Cmdrr best practise of acord trocaire

Community Managed Disaster Risk

Reduction (CMDRR) as an approach to build

resilient Pastoralist Community in Dire

District of Borena Zone

European Union

WORKING FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE IN AFRICA

Building a Pan African Social Movement

Building Resilient Pastoralist Communityproject- funded by EC/Trocaire/Cordaid◦ Implemented by a consortium of five partner

ACORD, SOS, AFD, GPDI & CIFA Ethiopia

Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) project-funded by ECHO/Cordaid◦ Implemented by ACORD, AFD & SOS Ethiopia

3

To build resilient, resistant and safecommunity

◦ High level of survivability & readiness ofcommunity to drought & conflict hazards

◦ Cohesive community organization (CMDRRCos) became functional to manage hazardevents and reduced the impact of hazards

4

The two projects through which the CMDRRmethodologies have been implemented in 8Pas of Dire district including one crossborder PA

Using the CMDRR approach 27,530 (13,720F) people of Dire Woreda people planned tobe benefited from the rangelandreclamations & cross border naturalresource utilization dialogues.

5

Community Managed Disaster Risk Reduction(CMDRR) is a development approach ofmobilizing & bringing together of people withinthe same community to enable them tocollectively address a common disaster risk andcollectively pursue disaster risk reductionmeasures

In CMDRR approach community is primaryagent of change where as implementingagencies & other stakeholders like GO lineoffices are the facilitators towards ensuringresilience of the most at risk.

6

1.Site entry and rapport building –the development worker established a constructive relationship with the people

2. Community Risk Assessment

2.1 Community Hazard Assessment –understands the nature and behaviour of particular hazards cause of hazards, warning & forewarning signs & signals

2.2 Community Vulnerability Assessment – to understand the extent to which different categories of people, their assets and basic service providing facilities are exposed to a hazard.

7

2.3 Community Capacity Assessment- to identify the resources present in individuals, households and the community to cope with, mitigate or recover from a disaster

2.4 Risk analysis-to identify capacity gaps

3. Identification of high risk groups

4. . Identification of natural leaders of high risk groups

(CMDRR Committee)

5. Validation of results of community disaster risk analysis-with the wider community

6. Planning of the risk reduction measures- all done with community

8

9

conduct participatory disaster riskassessment (PDRA) which addresses hazard,vulnerability & capacity assessments andrisk analysis,

develop DRR measures (development andcontingency plans),

implement DRR measures

monitor and evaluate the outcome of thedevelopment projects.

10

Drought

Conflict

Animal disease

11

On top of the recurrent drought happeningevery two years, the expansion of thornybushes across the well known savannah grasslands of Borena weakened the resilience of thepastoralist community

Despite the ideal boundary between the crossborder communities, they share resources likewater and pasture which sometimes resulted inconflict that damaged the lives and livelihoodof the Borena (Ethiopia) & Gebra (Kenya)communities for years

12

1. Rangeland revitalization in Did Jarsa PA

2. Common natural resource utlization dialogues between Megado (Ethiopia) & Forolle (Kenya) communities

13

Inputs from ACORD/community

tools for bush clearing

training on CMDRR for CMDRR committee

training on rangeland management and resource utilization

Community mobilization by CMDRR committee

Labour from community with 30% free contribution

14

Did Jarsa is the model PAs engaged in rangelandreclamation and effective utilization of thereclaimed land.

140 hectares of reserve pasture had served thecommunity to cope with the drought caused as aresult of 2011 ganna rain failure.

The management was through cut and cry systemand a total of 2,926 bail/105,336 kg of hay hasharvested.

If it was bought from sululta the estimated valueswere 790,020 Birr

15

418HHs have benefited from the reserved pasture

a total of 1800 breading animals have supported for about one month of severe drought time

500 cattle have got survival feed during the critical drought period.

16

This best practice has been replicated in two neighbouring PAs like Semero & Megado in which the community harvest and conserve to use during the drought period

Above all it was an attitudinal change that was built in which the community perceive selective bush clearing as a difficult task before.

17

A good evidence for this is in Dire district HodhodhSemero PAs through DRR3 project the plannedactivities through cash for work was to reclaim400ha rangeland But assuming that they are theprimary agent for their own development, theCMDRR committee mobilized the community &reclaimed an additional area of 659 ha freely without any cash

This is about 165% of the planned activities and theCMDRR committee is active in ensuring itssustainability even after phasing out of the project

18

19

Inputs from ACORD

Financial & logistic support for forumparticipants

Discussion with Dire Woreda security officewho coordinate the forum

Awareness creation for the CMDRRcommittee on resolving the dispute onnatural resource utilization

20

Conflict between Borena ethnic group aroundboarder woredas and Gebra Ethnic group fromnorth Kenya around Forolle was considered as oneof the major challenge for both side pastoralcommunities.

The front line target community of the hazard isthe Magado community of Ethiopia and ForolleCommunity of Kenya.

Natural resource utilization, especially pasture andwater is thought to be the major cause of theconflict between the two communities.

Megado is relatively good in water resource andForolle is better in pasture

21

Conflict was identified as the 2nd hazardduring PDRA

DRR measures were developed by CMDRRcommittee with the validation of the targetcommunities

Cross border natural resource dialogueforum was planned as one of the DRRmeasures

Establishment of peace committees thatcomprises the CMDRR committee memberswas also set as a priority

22

On average 200 people from both sidesparticipated on the dialogue.

The participants from Kenya were Chalbi district,Forolle, Torbi and Badda Hurii divisions

From Ethiopia Dire, Miyo, Dilo woredas attendedthe dialogue.

Government representatives from Forolle of KenyaDire, Dilo, Miyo woredas and from Borena Zonewere among the participants of the dialogue.

Representatives from the Geda leaders had alsoparticipated in the dialogue.

23

Regular natural resource utilization dialogue heldbetween Borena and Gebra tribes living across theEthio-Kenya border resulted in socio-economicbenefits to both communities.

It increased economical relationships among thetwo groups by creating a livestock marketing chainin both sides through the livestock marketingcooperative found at Megado PAs of Dire Woreda.

As a result of the peace established between thetwo community livestock move freely across theborder for water and pasture

24

Peace committee was selected to further managetheir resource commonly.

The committees are responsible to decide the waythey use and manage resources commonly

The peace committee has monthly meeting todiscuss on the overall peace issues between the twocommunities

Since three years no conflict reported between thetwo cross border community

25

Such risk reduction approach is indeed what the target communities wish and want to share their experience for the other cross border community

26

27

28

29

30

31

THANK YOU!