The document summarizes a community managed disaster risk reduction project implemented in Dire District, Ethiopia. The project used a community managed approach to build resilience among pastoralist communities vulnerable to drought and conflict hazards. Key aspects included conducting participatory risk assessments, establishing community disaster risk reduction committees, implementing risk reduction measures such as rangeland reclamation, and facilitating cross-border dialogues to reduce conflicts over natural resources. As a result of these efforts, communities demonstrated increased resilience and adaptive capacity to hazards, including establishing reserves of pasture and hay.

1. Community Managed Disaster Risk
Reduction (CMDRR) as an approach to build
resilient Pastoralist Community in Dire
District of Borena Zone
European Union

2. WORKING FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE IN AFRICA
Building a Pan African Social Movement

3.  Building
Resilient Pastoralist Community
project- funded by EC/Trocaire/Cordaid
◦ Implemented by a consortium of five partner
ACORD, SOS, AFD, GPDI & CIFA Ethiopia
 Disaster
Risk Reduction
funded by ECHO/Cordaid
(DRR)
project-
◦ Implemented by ACORD, AFD & SOS Ethiopia
3

4.  To
build resilient, resistant and safe
community
◦ High level of survivability & readiness of
community to drought & conflict hazards
◦ Cohesive community organization (CMDRR
Cos) became functional to manage hazard
events and reduced the impact of hazards
4

5.  The
two projects through which the CMDRR
methodologies have been implemented in 8
Pas of Dire district including one cross
border PA
 Using the CMDRR approach 27,530 (13,720
F) people of Dire Woreda people planned to
be
benefited
from
the
rangeland
reclamations & cross border natural
resource utilization dialogues.
5

6.  Community
Managed Disaster Risk Reduction
(CMDRR) is a development approach of
mobilizing & bringing together of people within
the same community to enable them to
collectively address a common disaster risk and
collectively pursue disaster risk reduction
measures
 In CMDRR approach community is primary
agent of change where as implementing
agencies & other stakeholders like GO line
offices are the facilitators towards ensuring
resilience of the most at risk.
6

7. 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

8. 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. 9

10.  conduct
participatory
disaster
risk
assessment (PDRA) which addresses hazard,
vulnerability & capacity assessments and
risk analysis,
 develop DRR measures (development and
contingency plans),
 implement DRR measures
 monitor and evaluate the outcome of the
development projects.
10

11.  Drought
 Conflict
 Animal
disease
11

12. 

On top of the recurrent drought happening
every two years, the expansion of thorny
bushes across the well known savannah grass
lands of Borena weakened the resilience of the
pastoralist community
Despite the ideal boundary between the cross
border communities, they share resources like
water and pasture which sometimes resulted in
conflict that damaged the lives and livelihood
of the Borena (Ethiopia) & Gebra (Kenya)
communities for years
12

13. 1.
2.
Rangeland revitalization in
Did Jarsa PA
Common natural resource
utlization dialogues between
Megado (Ethiopia) & Forolle
(Kenya) communities
13

14. 





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

15. Did Jarsa is the model PAs engaged in rangeland
reclamation and effective utilization of the
reclaimed land.
 140 hectares of reserve pasture had served the
community to cope with the drought caused as a
result of 2011 ganna rain failure.
 The management was through cut and cry system
and a total of 2,926 bail/105,336 kg of hay has
harvested.
 If it was bought from sululta the estimated values
were 790,020 Birr

15

16.  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

17.  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

18. 

A good evidence for this is in Dire district Hodhodh
Semero PAs through DRR3 project the planned
activities through cash for work was to reclaim
400ha rangeland But assuming that they are the
primary agent for their own development, the
CMDRR committee mobilized the community &
reclaimed an additional area of 659 ha freely with
out any cash
This is about 165% of the planned activities and the
CMDRR committee is active in ensuring its
sustainability even after phasing out of the project
18

19. 19

20. Inputs from ACORD
 Financial
& logistic support for forum
participants
 Discussion with Dire Woreda security office
who coordinate the forum
 Awareness
creation for the
CMDRR
committee on resolving the dispute on
natural resource utilization
20

21. Conflict between Borena ethnic group around
boarder woredas and Gebra Ethnic group from
north Kenya around Forolle was considered as one
of the major challenge for both side pastoral
communities.
 The front line target community of the hazard is
the Magado community of Ethiopia and Forolle
Community of Kenya.
 Natural resource utilization, especially pasture and
water is thought to be the major cause of the
conflict between the two communities.
 Megado is relatively good in water resource and
Forolle is better in pasture

21

22.  Conflict
was identified as the 2nd hazard
during PDRA
 DRR measures were developed by CMDRR
committee with the validation of the target
communities
 Cross border natural resource dialogue
forum was planned as one of the DRR
measures
 Establishment of peace committees that
comprises the CMDRR committee members
was also set as a priority
22

23. On average 200 people from both sides
participated on the dialogue.
 The participants from Kenya were Chalbi district,
Forolle, Torbi and Badda Hurii divisions
 From Ethiopia Dire, Miyo, Dilo woredas attended
the dialogue.
 Government representatives from Forolle of Kenya
Dire, Dilo, Miyo woredas and from Borena Zone
were among the participants of the dialogue.
 Representatives from the Geda leaders had also
participated in the dialogue.

23

24. Regular natural resource utilization dialogue held
between Borena and Gebra tribes living across the
Ethio-Kenya border resulted in socio-economic
benefits to both communities.
 It increased economical relationships among the
two groups by creating a livestock marketing chain
in both sides through the livestock marketing
cooperative found at Megado PAs of Dire Woreda.
 As a result of the peace established between the
two community livestock move freely across the
border for water and pasture

24

25. Peace committee was selected to further manage
their resource commonly.
 The committees are responsible to decide the way
they use and manage resources commonly
 The peace committee has monthly meeting to
discuss on the overall peace issues between the two
communities
 Since three years no conflict reported between the
two cross border community

25

26.  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. 27

28. 28

29. 29

30. 30

31. 31

32. THANK YOU!