Article

The Journal of Environment &

Integrating Climate Development
2025, Vol. 34(1) 266–287
© The Author(s) 2024
Change Adaptation, Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Disaster Risk Reduction, DOI: 10.1177/10704965241289525
journals.sagepub.com/home/jed
and Social Protection for
Enhanced Resilience:
Evidence from the Somali
Region, Ethiopia

Getahun Fenta Kebede1 ,

Belay Womber Gurmu2, and
Zerihun Berhane Weldegebriel1

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

1
Center for African and Asian Studies, College of Social Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia
2
Department of Sociology, Jigjiga University, Jigjiga, Ethiopia

Corresponding Author:
Getahun Fenta Kebede, Center for African and Asian Studies, Addis Ababa University, Algeria Street,
P.O.Box 1176, Addis Ababa 1176, Ethiopia.
Email: [email protected]
Kebede et al. 267

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

Introduction
Due to their geographic location, low wages, and increased dependence on climate-
sensitive sectors, mainly agriculture, rural livelihoods in developing countries are
exposed to hazards related to climate change (CC) (Stern et al., 2006). There is growing
evidence that CC increases the occurrence and intensity of climate-related threats and
the level and patterns of inter-related risks. Poverty and social impacts are likely
profound and will affect people through various direct and indirect paths, such as
employment risks, conflict and displacement, and negative spirals (Field & Barros,
2014). CC will also force people to adopt unhealthy coping mechanisms like reducing
food intake, selling assets, and pulling kids out of school (Adger et al., 2002; Heltberg
et al., 2009). While CC, particularly drought, strongly affects both pastoralists and
farmers, the impact is greater on pastoralists for many reasons. First, they are most
common in the lowlands, where drought events are more likely to occur. Second, they
encounter several additional non-climatic obstacles, such as reduced soil fertility,
inadequate infrastructure, and the effect of ill-suited policies for managing natural
resources (Adgeret al., 2002; Davies et al., 2008; Tofu et al., 2023).
Ethiopia’s economy depends on agriculture, making it susceptible to natural di-
sasters. In addition to the nation’s reliance on rain-fed agriculture, many interconnected
problems, including underutilization of water resources, soil degradation, a lackluster
economy, and weak institutions, contribute to the nation’s susceptibility to natural
disasters (Gezie, 2019). CC studies conducted in Ethiopia show that vulnerability to
cyclic hazards is increasing, making livelihood resilience problematic (Teshome,
2016). Furthermore, regions affected by drought and desertification are growing
due to CC and human-induced variables. Drought is the most critical climate-related
hazard affecting the country. Drought occurs worldwide, but nowhere is it as bad as in
Africa, especially in Ethiopia (Devereux, 2006). High variability and uncertainty, with
frequent and severe droughts and floods, characterize the Ethiopian climate. Ethiopia is
also one of the most vulnerable countries to the effects of global warming, which is
expected to increase the occurrence and severity of extreme weather events, reduce
rainfall and soil moisture, alter crop suitability and productivity, increase pest and
disease outbreaks, degrade natural resources, and increase water scarcity (USAID,
2022).
To address the vulnerability of the poor to various calamities, the Government of
Ethiopia (GoE) has formulated various interventions by designing social protection
(SP), disaster risk reduction (DRR), and climate change adaptation (CCA) policies and
programs/projects (Ogato, 2013). The most widely known SP program in Ethiopia is
the Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP). PSNP aims to lessen the exposure of
poor households to CC risks. PSNP is a major component of the food security program,
268 The Journal of Environment & Development 34(1)

and it is supplemented by household asset-building activities and risk-financing

possibilities to increase support in the event of emergencies (Weldegebriel &
Prowse, 2013; Welteji et al., 2017). The existing pastoral PSNP programs are,
however, not suitable for pastoral environments because agrarian program experiences
are applied in pastoral areas where basic government structures are in place and in-
frastructure is well established to deliver assistance. Pastoral areas also have different
social dynamics, making the application of agrarian experiences difficult (FDRE,
2012).
According to the UN, around 3.5 million people in the Somali Region1 are facing a
humanitarian crisis due to three consecutive below-average rainy seasons that have
caused severe drought, livestock deaths, food insecurity, and displacement. The region
has been one of the most affected by the climate crisis in the country, with floods and
droughts being major disasters. The flood crisis is linked to the riparian ecosystem,
which includes the Shebelle, Genale, and Dawa rivers. These rivers strongly affect the
surrounding communities, and different risk analysis reports and assessments cor-
roborate this conclusion (OCHA, 2022).
Ethiopia’s pastoral DRR landscape is composed of many interventions with the
involvement of many GOs and NGOs (UNDRR, 2022). The Pastoral Community
Development Project, the Pastoral Livelihoods Initiative, Complementary Community
Investment (CCI), the Humanitarian Response Fund, and the Household Asset
Building Programs are some of the programs used to manage disaster risks. In pas-
toralist areas, particularly, the Pastoral Community Development Program (PCDP) has
been in place to establish effective models of public service delivery, investment, and
DRR and to increase the resilience of pastoral communities to external shocks
(UNDRR, 2022).
In addition to SP and DRR interventions, a significant capacity has been built on
CCA. Mention can be made of the Climate-Resilient Green Economy Strategy
(CRGE). The CRGE Strategy (2011) was the first national policy document that
strategically focused on CC responses (Echeverrı́a & Terton, 2016). Before the CRGE
strategy, the Ethiopian Constitution; the 1997 Environmental Policy; the 2002 En-
vironmental Impact Assessment Proclamation; the 2003 Rural Development Policy and
Strategies (RDPS); the 2007 Forest Management, Development, and Utilization Policy;
the Forest Development, Conservation, and Utilization Proclamation (542/2007); the
207 National Adaptation Plan of Action (NAPA); the 2011 Ethiopian Program of
Adaptation to Climate Change (EPACC); and the 2010 Nationally Appropriate Mit-
igation Actions were in place as part of Ethiopia’s pledge to mitigate the effects of CC
(FDRE, 2022).
Although the GoE has to be acclaimed for its efforts to support pastoral livelihoods
by designing SP, DRR, and CCA measures, it still faces obstacles to overcoming the
problems of CC (FDRE, 2012). One of the challenges is the lack of coordination
between SP, DRR, and CCA institutions because of conflicting mandates, lack of local
responsiveness, and severe capacity shortages among government agencies. SP, DRR,
and CCA projects are multidimensional and have been overseen by various govern-
mental and nongovernmental (Addis & Assefa, 2013; FDRE, 2012). Thus, service
Kebede et al. 269

provisions have gaps in terms of standards, coverage, accessibility, complementarities

of programs, and institutional arrangements (FDRE, 2012). There are notable simi-
larities between the three frameworks in terms of conceptual understanding and im-
plementation. The problem is that distinct structures and processes are developed,
which results in duplication of efforts and wastage of limited resources (FDRE, 2012).
Therefore, there is a need to find ways in which the efforts of various institutions and
projects can be combined and integrated to build effective and sustainable climate-
resilient livelihoods (Addis & Assefa, 2013; FDRE, 2012).
Given the potential roles of the three frameworks, several studies have assessed the
role of SP, DRR, and CCA interventions in mitigating risks and building sustainable
livelihoods. Examination of PSNP interventions in Ethiopia shows that, even though
the program has increased food security and well-being, its benefits are insufficient to
fully protect participants from shocks (Béné et al., 2013). Likewise, a case study that
takes climate risks into account through drought insurance shows fairly modest positive
and negative changes in the frequency and amounts of beneficiaries and cash payments
with an extreme range of climate model projections of rainfall by the 2020s (Conway &
Schipper, 2011). However, no attention has been given to the question of how to
strengthen climate-resilient livelihoods by integrating the three frameworks through the
adoption of the adaptive social protection (ASP) approach. No possible ways of
merging the practice of SP, DRR, and CCA were examined to devise pastoral-based
ASP programs/projects in the Ethiopian context. The objective of this study is thus to
(a) explore whether SP, DRR, and CCA are integrated into development programs and
projects; (b) examine areas of duplication of activities in projects and programs; and (c)
identify appropriate institutional response options that can help pastoralists address the
challenges of CC and disaster risks.

Adaptive Social Protection Approach

LDCs experience a variety of climate-related shocks, such as floods and droughts, and
other financial, food, and commodity prices, as well as conflict-related stresses (Bowen
et al., 2020; Schnitzer, 2019). Global processes and CC crises are worsening the risks
faced by poor and vulnerable people in rural areas, mainly those engaged in agriculture
and other ecosystem-based livelihoods (Davies, Guenther, Leavy, Mitchell, & Tanner,
2009a, 2009b). Due to CC, the scale and frequency of shocks are predicted to rise,
severely impacting the pastoral poor. These pressures make it problematic for the poor
to shield their livelihoods, which frequently have long-term effects on their welfare
(Bowen et al., 2020; Schnitzer, 2019). Heavy reliance on subsistence farming and
pastoral activities means that rural people feel deeply the effects of CC shocks. This has
significant implications for welfare and livelihood security (Davies et al., 2009a,
2009b).
Demographic factors like migration and urbanization exacerbate the consequences
of climate-related disasters (Heltberg et al., 2009). Therefore, initiatives to address
poverty and vulnerability need to recognize not only CC-related challenges disturbing
the livelihoods of the poor but also socioeconomic factors that make people vulnerable
270 The Journal of Environment & Development 34(1)

(Béné et al., 2018). In such contexts, state and non-state actors are paying more at-
tention to policy solutions that seek to address the root causes of poverty and vul-
nerability as well as reduce the growing risk of climate shocks and the effects of
disasters (Devereux & Sabates-Wheeler, 2004; Heltberg et al., 2009; Shikur, 2020).
Consequently, three social policy approaches—CCA, DRR, and SP—have become
important (Davies et al., 2009a, 2009b; Heltberg et al., 2009).
One policy approach that has successfully shielded rural livelihoods from shocks is
SP (Béné et al., 2018; Farrington et al., 2004). According to Davies et al. (2009a,
2009b):7), SP describes “all initiatives that transfer income or assets to the poor, protect
the vulnerable against livelihood risks, and enhance the social status and rights of the
marginalized.” Its goal is to expand the fruits of economic growth while reducing the
socioeconomic exposure of marginalized people (Correa et al., 2023; Devereux &
Gorman, 2006; Devereux & Sabates-Wheeler, 2004; Jones et al., 2010). According to
Davies et al. (2009a, 2009b), this definition of SP provides four categories of in-
struments, including protective instruments (offer assistance in times of shortage),
preventive instruments (prevent scarcity), promotive instruments (improve earnings
and capabilities), and transformative instruments (attempting to tackle issues about
equality and marginalization) (Devereux & Sabates-Wheeler, 2004). Properly designed
SP interventions can support rural households not only to expand their asset positions
but also to use them efficiently and adopt lucrative activities (Correa et al., 2023).
DRR describes “the development and application of policies, strategies, and
practices that minimize vulnerabilities, hazards, and unfolding disaster impacts
throughout a society in the broad context of sustainable development” (Davies et al.,
2009a, 2009b:9). The goal of DRR interventions is to promote livelihood resilience by
preparing for and mitigating the effects of disasters, hazards, and shocks before they
occur. Beyond humanitarian and rehabilitation efforts, CCA focuses on averting and
diminishing the negative effects of disasters (Djalante, 2012; Madu et al., 2018). CCA
is concerned with reducing the threats that CC poses to an individual’s well-being and
economic activities. DRR targets making livelihoods more resilient to the effects of
disasters, hazards, and shocks before the occurrence of disasters (Smit & Pilifosova,
2003). It goes beyond humanitarian and rehabilitation interventions to thwart and
reduce disaster-related risks. The goal of CCA is to reduce the risks that CC poses to
people’s lives and means of subsistence (Turner, 2006). DRR programs/projects can
lessen the impacts of disasters or transfer burdens outside the affected community. In
agriculture, programs for DRR have been implemented to mitigate the effects of food
shortages and avert pervasive famine. These programs comprise initiatives such as
early warning systems, infrastructure investments, SP instruments, risk assessment and
awareness creation, environmental management strategies, education, and training
activities (Correa et al., 2023; Davies et al., 2009a, 2009b).
Due to their geographical location, lack of financial means, and reliance on eco-
nomic activities susceptible to CC, rural families in LDCs are more exposed to the
effects of CC than people in other countries (Praveen & Sharma, 2019). This situation
consequently gives rise to multiple risks that can hinder economic growth, poverty
reduction, and achievement of country-specific development goals in LDCs
Kebede et al. 271

(Abeygunawardena et al., 2004; Stern, 2006). In response to these problems, a growing

body of knowledge and practice has emerged around CCA to prepare for and respond to
CC. Reducing the hazards that CC poses to the lives of rural households is the goal of
CCA. CCA is all about the capacity to react and adapt to the actual or potential impacts
of CC conditions in ways that mitigate harm or capitalize on any opportunities that CC
may present (Akinyi et al., 2021; Smit & Pilifosova, 2003).
CCA and DRR are similar in that they both protect against the undesirable effects of
severe events. In addition to the current historic weather-related shocks, CC has ad-
ditional difficulties, such as increased heat waves, rising sea levels, storm severity, and
quick glacier retreat (Adger et al., 2002). Although risks associated with climate change
have always been a part of natural resource-dependent livelihoods, global processes,
and crises are transforming and intensifying the dangers for vulnerable rural households
engaged in agriculture (Davies et al., 2009a, 2009b; Gitz et al., 2016). Table 1 lists the
key characteristics of SP, CCA, and DRR.
The three approaches have much in common in that they are all concerned with
handling the threats that shocks pose to economic growth while creating resilient
communities. They make use of similar and complementary instruments, including
cash transfers, asset building, early warning, and the provision of improved crop
varieties, and often target the most vulnerable and chronically rural poor (Arnall et al.,

Table 1. Main Features of SP, CCA, and DRR

SP CCA DRR

Core Development and Social development Physical sciences and social

disciplinary welfare economics and physical development
grounding sciences
Dominant focus Implementation of Enabling processes of Prevention of disaster
measures to manage adaptation events and
risks preparedness to
respond
Main shocks Multiple-idiosyncratic Climate-related All natural hazard related
and stresses and covariant including climate and
addressed geophysical
International Informal and OECD UNFCC UN-ISDR Hyogo
coordination task group Framework for Action
Main funding Ad hoc multilateral and Coordinated Coordinated international
bilateral, NGOs, international funding-ISDR, GFDRR,
national community- funds-Global Red Cross, and ad hoc
based, and faith- environment civil-sponsored and
based organizations facility, UNFCC/ bilateral
Kyoto protocol
funds, and ad hoc
bilateral
Source: Davies, et al. (2009a). Adaptive social protection: Synergies for poverty reduction. IDS Bulletin, 39(4),
105–112.
272 The Journal of Environment & Development 34(1)

2010). Despite common elements, they have been practiced separately in Ethiopia and
other countries. However, if applied in isolation, they will not be sufficient given the
more complicated spectrum of threats that impoverished people confront (Davies et al.,
2009a, 2009b; Heltberg et al., 2009; Arnall et al., 2010). There are also many benefits to
exploring alternative strategies and determining how to maximize efficiency while
minimizing duplication of efforts and resources (Arnall et al., 2010). In light of this fact,
the ASP was developed by the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) and the UK
Department for International Development (DFID) to strengthen cost-effective, effi-
cient, climate-resilient, and disaster-resilient livelihoods. Researchers from the UK’s
IDS discovered that while DRR, SP, and CCA come from different backgrounds, all
three approaches aim at strengthening livelihood resilience and reducing exposure to
various factors, such as long-term changes in climate conditions and their distribution
over time and space (CCA), disasters and extreme events (DRR), and chronic poverty
(SP) (Davies et al., 2013).
The term ASP describes a set of policy measures that combine the fundamentals of
SP, DRR, and CCA in programs and projects to strengthen rural households’ resilience
against CC and disasters (Arnall et al., 2010; Davies et al., 2013). The principal
proposal of ASP is that synergies can be gained if SP, DRR, and CCA are brought closer
together (Ziegler, 2016). The three frameworks have many common elements in that
they reduce vulnerability to climate- and disaster-related shocks and enable rural
households to secure livelihoods. Given that shocks and stresses are increasingly
entwined, there are likely benefits to combining the three approaches (Vincent & Cull,
2012). The philosophy behind ASP is that more integration and knowledge exchange
across these three approaches would have a greater effect on vulnerable rural
households and help them escape poverty. The term represents the interconnectedness
of stresses and shocks and the possible synergies that may result from combining the
three approaches into one (Vincent & Cull, 2012) (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The concept of adaptive social protection. Source: Davies et al. (2013). Promoting
resilient livelihoods through adaptive social protection: Lessons from 124 programs in South
Asia. Development Policy Review, 31 (1), 27–58.
Kebede et al. 273

Research Methods
The objective of this study was to examine the links among SP, DRR, and CCA
approaches. To this end, a meta-analysis of 122 programs and/or projects implemented
in the Somali region was conducted.2 Programme and project documents were from
major government-run schemes, UN agencies, and NGOs. The documents were
collected from the region’s economic and development bureau. The programs/projects
were in different stages of implementation; 26 (21.3%) were at the initial stage, and 15
(12.2%) were phased out; however, the majority, that is, 81 (66.4%) were in progress
when the research was conducted. The reviewed programs/projects’ implementation
period spans from 2018 to 2023, with a gross budget of USD 3.5 billion. According to
the program/project documents, the interventions have directly or indirectly benefited
about 1.7 million people in the region.
The 122 programs/projects were characterized based on whether they used an SP,
DRR, or CCA strategy or a mixture of these strategies to build livelihood resilience. To
determine to which approach the programs/projects belong, we first assessed the
objectives of each program/project. Thus, based on the work of Davies et al. (2013), a
program/project is deemed to have an SP strategy if its primary goal is to lessen the
exposure of households to livelihood threats and shocks (e.g., enhancing the rights and
social standing of marginalized community groups) and whether it is employing SP
tools to accomplish its goals. DRR approaches are classified by their focus on natural
disasters. CCA strategies, on the other hand, are defined by their goal of supporting
vulnerable households in adapting to CC. It is to be known that specific projects are not
limited to a single strategy but can use a variety of activities to attain their objectives
(Davies et al., 2013). To identify programs/projects for the integrated strategy, we
consider programs/projects with clear goals and/or tools utilizing many approaches.
The identified categories were then assessed against the 3P-T (prevention, protection,
promotion, and transformation) framework.
Primary data were collected from primary sources in four woredas of the region:
Adigala, Afdem, and Harshen; Awbere; and Jigjiga town. Primary data were gathered
using KIIs (12) and FGDs (3). Key informants and focus group discussion participants
were selected using purposive and snowball sampling techniques. The KII and FGD
participants were pastoralists and members of the wider rural community, as well as GO
and NGO officials working on pastoral livelihoods in the selected woredas3 and Jigjiga
town. After collecting data from both primary and secondary sources, quantitative data
were analyzed using descriptive statistics, whereas qualitative data were analyzed
thematically.

Results and Discussion

Distribution of Evaluated Programs and Projects
In this section, we present the distribution of programs/projects in the Somali region. As
shown in Figure 2, the majority of programs/projects were located in the Fafen Zone
274 The Journal of Environment & Development 34(1)

Figure 2. Distribution of programs/projects by zone, Somali region, Ethiopia. Source: Somali

Regional State, Bureau of Planning and Economic Development, 2023.

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

Integration of Social Protection, Disaster Risk Reduction, and Climate Change

Adaptation Programs and Projects
The fundamental motive for this study is the belief that SP, DRR, and CCA programs
and projects are exercised separately despite their common goal of reducing rural
households’ vulnerability. The three approaches have developed their objectives and
are managed by different government structures. CCA, for example, is placed and
managed by the Ministry or Bureau of Agriculture and Environment Protection,
whereas DRR is placed in the Disaster Risk Management Commission. Social pro-
tection, on the other hand, is conferred on the Ministry or Bureau of Labor and Social
Kebede et al. 275

Affairs. International Organizations and NGOs have replicated and used similar
arrangements.
The goal of this study is to determine how SP, DRR, and CCA can be combined
in practice and to discuss the lessons that can be used in future vulnerability re-
duction efforts. Out of the reviewed 122 projects and programs, 98 (80%) were
determined to be implementing a single approach (low integration)4 (see Figure 3);
22 (18%) of the programs/projects have integrated two approaches (medium in-
tegration); and a small proportion, that is, 2 (1.6 %) have integrated all three
approaches (high integration), which is the ASP approach. This implies that the
level of combination of the three approaches and the practice of ASP is insignificant
in the region. As shown in Figure 3(b), the SP approach took the lead in the
programs/projects, accounting for 50 (41%) of the projects. The DRR approach
accounted for 46 (37.7%) of the examined projects, whereas the CCA accounted for
only 2%. From here, we can learn that among the analyzed programs/projects, the
majority have adopted the SP and DRR approaches. CCA interventions are the least
recognized sector in programs/projects. A higher level of integration was observed
in the SP and DRR programs than in the SP and CCA and DRR and CCA programs/
projects.
DRR and SP are the most common mix-ups of approaches in programs/projects. SP
and DRR programs/projects tend to integrate more than CCA. In contrast, CCA and the
other two approaches—SP and DRR—are not integrated. The results show that ASP
programs/projects (the integration of the three approaches) are lacking. At times, when
SP is integrated, it is primarily observed with DRR. In summary, the document analysis
shows that GOs, NGOs, and development agencies did not create any links between the
three approaches. The absence of linkages has limited the benefits that can be obtained
from integrating the three approaches. In addition, the coverage of such initiatives is
sparse in terms of policy framework.

Figure 3. Distribution of projects and programs integrating SP, DRR, and CCA approaches.
Source: Somali Regional State, Bureau of Planning and Economic Development, 2023.
276 The Journal of Environment & Development 34(1)

When we look at the combination of SP-DRR interventions, scholars (e.g., Hellmuth

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

Duplication of Program and Project Activities

In addition to the fragmentation and absence of linkages between SP, DRR, and CCA
programs/projects, our analysis revealed a problem of duplication of activities by
several projects and programs. In this regard, participants in the FGDs indicated that
similar activities or interventions were in place in the region through different programs
and projects. FGD participants, for example, raised concerns that there are duplications
among the various phases of the Pastoral Community Development Program (PCDP),
PSNP (Productive Safety Net Program), DRSLP (Drought Resilience Sustainability
Livelihood Program), and the RPLRP (Regional Pastoral Livelihood Resilience
Project), among others. We also identified that the objectives of each of these programs/
projects have different names but are similar in terms of their intervention areas and
strategies, except for a few variations in technical and institutional arrangements. The
information collected from the KIIs also indicated that there were overlaps in activities
between the aforementioned programs.
A review of the objectives of the two programs (PSNP and PCDP) indicates that they
are not completely similar in all aspects, yet there are overlapping activities between the
two. Although the technical languages of the two documents exhibit a certain degree of
disparity, the fundamental strategic and policy goals fall under the same pipeline.
Discussions with experts at different levels indicated that the two programs are highly
similar but are managed by different institutional structures. For instance, PSNP’s
public works and HABP’s livelihood support activities are based on community de-
velopment plans that are developed in collaboration with PCDP and PSNP but not a
single process. When programs flow down to the lower-level units for implementation,
they usually converge toward the same pattern, which eventually leads to the dupli-
cation of efforts.
There are both geographic and activity overlaps between the PSNP, PCDP,
HABP (Household Asset Building Program), and WaSH programs. To begin with,
PSNP combines unconditional cash transfers and employment in public works. A
complementary intervention identified in this program is public works through
payment transfer. Similar to this, there are corresponding PCDP interventions,
namely, investments in public service infrastructure through the Community In-
vestment Fund (CIF). For the two programs, there is a shared implementing
Kebede et al. 277

institution at the lower levels. What is apparent in this regard is that there is a
coordination deviation.
When it comes to other programs like HABP, it focuses mainly on the identifi-
cation and creation of income-generating activities (IGAs) for chronically food-
insecure households. In light of this, there are also other programs like PCDP to
identify and develop viable IGAs for households identified for support through
discussions with the community. HABP also focuses on promotion and capacity
building for Rural Savings and Credit Cooperatives (RuSACCOs), which are sim-
ilarly implemented in PCDP. Concomitant with this, there are other projects sup-
porting cooperatives with support similar to RuSACCOs. The other similar
intervention identified was infrastructure development implemented by both the
PCDP and WaSH programs. RPLRP (Regional Pastoral Livelihoods Resilience
Project) also emphasizes livestock value chain development, controlling domestic
and cross-border livestock diseases, and the development of natural resources. These
activities are also implemented through PCDP and PSNP interventions. The other
area where duplication of efforts identified was the Community Investment Fund
(CIF) for PCDP and public works for PSNP.
Discussions with GO and NGO representatives revealed that project-
implementing agencies and oversight bodies are fairly similar, especially for ini-
tiatives that use decentralized and participatory techniques. For example, the structure
and capacity of the food security task forces of PSNP at the woreda and kebele5 levels
and the woreda and kebele development committees of PCDP, NNP (National
Nutrition Program), and CBN (Community-Based Nutrition) are very alike. Simi-
larly, PCDP, RuFIP (Rural Financial Intermediation Program), and HABP use the
FCA (Financial Conduct Authority) and related structures to implement support for
RuSACCOs. Considering the nature of the project’s oversight and implementation, it
could therefore be carried out together. Relatedly, most of the projects do capacity-
building interventions aimed at enhancing the implementation capacities of their
implementers. To attain this goal, they approach the same agencies for support with
the same objectives, resulting in duplication of effort, double indictment of resources,
and reduced effectiveness.
As previously mentioned, PCDP, PSNP, HABP, and RuFIP have complementary
and overlapping activities. These should be organized in tandem to minimize dupli-
cation of efforts and capitalize on existing synergies. The execution process excludes
instruments to learn and share best practices, which would contribute to further success
at all levels. Additionally, to support the implementation capacity of the government at
woreda levels, some programs/projects (e.g., PSNP, HABP, and PCDP) have parallel
arrangements. One of the main problems described by the FGD participants because of
the parallel implementation of activities is the loss of ownership and difficulty in
identifying a single institution.
Associated with the duplication of efforts and costs is the overlapping of using
community structures to implement programs/projects. Communities and CBOs
function as implementing agencies for the different programs/projects. CBOs are
involved in need identification, appraisal of problems, implementation of programs/
278 The Journal of Environment & Development 34(1)

projects, and monitoring and evaluation. Implementation of programs/projects at the

community level involves kebele development committees. As such, the socio-
economic problems that the committees identify for various programs/projects do
overlap. The interview results indicated that there are overlapping socioeconomic
structures, such as CBOs and women and youth associations which help to identify
community problems. The use of a similar structure by various programs/projects is
thus the driving force for duplication of efforts because the nature of the problems and
arrangements to curb them are already intertwined and potentially correlated. The
planning processes adopted by, for example, PSNP and PCDP also overlap in the
visited study woredas.
Having similar interventions by different programs/projects is cost-intensive
and worth significant money. In low-income countries like Ethiopia, duplication of
activities has financial implications. To avoid duplication of efforts and costs, there
must be a re-arrangement of cost minimization through integration and coordi-
nation of programs/projects. Indeed, the cost of running similar activities by
different institutions can serve as a community development project as part of a
sub-project under another. However, such programming is less effective unless it
involves implementing ASP programs. In that case, for instance, as part of
community contributions, PSNP recipients who receive financial transfers will be
allowed to provide labor to PCDP sub-projects instead of working on PSNP public
works, which was primarily the case in the previous trend. The defects in the
programs under operation require the planning process outlined above and others
that will be integrated into the three approaches (SP, DRR, and CCA), as antic-
ipated under ASP.

Contribution to Promote Livelihood Resilience

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

Table 2. Distribution of Programs/Projects by Categories of Their Objectives.

Categories of objectives Frequency Percentage

Protective 50 40.98
Preventive 32 26.23
Promotive 19 15.57
Transformative 12 9.84
Protective and preventive 9 7.38
Total 122 100.00
Source: Somali Regional State, Bureau of Planning and Economic Development, 2023
Kebede et al. 279

The lack of proactive social protection interventions that follow at least the essential
elements of a comprehensive SP model that involves protective, preventive, promotive,
and transformative approaches is a cause for concern in the region. As shown in
Table 2, most programs/projects feature protective 50 (41%) and 32 (26.2%) consist of
preventive components. About 19 (15.6%) of the programs and projects involve
promotive features, and only 12 (9.84%) of the projects involve transformative features.
The remaining nine (7.38%) programs/projects combine both protective and preventive
measures.
The 3P-T frameworks were also analyzed against the integration of SP, DRR, and
CCA. As such, in the case of programs/projects using only the SP approach, the
analysis indicates that preventive measures (40%) followed by promotive measures
(26%) are common (see Table 3). Preventive strategies can directly address the re-
duction of poverty. Social insurance was one of these solutions for those who were
economically vulnerable, had fallen into poverty, and required assistance to cope with
the shocks to their livelihood (Davies et al., 2013). Among SP programs/projects that
have preventive features are (a) home-grown school feeding projects; (b) projects that
aim at improving access to quality health for mothers and children; (c) those projects
aimed at ensuring the supply of life-saving medical supplies; (d) interventions on
adolescent nutrition; (e) those that provide medical and nutrition assistance to vul-
nerable populations; and (f) projects that aim at improving hygiene practices and access
to WaSH facilities for vulnerable and displacement-affected populations, among others.
Promotive programs/projects aim to improve real incomes and capabilities, which is
achieved through a range of livelihood-enhancing programs, such as micro-credit and
school feeding (Davies et al., 2013). SP programs/projects implemented and reviewed
in the region include (a) resilience building and the creation of economic opportunities
for the vulnerable; (b) those that aim at improving access to livelihood rehabilitation
services for vulnerable people; and (c) programs/projects on integrated agriculture
development. There are also transformative programs/projects in the area, including (a)
a project that supports women and girls to realize their rights to life, health, and
productive lives free from violence and abuse; (b) projects that aim at improving
women’s empowerment and empower the youth for work; and (c) projects that aim to
enhance quality and universal access to Indigenous people’s reproductive health care.
The other sets of programs/projects are DRR interventions. As shown in Table 3,
91.3% of the DRR programs/projects are protective in nature. This finding makes sense
because, in the immediate wake of a disaster, protective measures are usually associated
with transitory interventions that aim to enhance people’s coping mechanisms (Mitchell
et al., 2010). Some of the DRR programs/projects implemented in the region include (a)
integrated multi-sectoral emergency WaSH responses for displacement-affected
populations; (b) emergency nutrition responses to extremely vulnerable people; (c)
integrated humanitarian assistance for displacement-affected communities; (d) multi-
sector support and COVID-19 risk mitigation for IDPs; (e) integrated emergency
nutrition and WaSH interventions for drought-affected communities; (f) emergency
responses to COVID-19; (g) emergency food security and livelihood interventions; and
(h) emergency response to desert locust. All these initiatives seek to safeguard and
 280

Table 3. Categories of Program and Project Objectives and Integration of SP, DRR, and CCA.
Protective and
Preventive Protective Promotive Transformative preventive Total

Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %

SP 20 40 5 10 13 26 10 20 2 4 50 100
DRR 4 8.7 42 91.3 - - - - - - 46 100
CCA - - - - 2 100 - - - - 2 100
SP + DRR 8 36.4 3 13.6 4 18.2 - - 7 31.8 22 100
ASP - - - - - - 2 100 - - 2 100

Source: Somali Regional State, Bureau of Planning and Economic Development, 2023.
The Journal of Environment & Development 34(1)
Kebede et al. 281

assist impoverished and vulnerable people, such as women, children, the elderly, those
with disabilities, the displaced, the jobless, and the ill.
The third group of programs/projects comprises those that integrate SP and DRR. As
shown in Table 3, 36.4% of the 22 programs/projects that combine both SP and DRR
interventions have preventive features, and 31.8% of them have both protective and
preventive features. Some of the SP + DRR projects that have protective features
include (a) SRHR response to internally displaced persons (IDPs); (b) desert locust
control and resilience building projects; (c) integrated emergency WaSH and nutrition
response projects; (d) SGBV service capacity developments for IDPs; and (e) sup-
porting people affected by displacement to access timely protection assistance in
achieving durable solutions, among others. Likewise, SP + DRR projects with both
preventive and protective features include (a) a project to improve safety, protection,
and access to WaSH and other basic services for displaced and conflict-affected
communities; (b) a project that aims at fostering food security and resilience of
IDPs and HCs; (c) an integrated emergency project on WaSH and NFI assistance to IDP
returnees and venerable communities; (d) an integrated emergency multi-sector re-
sponse to COVID-19 and improving nutrition status among children; (e) fostering food
security and resilience of IDPs and HCs for supporting their recovery and resilience;
and (f) integrated child protection and GBV response to IDPs, among others.
The last group of programs and projects involves those that integrate the three
approaches, which is referred to as the ASP approach. In this regard, the findings
indicate that only two projects have the ASP feature. These are (a) integrated inter-
ventions to save lives and restore livelihoods for pastoralists and (b) a sustainable
livelihood project.
Most of the SP and SP-DRR programs/projects examined in this research focused on
preventive and protective features. Programs/projects that combine all four categories
of measures (prevention, protection, promotion, and transformation) are absent. In sum,
combining these measures into one program/project usually has the impact of ex-
tending the intervention’s operational life span, which reinforces its support for longer-
term goals pertinent to interventions, such as CCA programs. The findings indicate that
where the three approaches are integrated into ASP, they give attention to transfor-
mative programs/projects above transformative, preventive, and protective measures.

Conclusion and Policy Implications

The study identifies significant gaps in the integration of CCA, DRR, and SP inter-
ventions in the Somali region of Ethiopia. As such, building on the values of the ASP
approach, this study offers some insights to enhance disaster- and climate-resilient
livelihoods. A well-designed ASP strategy targets vulnerable rural households, who
need urgent protection and support more than others. Apart from vulnerable rural
households, the GoE can take advantage of employing an ASP approach because it can
parcel resources and increase the success of interventions. When designing inter-
ventions, program/project implementers and policymakers should consider the pos-
sibilities of integrating the three approaches into an ASP framework.
282 The Journal of Environment & Development 34(1)

To address the integration gaps and enhance the resilience of vulnerable com-
munities, policymakers need to consider the broader adoption of interventions across
four key dimensions such as sustaining, mainstreaming, replicating, and scaling up.
With only 1.6% of the assessed interventions adopting ASP, the likelihood of sustaining
integrated approaches is minimal in the study area due to weak institutional ar-
rangements and lack of coordinated efforts. Policies should prioritize strengthening
governance structures to support long-term sustainability. Thus, mainstreaming looks
the right option with 18% of projects having the potential to be mainstreamed into
existing development frameworks. This mainstreaming may promote to ASP. The
majority of programs/projects adopt a single approach that can be replicated and scaled
up to subsequently adopt ASP.
Policymakers should also focus on embedding DRR and SP strategies into national
and regional development plans while improving the inclusion of CCA. To replicate
successful models, efforts should be directed toward documenting best practices,
particularly where DRR and SP are effectively combined. These practices can inform
the design of new projects in similar contexts. Scaling up requires strategic investments
in capacity building and resource allocation. Enhanced coordination among stake-
holders and clear policy directives are essential to expanding the reach and impact of
integrated interventions.
Integration of the three approaches into ASP indeed requires appropriate institu-
tional frameworks and collaborations. To bring about essential coordination among the
three approaches and have ASP, concerned stakeholders need to design coherent and
complementary policies and strategies across sectors. One of the important charac-
teristics of an ASP is the involvement of several state and non-state actors in its design
and execution. As such, strong government guidance is central to ensuring the inte-
gration of uncoordinated stakeholders, based on clear documentation and assignment of
respective mandates and accountability.
Creating consistency in national policies and plans can serve as a starting point for
ASP. The GoE formulated and created the Climate-Resilient Green Economy Plan
(CRGEP) in 2019, the National Policy and Strategy on Disaster Risk Management in
2013, and the National Social Protection Policy in 2012. Ethiopia’s social protection
strategy, for example, aims to shield people from deprivation, increase resilience, insure
against shocks, and boost human capital and opportunities for income-generating
activities. The Ethiopian DRM policy also aims to increase the shock resilience of low-
income and vulnerable households. Beyond the SP and DRM policies, Ethiopia’s
CRGEP has ASP commitments. The objective of the CRGEP is to protect the country
from the negative effects of climate change and foster the growth of a green economy to
achieve its goal of becoming a middle-income country by 2025. Here we learn that the
goal of shielding rural households at risk from CC and shocks connected to disasters is
shared by the three strategies. As such, the basis for coordination is policy coherence
within certain sectors, which is a critical issue to reach at ASP. Since the ASP en-
compasses the engagement of many sectoral organizations, many government de-
partments, and NGOs, each of the organizations needs to have its own management
structure, incentives, and accountability. Government-led coordination across different
Kebede et al. 283

state and non-state actors and program delivery models is essential to the overall
efficacy of ASP.
The presence and support of a single entity that coordinates responses and col-
laborates closely with other national agencies, sub-national authorities, NGOs, and
international organizations are some of the variables that can lead to more efficient
program coordination to respond to shocks (Bailey, 2018). In addition to policies and
plans, the identification of an organization in charge of ASP coordination typically
dictates the extent of governmental supervision. In this regard, the Ethiopian National
SP program is housed in the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, the DRM policy and
strategies are placed in the DRM Commission and the Ministry of Agriculture, and
CRGEP is housed in the Ministry of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Au-
thority. Based on government interests and structures, choosing one ministerial office
among those mentioned and hosting the ASP are fundamental government
interventions.
The ASP also engages in the establishment of strategic alliances between NGOs and
the government. In this regard, the available literature demonstrates a wide range of
participants in Ethiopia’s humanitarian efforts. They include national and international
NGOs, civil society, and other organizations. These organizations are the owners of
programs/projects assessed for this study. These organizations, therefore, need to work
together to reduce any gaps or overlaps in providing the required services. The co-
ordination of humanitarian interventions with government structures is also an ongoing
problem for the humanitarian system. To respond to this problem, the identified ASP
coordinating institution must have a variety of institutional governance structures in
place as well as a well-institutionalized coordination system defined by sectors. The
ASP coordinating entity, which can be headquartered in the government, is expected to
collaborate with humanitarian teams. Data exchange between ASP offices and hu-
manitarian players can lead to increased coordination, better information sharing, and
collaboration. Humanitarian coordination mechanisms will play a crucial role in
improving relationships when ASP aligns with the humanitarian system. In the end, this
may reduce duplication of efforts and reduce costs.
Significant research and knowledge gaps exist, especially about the particular means
of achieving ASP in various circumstances. This contributes to the absence of con-
sideration of ASP in national policy priorities. More research is needed to assess these
effects as well as investigate how an ASP strategy can affect the vulnerability of
vulnerable rural households in various regions of Ethiopia while considering various
projects and programs. In addition, future studies should focus on the lessons that
should be shared across Ethiopia’s regions regarding how donors and national-level
institutions can help to overcome current institutional obstacles to integration, and how
best practices can be converted into policy changes within federal and regional
governments.

Acknowledgments
We are thankful to Jigjiga University, Ethiopia, for funding the research project, from which this
article is extracted.
284 The Journal of Environment & Development 34(1)

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

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

ORCID iD
Getahun Fenta Kebede  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5704-6956

Notes
1. The Somali region is one of the 12 regions in Ethiopia. It is located in the east of the country. It
has a long border with neighboring Somalia where Somali ethnic groups live, and with
Djibouti. The region is remote with a mobile nomadic population and inadequate infra-
structure. Climatically, it is mostly desert with high average temperatures and low bi-modal
rainfall. Its economy is weak and reliant predominantly on traditional animal husbandry and
marginal farming practices.
2. This meta-analysis involved establishing the protocol with inclusion criteria, data extraction
(project owner, year of implementation, type of population, location, objectives, project
budget, and reported outcomes), and quality assessment strategies. The inclusion criteria
considered population (a program/project benefiting>50,000 people) and types of inter-
ventions (DRR, SP, and CCA). The quality of each program/project document was assessed
based on the clarity of objectives, the robustness of integration approach, and the relevance
and type of outcomes. Moreover, descriptive analysis and integration assessment based on
three levels of integration (high, medium, and low) were used as part of this meta-analysis
protocol.
3. Woreda is a geographical and administrative unit and is equivalent to a district.
4. Though the program/project documents indicate that there is no integration, in reality, there is
high possibility that interventions might indirectly integrate during implementation. For
example, afforestation campaign during the rainy seasons, as CCA, relays on social protection
program beneficiaries through public works component, while at the same time helping to
boost DRR through soil and water conservation.
5. Kebele is the lowest administrative unit in Ethiopia.

References
Abeygunawardena, P., Vyas, Y., Knill, P., Foy, T., Harrold, M., Steele, P., & Sperling, F.
(2004). Poverty and climate change: Reducing the vulnerability of the poor through
adaptation.
Addis, E., & Assefa, S. (2013). Social protection systems in pastoral areas of Ethiopia: The case
of Fentale district, Oromia Region. In Informal and formal social protection systems in sub-
saharan Africa (p. 177). African Books Collective.
Adger, W. N., Huq, S., Brown, K., Conway, D., & Hulme, M. (2002). Adaptation to climate
change in the developing world. Progress in Development Studies, 3(3), 179–195. https://
doi.org/10.1191/1464993403ps060oa
Kebede et al. 285

Akinyi, D. P., Ng’ang’a, S. K., & Girvetz, E. H. (2021). Trade-offs and synergies of climate change
adaptation strategies among smallholder farmers in sub-saharan Africa: A systematic review.
Regional Sustainability, 2(2), 130–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsus.2021.05.002
Arnall, A., Davies, M., & Tanner, T. (2010). Adaptive Social Protection: Mapping the Evidence
and Policy Context in the Agriculture Sector in South Asia. Presentation for the STEPS
Conference 2010. Pathways to Sustainability.
Bailey, S. (2018). Institutions for adaptive social protection: External linkages and the hu-
manitarian sector.” Background Paper. Oxford Policy Management.
Béné, C., Cannon, T., Davies, M., Newsham, A., & Tanner, T. (2013). Social protection and
climate change. A paper prepared for the OECD-DAC Task Team on Social Protection.
Béné, C., Mehta, L., McGranahan, G., Cannon, T., Gupte, J., & Tanner, T. (2018). Resilience as a
policy narrative: Potentials and limits in the context of urban planning. Climate & De-
velopment, 10(2), 116–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2017.1301868
Bowen, T., Del Ninno, C., Andrews, C., Coll-Black, S., Johnson, K., Kawasoe, Y., & Williams, A.
(2020). Adaptive social protection: Building resilience to shocks. World Bank Publications.
Conway, D., & Schipper, E. L. F. (2011). Adaptation to climate change in Africa: Challenges and
opportunities identified from Ethiopia. Global Environmental Change, 21(1), 227–237.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.013
Correa, J. S., Daidone, S., Davis, B., & Sitko, N. J. (2023). Social protection and rural trans-
formation in Africa. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 15(1), 305–327. https://doi.org/
10.1146/annurev-resource-101422-100158
Davies, M., Béné, C., Arnall, A., Tanner, T., Newsham, A., & Coirolo, C. (2013). Promoting
resilient livelihoods through adaptive social protection: Lessons from 124 programmes in
South asia. Development Policy Review, 31(1), 27–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7679.
2013.00600.x
Davies, M., Guenther, B., Leavy, J., Mitchell, T., & Tanner, T. (2008). Adaptive social protection:
Synergies for poverty reduction. IDS Bulletin, 39(4), 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1759-5436.2008.tb00483.x
Davies, M., Guenther, B., Leavy, J., Mitchell, T., & Tanner, T. (2009a). Climate change ad-
aptation, disaster risk reduction, and social protection: Complementary roles in agriculture
and rural growth? IDS Working Papers, 2009(320), 01–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2040-
0209.2009.00320_2.x
Davies, M., Guenther, B., Leavy, J., Mitchell, T., & Tanner, T. (2009b). ‘Adaptive social
protection’: Synergies for poverty reduction. IDS Bulletin, 39(4), 105–112. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1759-5436.2008.tb00483.x
Devereux, S. (2006). Vulnerable livelihoods in Somali region, Ethiopia. In IDS Research Report
(Vol, 57). Institute of Development Studies.
Devereux, S., & Gorman, C. (2006). Looking at social protection through a livelihoods lens. IDS
in Focus.
Devereux, S., & Sabates-Wheeler, R. (2004). Transformative social protection. Institute of
Development Studies. IDS Working Paper 232.
Djalante, R. (2012). Review article: “Adaptive governance and resilience: The role of multi-
stakeholder platforms in disaster risk reduction”. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sci-
ences, 12(9), 2923–2942. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-12-2923-2012
Echeverrı́a, D., & Terton, A. (2016). Review of current and planned adaptation action in Ethiopia.
Retrieved from: https://Review_of_current_and_planned_adaptation_action_in_Ethiopia_
(dspacedirect.org)
286 The Journal of Environment & Development 34(1)

Farrington, J., Slater, R., & Holmes, R. (2004). The search for synergies between social pro-
tection and livelihood promotion: The agriculture case. Overseas Development Institute.
FDRE. (2012). Government of the federal democratic republic of Ethiopia national social
protection policy. FDRE.
FDRE. (2022). Ethiopia’s third national communication to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Available at: https://TNC_Ethiopia_
Submission_V5.pdf_(unfccc._int).
Field, C. B., & Barros, V. R. (Eds.), (2014). Climate change 2014–Impacts, adaptation, and
vulnerability: Regional aspects. Cambridge University Press.
Gezie, M. (2019). Farmer’s response to climate change and variability in Ethiopia: A review.
Cogent Food and Agriculture, 5(1), Article 1613770. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.
2019.1613770
Gitz, V., Meybeck, A., Lipper, L., Young, C. D., & Braatz, S. (2016). Climate change and food
security: Risks and responses. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO) Report, 110(2), 3–36.
Hellmuth, M. E., Mason, S. J., Vaughan, C., van Aalst, M. K., & Choularton, R. (eds) (2011). A
better climate for disaster risk management. International Research Institute for Climate and
Society (IRI), Columbia University.
Heltberg, R. (2007). Helping South Asia cope better with natural disasters: The role of social
protection. Development Policy Review, 25(6), 681–698. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
7679.2007.00392.x
Heltberg, R., Siegel, P. B., & Jorgensen, S. L. (2009). Addressing human vulnerability to climate
change: Toward a ‘no-regrets’ approach. Global Environmental Change, 19(1), 89–99.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.11.003
Jones, L., Ludi, E., & Levine, S. (2010). Towards a characterization of adaptive capacity: A
framework for analyzing adaptive capacity at the local level. Overseas Development Institute.
Madu, C. N., Kuei, C. H., Madu, I. E., Ozumba, B. C., Nnadi, V. E., Odinkonigbo, U. L., & Ezeasor,
I. C. (2018). Introduction to disaster risk reduction and management. In Handbook of disaster
risk reduction & management (pp. 1–29). World Scientific Publishing Company Pte Limited.
Mitchell, T., Van Aalst, M., & Silva Villanueva, P. (2010). Assessing progress on integrating
disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in development processes. Retrieved
from: https://Assessing_Progress_on_Integrating_Disaster_Risk_Reduction.pdf_(ids.ac.UK)
OCHA (2022). Horn of Africa drought: Regional humanitarian Overview & call to action (revised 21
september 2022). Retrieved from: https://horn_of_Africa_drought:_Regional_humanitarian_
overview_&_call_to_action_(revised_21_september_2022)_-_Ethiopia_|_ReliefWeb
Ogato, G. S. (2013). The human ecology of disasters in Ethiopia: The quest for participatory
disaster management and sustainable livelihood improvement of pastoral communities.
American Journal of Human Ecology, 2(1), 21–27.
Praveen, B., & Sharma, P. (2019). A review of literature on climate change and its impacts on
agriculture productivity. Journal of Public Affairs, 19(4), Article e1960. https://doi.org/10.
1002/pa.1960
Schnitzer, P. (2019). How to target households in adaptive social protection systems? Evidence
from humanitarian and development approaches in Niger. Journal of Development Studies,
55(sup1), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2019.1687877
Shikur, Z. H. (2020). Agricultural policies, agricultural production and rural households’ welfare
in Ethiopia. Journal of Economic Structures, 9(1), 50–121. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40008-
020-00228-y
Kebede et al. 287

Smit, B., & Pilifosova, O. (2003). Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainable
development and equity. Sustainable Development, 8(9), 9.
Stern, N. (2006). The economics of climate change: The stern review. Cambridge University
Press.
Teshome, M. (2016). Rural households’ agricultural land vulnerability to climate change in
Dembia woreda, Northwest Ethiopia. Environmental Systems Research, 5(1), 14–18. https://
doi.org/10.1186/s40068-016-0064-3
Tofu, D. A., Mekuria, M. M., & Ogato, G. S. (2023). Climatic extremes’ resilient livelihoods of
rural households in the Eastern Ethiopia. Agriculture & Food Security, 12(1), 42. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s40066-023-00446-0
Turner, J. (2006). Adaptation policy frameworks for climate change: Developing strategies,
policies, and measures, edited by Bo Lim and Erika spanger-Siegfried. Arctic, 59(1), 96–97.
https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic371
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR). (2022). Global assessment report
on disaster risk reduction 2022: Our world at risk: Transforming governance for a resilient
future. UNDRR.
USAID. (2022). Ethiopia climate change fact sheet - U.S. Agency for International Development.
(USAID).
Vincent, K., & Cull, T. (2012). Adaptive social protection: Making concepts a reality: A guide for
practitioners. Institute of Development Studies.
Weldegebriel, Z. B., & Prowse, M. (2013). Climate-change adaptation in Ethiopia: To what
extent does social protection influence livelihood diversification? Development Policy
Review, 31(s2), 035–056. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12038
Welteji, D., Mohammed, K., & Hussein, K. (2017). The contribution of the productive safety Net
program for food security of rural households in the case of bale zone, southeast Ethiopia.
Agriculture and Food Security, 6(1), 1–11.
Ziegler, S. (2016). Adaptive Social Protection–linking social protection and climate change
adaptation. GIZ Discussion Papers on Social Protection.

Author Biographies
Getahun Fenta Kebede is an Assistant Professor at Addis Ababa University, where he
is engaged in research, teaching, and providing community services. He holds PhD
Degree in Local Development and Global Dynamics. His research interests include
poverty, climate change and resilience, social protection, inclusive development,
livelihood systems, migration, informal economy, social capital and entrepreneurship.
Belay Wowber Gurmu is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Jigjiga University,
where he actively contributes to the academic community through his role in teaching,
research and community services. With a profound passion for research, Mr. Belay
specializes and is interested the field of gender and development studies.
Zerihun Berhane Weldegebriel is working as an Associate Professor at the Center for
African and Asian Studies, Addis Ababa University and serves as a Vice President of
the Ethiopian Evaluation Association. His research areas include climate change
adaptation, social protection, livelihoods systems, disaster risk management, food
security, poverty, inequality, and migration.