The Effect of the war on smallholder agriculture in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia

Abstract

The war in Tigray (Northern Ethiopia) that started at the beginning of November 2020 has brought devastating damage to smallholder agriculture and food security. However, empirical evidence on the effect of war on smallholder agriculture has not studied systematically. Thus, this research was initiated to address the knowledge gap. A survey was done on selected 4376 households using systematic random sampling. All the data required for the study was collected using a semi-structured questionnaire, focus group discussions and key informant interview. The study revealed that 81% of the smallholder households lost their crop followed by livestock (75%) and farm tools (48%). Overall, 94% of the households reported that at least one of their agricultural components (crop, livestock and farm tools) was looted and/or destroyed by the belligerents. Of which, 37% of the respondent’s crop, livestock and farm tools were totally damaged. Moreover, farmers have limited access to their farms, agricultural inputs, and services. Consequently, more than 5.2 million people are currently in need of immediate humanitarian assistance. To avert the worsening situation, immediate intervention is needed to deliver food and agricultural input supplies and rehabilitate the agricultural extension system and infrastructure.

Keywords:

• agriculture
• armed conflict
• damage
• starvation
• Tigray

1. Introduction

During war time, agriculture can act as a safety net, “providing food and income in a context of insecurity, market closures and damage, and shortages of critical goods and services” (FAO, 2017a). However, agricultural production was directly or indirectly damaged by the war. According to Adelaja and George (2019), agriculture directly affects through direct disruption on agricultural outputs, inputs, land, infrastructure and human capital, and indirectly, through disruptions in various aspects of the broader environment of agricultural operations. The main disruption of war on agriculture is physical damage, either through agriculture being systematically targeted as a weapon of war or as a consequence of the violence (Moore, 2017; RFSAN, Regional Food Security Analysis Network, 2016).

Previous studies have found that war adversely affects agricultural production, farm investments, cropping practices and the output of specific crops (Adelaja & George, 2019; Baumann & Kuemmerle, 2016, FAO, 2017a; George et al., 2020). The government troops and rebels have used famine as a weapon to terrorize and control populations (Devereux, 2007; Waal, 2006) as well as some civilians living in war zones have done the same even if in a much smaller scale when compared to armed groups (Igreja, 2019). Besides the immediate consequences of food shortage and starvation, the use of famine as a weapon leaves disastrous social and health impacts that are experienced long after the war conflict and famine has been terminated (Igreja et al., 2021). However, the impact of war on agriculture remains very poorly understood, both at local and national levels (George et al., 2020; Martin-Shields & Stojetz, 2019).

Prior to the war in Tigray, agriculture consisted of crop production and livestock farming was the backbone of the Tigray economy. More than 80% of the rural people in Tigray are primarily engaged in subsistence agriculture, and crop production which is one of the important production systems for food, feed and nutritional security (FAO 2021). The agricultural sector in Tigray has been showing an improvement because of significant progress in restoring of the degraded lands and improving its agricultural input use and water security. Growth in the agricultural sector remains highly important to maintaining overall growth of the region. According to Regional Gross Domestic Product (RGDP), the economy of Tigray registered an average growth rate of 8.1% during the last consecutive four years (2015 –2019) of GTP II implementation period (TSA, Tigray Statistical Agency, 2021). The agriculture sector in particular had registered an annual growth rate of 4.0%. Among the agriculture sector, crop production activity contributed its greatest share (65%) to the agricultural GDP, which was followed by livestock and forestry by 32% and 3%, respectively. Meanwhile, the contribution of agriculture was 37% to the total real GDP.

However, in 2020, these combined with a plague of desert locusts the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and national-level pressures including macro-economic difficulties affected the growth in agricultural production. Besides, at the beginning of November, 2020, The Ethiopian government declared armed conflict in Tigray, involving the Ethiopian national defense force (ENDF) and its allies—formal and informal military factions of the Amhara region, the Eritrean defense force (EDF) and Somali soldiers (Annys et al., 2021; World Peace Foundation, 2021). Several international and national reports confirmed that many farms, agricultural offices, farm institutions in rural areas were destroyed, crops burned down and looted, farm equipment and irrigational structures destroyed, and livestock were looted and/or slaughtered (BoARD, (Bureau of agriculture and rural development), 2021; Annys et al., 2021). Moreover, due to lack of feed, water and health service livestock production has been declined.

The agricultural system in Tigray has been devastated by months of fighting and extensive looting and destruction (World Peace Foundation, 2021). The costs of the decline in agricultural output can also have dramatic consequences in terms of food security. Consequently, more than 5.2 million people of Tigrayans have become in dire need of humanitarian aid (food as well as medical supplies and health care services) (USAID, 2021). Moreover, they also use siege to cut-off food supplies and productive capacities, starve opposing populations and hijack food aid intended for civilians. The war damage and loss to the agricultural sector had not only the immediate impacts but also lasted over extended periods of time.

Most of the evidence on the war damage on agricultural were based on cross-sectional data that was collected in the post-conflict era (George et al., 2020). However, this study was done during the war when the region is under the invaders and before the information was lost. Furthermore, the empirical evidence on the impacts of war damage on smallholder agriculture is scarce. Therefore, this study was done to assess the effect of war on smallholder agriculture in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia.

2. Methodology

2.1. Study area description

The study area, Tigray National Regional State, is located in the northern most part of Ethiopia. Geographically, it is located between 12° 14’50.50” to 14° 53’48.03” latitude and 36° 26’48.74” to 39° 59’ 0.09” longitude (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Location of the study districts where the specific study Tabia was found.

According to the CSA 2016/17 projection, the population size was 5,247,005 with an estimated area of 54,593 square kilometres. The average annual temperature of the region is between 12°C and 37°C, and the annual rainfall between 500 and 1,000 mm (Abrha et al., 2018). Topography of the region from massif highland of 4090 m a.s.l in south Tigray to the north-western lowlands where the elevation is as low as 500 m a.s.l. Agriculture is the main stay of the economy in Tigray. Teff, wheat, corn, sorghum, barley Niger seed, flax seed and sesame are the main crops. Other agricultural products include pulses (beans, lentils), vegetables (onion, tomato and potato) and different fruits such as orange, mango and guava. The region is also known for its export items of cotton, incense, sesame and minerals. The study sites were rural districts such as Adwa, Ahferom, Alaje, Asgede Tsimbla, Degua Temben, Endamehoni, Enderta, Ganta Afeshum, Hawzen, Hintalo Wejirat, Kola Temben, Lealay Maychew, Medebay Zana, Naeder Adet, Raya Azebo, Tahtay Koraro, Tahtay Maychew and Kilte Awlaelo, which are located in five zones across central, eastern, south eastern, southern and north west zones of the region.

However, the study was limited to the most accessible woreda of each Zone. Areas occupied by the Amhara force and the Eritrean defense force, such as the whole Western Tigray, parts of Northwestern, Southern (i.e. Ofla and Raya Alamata), Eastern (i.e. Gule Mekada and Erob) and South Eastern (i.e. Seharti and Samre) Tigray, which are severely affected by the war, could not be incorporated into our sampling due to a worsening security situation.

2.2. Sampling technique and size

A multi-stage sample selection method was employed to select study sites and households. Eighteen Woredas from five zones were selected considering the level of damage, security and accessibility. Then, an average of three tabia’s were selected randomly from each Woreda. In this study, we used 4376 sample households selected using systematic random sampling from the selected tabias based on probability to proportional size. The total sample size were determined using the formula developed by Kothari (2004).

1 $n=\frac{N{Z}^{2}p\left(1-p\right)}{e^2\left(N-1\right)+Z^{2}p\left(1-p\right)}$1

where n = sample size, N = pop size, p = pop proportion, Z = confidence level, e = margin of error.

Thus, by taking confidence interval of 99% (z = 2.58), a margin/degree of error of 2%, the proportion (P) = 69%, the minimum sample size was 3535. We considered 25% of none response rate. The final sample was 4376 households.

2.3. Data collection

Primary and secondary data were collected for this study. The primary data were collected from households using semi-structured questionnaire, focus group discussions (FGD) and observation. The data were collected from 4 May to 4 June 2020. Data collectors were trained for five days to fully understand the data collection instruments. They were all BSc degree holders and above. The questionnaires were administered to household heads. However, in the absence of the head of household, a representative mostly the wife, eldest son, or the daughter was interviewed on his or her behalf.

34 FGD were also conducted with different social groups to collect qualitative data. Each group was composed of about six to eight individuals and the topics for the discussion were related to the type of damage that occurred, unique behavior of the damage and scope of the damage to agriculture and possible solutions taken. Each focus group had a trained facilitator who guided the participants through sets of prepared questions. Women’s groups, farmer groups, indigenous ethnic groups and elderly people who have knowledge of the local situation were the major participants of the FGD in each Kebelle. A total of 18 Key informant interview (KII) were also conducted with agricultural experts and development agents to collect further information.

Secondary data that include the number of tabias in each woreda, the total number of population in the woreda and tabias have been collected from woreda Agriculture and Rural Development Office.

2.4. Analysis

Descriptive statistics such as sum, means and percentages were used to analyze the quantitative data such as demographic, socioeconomic characteristics and quantities and/or values of damaged agricultural products and farm tools. Qualitative data collected through focus group discussion, key informants and observations were analyzed using content analysis. The summaries of the narrations were used in the discussion.

3. Results

3.1. Demographic characteristics

In this assessment, a total of 4376 small rural households were incorporated. Of which 28% of the respondents were female-headed households. The total average ages of the respondents were 47 ± 14 and the mean family size were 6 ± 2. The average total landholding sizes (Own, rental and share) of households were 1.06 ± 0.86 ha. About 38% of the households in the study area has an average farmland size of 0.5 ha. The majority (>93%) of the household livelihood strategy depends mainly on crop production (Appendix 1).

3.2. Effect of war on crop production

The study determined that more than 81% of the household crop has been deliberately devastated by months of fighting and wide looting, burning and destruction. The average total war damage on crop production from the study households was estimated at about 14.83 quintals. Of which, about 4% of the crop lost were from previous production years stored for the next planting season. Consequently, about 44% of the damage on crop was before harvesting while it was on the farm land, 41% from the home storage and 8% were from the threshing floor (Figure 2(a)). The highest disruption of crop was recorded during the month of November (53.4%) followed by March (14.6%). However, 63.3 % of the damage in Endamekoni Woreda was recorded in March.

Figure 2. Place and nature of the war damage on crop.

The main war damage to crops consisted of looting, followed by spoiling (intentionally mix with unwanted materials such as urine, soap, sand etc.Figure 7(b)), shelling and burning (Figure 2(b)).

Among the diverse crops grown by smallholder farmers, higher cost of war damage (in quintal) was recorded on cereals followed by vegetables and root crops, respectively (Figure 3). In addition to the damage to crop production, 26.5% of households straw/fodder was burnt, and 12.5% of the perennial fruits were cut down/uprooted and destroyed by the invading forces.

Figure 3. Total war damage share by crop type.

Perpetrators of the crop damage comprised of the Eritrean defence force (43%), Ethiopian national defence force (10%), 6% of the damage perpetrator unknown and 25% that can be attributed either to Ethiopian or Eritrean soldiers, as they jointly carried out the damage. The perpetrator for 16% of the crop damage is Amhara force, gangsters and others (Appendix 2). In woredas of Adwa, Laelay Maychew, Tahtay Maychew, Tahtay Koraro and Asgede Tsimbla, over 62% of the damage has been done by Eritrean soldiers only. However, more than 57% of the damage in Raya Azebo and Hintalo Wejerat has been done by Ethiopian national defence force only.

3.3. Effect of war on livestock production

The war has caused major disruption on 75% of households connected to livestock rearing. Overall, in the study households, a total of 41,012 livestock were looted, slaughtered and killed by the belligerents (Figure 4). Of the damage, 88% of livestock were killed/looted on the cowshed and 12% were out of the cowshed (on field or during travel).The higher population of war damage on livestock was recorded on poultry followed by goat, sheep and cattle, respectively (Table 1). The total number of lost on cattle was higher in Asgede Tsimbla woreda (626) followed by Medebay Zana (483) and Tahtay Koraro (439), respectively. Whereas the large number of sheep were lost from Hawzen (709), followed by Ganta Afeshum (568) and Kilte Awlaelo (453) (Appendix 3).

Figure 4. Nature of the war damage on livestock.

Table 1. Total war damage on livestock production

Animal type	Pre-war number	Number of damaged/lost	Percentage of lost
Cattle	3,193	2,365	74
Sheep	8,790	4,927	56
Goats	10,174	5,939	58
Donkey	664	541	81
Mule	11	10	91
Camel	151	91	60
Horse	8	5	63
Poultry	29,496	25,756	87
Beehive	1,801	1,378	77
Total	54,288	41,012	76

Most of animals were mainly slaughtered, looted, killed, shelled and also as a result of lack of fodder and absence of clinic services (Figure 4). According to the FGD, with farmers, livestock, veterinary clinics and animal feed were systematically destroyed to starve farmers.

The war perpetrators targeting livestock included Eritrean soldiers (54%), Ethiopian NDF (10%), while 5% of the damage produce were unknown. An additional 27% of the damage could be attributed either to Ethiopian national defence force or Eritrean soldiers, as they jointly carried out the damage. While 4% of the damage was done by Amhara forces, Amhara fano and gangsters (Appendix 4). Similarly to the damage on crop, the vast damage (51%) on livestock is recorded in November, followed by March (18%) and December (10%).

3.4. Effect of war on farm tools

In addition to war damage on crop and livestock production, more than 48% of the respondent farm tools were either looted or damaged. Various plowing tools, irrigation infrastructures and other farm equipment have been deliberately destroyed to hinder future agricultural production and starve farmers. Most of the farm tools (87%) were looted (Figure 5). The higher costs of war damage on farm tools were recorded in Woreda Medebay Zana, Tahtay Koraro and Enderta, respectively. About 54 water pump generators and plastic pipes used for irrigation were vanished.

Figure 5. Nature of the war damage on farm tools.

War perpetrators damaged more than 86% of farm tools involved EDF (57%), ENDF (10%) and an additional 19% that can be attributed either to ENDF or EDF, as they jointly carried out the damage (Appendix 5). Similar to the damage on crop and livestock production, the massive damage on farm tools (More than 90%) was recorded in November (54%) followed by March (16%), December (10%) and February (10%), respectively.

3.5. Effect of war on total smallholder agriculture

Although agriculture is the mainstay for the livelihoods of Tigray. However, the agricultural cost of war on smallholder farmers is undoubtedly immense. According to the focus group discussion (FGD) with local community, the Eritrean and Ethiopian NDF systematically looted, burned and disrupted the smallholder assets at least three times during door-to-door raids.

Overall, 94% of the respondents reported that at least one of their agricultural components (crop, livestock and farm tools) was looted and/or destroyed. Of which, 37% of the respondent’s crop, livestock and farm tools were totally damaged (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Percentage of war damage on agriculture.

4. Discussion

Although starvation of civilians as a method of war is a war crime and was condemned by the Security Council in resolution 2417 of 24 May 2018 (Zappalá, 2019), the Ethiopian government and aligned force systematically destroyed agricultural production and farm tools to starve millions of smallholder Tigray farmers (Figure 7). This is also directly against the second global goal of the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development to end hunger.

Figure 7. Deliberately killed highbred cattle (a) and mixing crop with oil and fuels (b) in Woreda Raya Azebo.

The consequences of damage on crop have been acute for the rural populations as the conflict intensified during the harvesting season. Consequently, more than 5.2 million people are currently in need of immediate humanitarian assistance (USAID, 2021). Above 71% of smallholder farmers crop were systematically looted, burned and spoiled. Of the total disruption to crops, about 53% of the crop disruption was recorded in only one month (November) and similarly, during the Derg regime, 142,000 hectares of land in Tigray were destroyed by ground troops and aerial bombardment of Ethiopian government forces in only 2 months (Hendrie, 1994). The reason for higher disruption of crop recorded in November was because the belligerent systematically attacked during the harvesting time. Most of Tigray has only one rainy reason, the kiremt rains lasting approximately June–September. Similar studies under taken using geospatial information technology in agriculture also showed that several farm plots were damaged by the belligerents. For example, more than 50 farm plots burned in Maychew, Southern Tigray (World Peace Foundation, 2021).

The disruption of the 2020 harvest left many households waiting roughly 12 months until the first opportunity for another harvest. To extend the pain and as a form of long-term collective punishment, the smallholder farmers’ perennial crops have been deliberately cut down and destroyed by the belligerents. Similarly, the intentional damaging of perennial crop trees was also reported in Iraqi and Syria (FAO, 2016; Tull, 2017). Over 52% of the study, smallholder farmers have been intentionally restricted to plough their farms. Similarly, the satellite imagery indicates that the rainfed farmlands in Tigray were best ploughed in pre-war and least in 2021 (Biadgilgn et al., 2022; Nyssen et al., 2021, 2022). The ongoing war can lead to reduced mobility as people across agricultural value chains fear to move outside of protected areas because of attacks by combat actors (Wright & Weerakoon, 2012).

The livestock husbandry subsector has contributed a substantial portion to the economy of Tigray people before the war, contributing 12% of the regional GDP (TSA, 2021). Besides the economic and nutritional value, livestock provides power for the cultivation and crop threshing of the smallholder farmers and is also an essential mode of transport to take them and their families long distances, to convey their agricultural products to the market places and bring back their domestic necessities. Giving their critical role for smallholder farmers, about 76% of the livestock population including poultry was looted, slaughtered and killed by the belligerents. This study is also similar to the report of Tigray Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development (Bureau, 2021). According to the KI and FGD farmers, besides to the direct slaughtering/killing of livestock by soldiers, farmers were being forced by Eritrean soldiers to slaughter their cattle, sheep and goat and prepare food for soldiers. Similarly, Eritrean soldiers collect and carry away poultry during door-to-door raids by slaughtering and packing as it is in the sack. The highest damage on livestock were recorded on the North-western Tigray because of Eritrean soldiers fully participated and stay for long time there. The study of war damage on the livestock of the Tigray can be differentiated between directly (91%) lost as looted, slaughtered/killed and indirectly (9%), due to lack of feeding, water, access to medicine (outbreaks of foot and mouth disease), the vaccines and other veterinarian services previously available from government are completely destroyed. According to the KII with the regional BoARD, more than 92% of the veterinary clinics have been looted or damaged. The percentage of damage to livestock within a few months was severe as compared to Six years’ damage on Syria. As compared before and after the war, our study reveals that the number of cattle were reduced by 74%, sheep and goats were reduced by 57%, 87% less poultry, 77% fewer beehive and 78% fewer equines. Whereas, in Syria, cattle were reduced by 305, sheep and goats 40%, and poultry 60% less (FAO & WFP, 2016). Likewise, In Iraqi, 50% of the population of cattle has been disrupted by ISIS (RFSAN, 2016).

For the past three millennia, Tigray’s agriculture has been based on traditional (ox ploughing) cultivation system of predominantly cereal crops. Before the war, the region was making substantial progress in agricultural transformation and improving its food and water security. The destruction and looting of farm tools and equipment have been significant across all the region. As the KII reported and confirmed by FGD, farm equipments from the traditional ploughing tools up to tractors have been deliberately burned, looted and destroyed to hinder the future agricultural production. Similarly, destruction of farm tools and equipment by ISIS as warfare is also reported in Iraq (FAO, 2016) and Syria (FAO 2017a). Studies on conflict also reported that agricultural infrastructure is purposefully looted or destroyed during the conflict, to disrupt the future irrigation systems, access to veterinary services, storage facilities, market, agroindustry, agricultural extension facilities and mechanized farming through lack of fuel or spare parts (FAO 2016c; IMU, 2017; Kimenyi et al., 2014).

Overall, the higher war damage was recorded on the crop followed by the livestock and farm tools. This is because of 93% of the studied households practiced annual and perennial crop production as the main stay for their livelihood. Similarly, the higher war damage to crop production was reported in Syria (FAO 2017a).

While Tigray has experienced several internal wars, the existing war is different in nature and magnitude of the damage happened on civilians, houses, crops, livestock, agricultural offices, farm institutions and farmers’ properties. In the present war, the belligerents purposely knock door-to-door to disrupt farmers agricultural production and assets. Although the nature and level of war damage happened on the Tigray were complicated as compared to other regions, the conflicts such as in Syria, Iraq and Yemen have been reported agriculture being used as a weapon of war (RFSAN, 2016). The disruption of the agriculture sector has not only affected the current production year, but it has also a long-term impact on the production and productivity of the smallholder agriculture, if immediate remedy action is not undertaken. War can also create the favourable conditions for outbreaks of pests and diseases, which can be important constraints to agricultural production (FAO 2016c; 2016b; 2017b).

5. Conclusion

Prior to the war in Tigray, agriculture-driven growth had the potential to enhance food security, increase self-sufficiency and benefit poor populations in both rural and urban areas. However, the overall vast damage due to the seven months of fighting and extensive looting and disruption confronted to the smallholding rural households of Tigray has been devastating. This study reveals that 94% of the respondents reported that at least one of their agricultural components (crop, livestock and farm tools) was looted and/or destroyed by the belligerents. Of which, 81% of the respondents stated that they lost their crops followed by 75% of livestock that were looted and slaughtered/killed, and 48% of the farm tools were destroyed, burned and/or looted. From the total number of livestock prior to the war, about 76% of the livestock population including poultry was looted, slaughtered and killed by the belligerents. The coalition of Ethiopian national defense force, Eritrean soldiers, Amhara special force and Fano was committed to the war damage to agriculture. The study reveals that agriculture is deliberately targeted as a weapon of war to starve the people of Tigray. The starvation happened due to the disruption of 2020 crop harvest, livestock, farm tools and labour is not only for this production period but it has also a long-term impact on the production and productivity, if immediate action is not taken even under current conditions. This is also against the United Nations Security Council resolution 2417 and the goal of Agenda 2030 for sustainable development to end hunger. Therefore, to avert the worsening situation, an immediate intervention is needed to deliver food and agricultural input supplies and rehabilitate the agricultural extension system and infrastructures.

List of abbreviations

EDF: Eritrean defence forceENDF: Ethiopian national defence forceGTP: Growth and transformation planRGDP: Growth and transformation plan

Author contribution

AM, planned the study, collected data, analysis and prepared the first manuscript. A.A, BM & NS participated on data collection, data entry and revised the draft manuscript.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the financial support provided by Tigray Institute of Policy Studies (TIPS). The authors acknowledges Dr. Araya Mebrahtu and the two anonymous reviewers for insights and useful comments. We particularly thank the respondents who accepted and took risk to share their information during the war time.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The datasets and questioners used during and/or analyses the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Additional information

Funding

This study was financially supported by Tigray institute of policy studies (TIPS).

Notes on contributors

Ashenafi Manaye

Ashenafi Manaye is a Researcher in Agricultural Modernization in the Economy sector at the Tigray Institute of Policy Studies. His academic background is climate change and development, and he works on agricultural policy related to issues of Agroforestry, non-timber forest products, industrial plantation and climate change adaptation and mitigation. Previously, he has more than 10 years of work experience in Ethiopian agricultural research system. AD recruited at Ethiopian Agricultural Research Institute (EIAR), as Junior Researcher and Center Forestry Research Process Coordinator and at Ethiopian Environment and Forest Research Institute (EEFRI), Mekelle Environment and Forest Research Center as Assistant Researcher II and Center Climate Science Research Process Coordinator. He holds a B.Sc. degree in General Forestry and M.Sc. in Climate Change and Development from Hawassa University, Wondo Genet College of Forestry and Natural resource.

Aklilu Afewerk

Aklilu Afewerk is an Associate Researcher in agricultural modernization in the Economy sector at the Tigray Institute of Policy Studies. His academic background is agronomy, and he works on Agricultural modernization policy issues related to horticulture and agronomy. Previously, he has more than 10 years of lecturing experience in agricultural TVET. He holds a B.Sc. degree in horticulture and MSc in Agronomy from Mekelle University,

Belay Manjur

Belay Manjur is the principal assistant researcher in ecology in the technology sector at the Tigray Institute of Policy Studies. His academic background is Environmental Science and Ecological Engineering, and he works on ecology issues related to conducting policy research, giving policy brief for government, providing research-based recommended solutions and advices to the regional government. BM recruited at different Ethiopian Agricultural system as center director, national research case team coordinator and researcher. He holds a B.Sc. degree in Production Forestry, M.Sc. in agroforestry and PhD in Environmental Science and Ecological Engineering.

Negasi Solomon

Negasi Solomon is the principal Associate researcher in ecology, in the Technology sector at the Tigray Institute of Policy Studies. His academic background is Environmental Science, and he works on ecology issues related to conducting policy research, giving policy brief for government, providing research-based recommended solutions and advices to the regional government. NS has more than 10 years teaching and research experience at Mekelle University. He holds a B.Sc. degree in General Forestry, M.Sc. in agroforestry and PhD in Environmental Science.

Appendices Appendix 1:

Demographic characteristics of study households

Table

Woreda	Gender		Total	Age		Family Size
	Female	Male		Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Raya Azebo	122	252	374	45.46	14.91	5.24	2.11
Enda mekoni	146	201	347	43.33	14.90	5.47	2.24
Emba Alaje	38	227	265	47.34	11.82	6.08	2.12
Hintalo Wajirat	60	152	212	45.73	13.04	5.50	1.99
Enderta	62	259	321	45.05	14.36	5.95	2.28
Dogea Temben	30	188	218	48.68	12.91	5.94	2.02
Hawzen	70	222	292	55.77	15.18	5.97	2.45
Kilte Awlaelo	54	177	231	52.37	14.29	6.04	2.13
Ganta Afeshum	109	116	225	48.95	14.86	5.69	2.12
Adwa	75	224	299	47.41	12.25	6.35	2.04
Werki Amba	45	253	298	44.07	12.17	5.70	1.98
Laelay Maychew	61	150	211	45.25	11.73	5.66	1.99
Tahtay Maychew	35	175	210	45.09	13.82	5.20	2.04
Ahferom	21	77	98	52.51	12.98	6.29	1.80
Nader Adet	31	118	149	46.27	13.63	5.49	2.17
Tahtay Koraro	105	134	239	43.80	11.21	6.80	1.75
Asgede Tsimbla	120	104	224	45.30	12.80	6.78	1.70
Medebay Zana	27	136	163	45.99	12.44	7.22	1.76
Total	1211	3165	4376	46.89	13.85	5.92	2.13

Appendix 2:

Percentage of perpetrator for crop disruption

Table

Code	Perpetrator	Frequency	Percentage
1	ENDF	1217	9.8
2	Amhara special force	0	0.0
3	Amhara Fano	19	.2
4	EDF	5344	43.0
5	Tigray defence force	0	0.0
6	Gangsters	125	1.0
8	Other	50	1.4
9	Unknown	722	5.8
10	1&2	234	1.9
11	1&4	3105	25.0
12	4&6	1046	8.4
13	1,2&3	81	.7
14	1,4&6	366	2.9
Total		12437	100.0

Appendix 3:

The number of smallholder livestock lost due to war in Tigray

Table

Woreda	Cattle	Sheep	Goats	Donkey	Camel	Horse	Poultry	Beehive
Raya Azebo	97	291	304	35	24	4	1719	22
Hintalo Wajirat	55	167	178	34	5	1	1059	18
Enda Mekoni	127	387	250	42	2	0	808	56
Amba Alaje	53	316	222	19	0	0	1210	66
Enderta	66	88	127	24	0	0	3574	125
Hawzen	41	709	29	18	0	0	1568	26
Kilte Awlaelo	20	453	43	20	0	0	1557	309
Ganta Afeshum	57	568	125	37	0	0	1480	51
Rural Adwa	40	254	363	10	0	0	1160	33
Werki Amba	24	194	347	25	0	0	1273	176
Laelay Maychew	34	147	194	13	0	0	806	20
Dogea Temben	35	111	49	16	0	0	494	66
Tahtay Maychew	28	119	206	7	0	0	448	19
Ahferom	7	26	58	5	0	0	367	74
Nader Adet	133	133	292	23	0	0	451	79
Tahtay Koraro	439	408	848	71	24	0	3516	59
Asgede Timbla	626	297	1068	79	22	0	2722	76
Medebay Zana	483	259	1236	63	14	0	1544	103
Total	2,365	4,927	5,939	541	91	5	25,756	1,378

Appendix 4:

Percentage of perpetrator for livestock disruption

Table

Code	Perpetrator	Frequency	Percentage
1	ENDF	654	10.2
2	Amhara special force	19	0.4
3	Amhara Fano	4	0.1
4	EDF	3901	53.9
5	Tigray defence force	0.0	0.0
6	Gangsters	36	0.5
8	Other	75	1.0
9	Unknown	429	5.9
10	1&2	75	1.0
11	1&4	1947	26.9

Appendix 5:

Percentage of perpetrator for farm tool disruption

Table

Code	Perpetrator	Frequency	Percentage (%)
1	ENDF	732	10.1
2	Amhara special force	16	0.2
3	Amhara Fano	13	0.2
4	EDF	3850	57.3
5	Tigray defence force	0	0.0
6	Gangsters	83	0.8
7	Others	97	2.9
8	Unknown	534	8.0
9	1&2	53	0.8
10	1&4	1297	19.3
11	1&6	24	0.4