha Farmer, Dakaya PA, Offa Dakaya

21 Dawit Borko Farmer, Mayo Offore PA, DWW Mayo Offore

22 Dawit Yitbarek Expert, Aniual Husabandry Offa Woreda ARDD Gesuba

23 Demeke Chemesa Chairman, Sorto peasant Association Kindo Koysha Sorto

24 Derese Kelkay Team Leaders, crop production ARDD, KKW Belle

25 Fekade Sellasse Beza Agriculture and Rural Development Department of Wolaitta zone Wolaitta Soddo

26 Feleka Fanta Farmer, Dakaya PA, Offa Dakaya

27 Haile Berhan Zena Administrator, Wolaitta zone Wolaitta Soddo

28 Hailu Dogiso Farmer, Dakaya PA, Offa Dakaya

29 Isayas Enna Biliso Administration office Head K.K Belle

30 Jian Carlo Chief Administrator of GEE Addis Ababa Office A.A

31 Labiso Deputy Administrator DWW Bedesa

23

32 Malale Aymalo Woman Farmer Wachika PA Sodo Zuria

33 Marknch Goaa DA, currently working with the GEE KK office Bele

34 Mathewos Balcha Manager, Global Energy Ethiopia office, Administration and Finance

Wolaitta Soddo

35 Mathewos Meja Expert,AADD of wolaita zone Sodo

36 Mathewos Tona Expert, crop production ARDD, KKW Belle

37 Medhin Mandacho Offa Woreda Sere Esho

38 Mengistu Markos Farmer, Mayo Offore PA, DWW Mayo Offore

39 Meskerem Abraham Woman Farmer/trader Wachika PA W/Soddo

40 Milka Kassa Farmer, Sorto PA, KKW Sorto

41 Mogh Moliso Farmer Mencha PA, Offa Mencha

42 Mr. Hanan GEE Representative Wolaitta Soddo

43 Mr. Imani GEE Representative Wolaitta Soddo

44 Mr. Khanan GEE Representative Wolaitta Soddo

45 Nega Angore Economic and Social Affairs Advisor to the zonal Administrator Wolaitta Soddo

46 Paulos Bergena Farmer in Mancha PA Offa

47 Petros Ujulo Farmer, Mayo Offore PA, DWW Mayo Offore

48 Solomon Toma Expert, DPPO Offa Woreda Gesuba

49 Tadese Gebo Guard at sun bio-fuel Mancha site Offa

50 Tadese Moliso Farmer at Sorto PA Kindo Koysha

51 Tadese Unbe Farmer, Mayo Offore PA, DWW Mayo Offore

52 Tantasa Bikamo ARDD, Offa Woreda Gesuba

53 Temesgen Tekele Child Farmer on castor farm Mancha Offa

54 Tekle Gebre Farmer Mencha PA, Offa Mencha

55 Tesfaye Chemeta Head, Administration, justice and Security Affairs, DWW Bedesa

56 Uka Tigo Farmer Offa

57 W/Tsadik Anjulo Former, Kindo Koysha Sero Esho

58 Wogare Alambo Woman Farmer Sorto PA KK

59 Worana Dunda Now joined GEE Bedesa

60 Yigezu Yilma Farmer, Sorto PA, KKW Sorto

61 Yohannes Lemma Manager, Sorto Peasant Association of Kindo Koysha Sorto

62 Yonas Hernano Chief Administrator, Offa Woreda Gesuba

63 Zinash H/michael Expert, Disaster Prevention and Preparedness, KKW Belle