ST.

MARY’S UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

EXAMINING STAKEHOLDERS’ ENGAGEMENT IN PROJECT

IMPLEMENTATION: THE CASE OF INTEGRATED AGRO
INDUSTRY PARK (IAIP), AMHARA REGION, ETHIOPIA

BY:
HAREGEWOIN GOCHEL
SGS/0496/2013A

JUNE 2022
ADDIS ABABA
 EXAMINING STAKEHOLDERS ENGAGEMENT IN PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION: THE CASE OF INTEGRATED AGRO
INDUSTRY PARK (IAIP), AMHARA REGION, ETHIOPIA

BY:
HAREGEWOIN GOCHEL

ADVISOR:
Yilkal Wassie (Asst. Prof.)

A PROJECT WORK SUBMITTED TO ST. MARY’S

UNIVERSITY, SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES, IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE AWARD OF MASTER OF ARTS DEGREE IN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT

JUNE 2022
ADDIS ABABA
 APPROVAL

As members of the Board of Examiners, certify that they have read and hereby recommend

to St. Mary University College of postgraduate studies to accept the thesis submitted by Ms.

Haregewoin Gochel and entitled “Examining Stakeholders Engagement in Project

Implementation: The Case of Integrated Agro Industry Park (IAIP), Amhara Region,

Ethiopia”, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of a Master of Science

Degree in Project Management.

Approved of BOARD Examiners

Temesgen Belayineh (PhD) ………………………. ……………………….

Dean, Graduate Study Signature Date

Yilkal Wassie (Asst. Prof.) ………………………. ……………………….

Advisor Signature Date

Zelalem Tafere (PhD) ………………………. ……………………….

External Examiner Signature Date

Misganaw Solomon (PhD) ………………………. ……………………….

Internal Examiner Signature Date

 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this thesis entitled “Examining Stakeholders Engagement in Project

Implementation: The Case of Integrated Agro Industry Park (IAIP), Amhara Region,

Ethiopia”, has been carried out by me under the guidance and supervision of Mr. Yilkal

Wassie (Asst. Prof.).

The thesis is original and has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma to

any university or institutions.

Researcher’s Name Date Signature

Ms. Haregewoin Gochel June, 2022 _________________

i
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the thesis entitles “Examining Stakeholders Engagement in Project

Implementation: The Case of Integrated Agro Industry Park (IAIP), Amhara Region,

Ethiopia”, submitted to St. Mary’s University for the award of the Degree of Masters of

Science in Project Management is a record of original and real research work carried out by

Ms. Haregewoin Gochel, under my guidance and supervision.

Therefore, I hereby declare that no part of this thesis has been submitted to any other

university or institutions for the award of any degree or diploma.

Adviser’s Name Date Signature

Mr. Yilkal Wassie (Asst. Prof.) June, 2022 _____________________

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, thanks to almighty GOD for allowing me to be strong and his protection. Next,

I would like to thank Dr. Yilkal Wassie (Asst. Prof.) for the opportunity he gave me to have

a better knowledge and preparation from the start and guidance in preparing the research

paper. My children Kirubel and Surafel your love and encouragement kept me going.

iii
Abbreviations

IAIPs – Integrated-Agro Industry Parks

UN – United Nations

NGO – Non-Government Organization

RTCs – Rural Transformation Center

IPDC – Industrial Parks Development Corporation

RIPDC- Regional Industrial Parks Development Corporation

ACPZ- Agro-Commodity Procurement Zone

MOI - Ministry of Industry

iv
 Abstract

This study examines the stakeholder’s engagement in project implementation in the case of

Integrated Agro-Industry Park (IAIP) initiative in Amhara Region, Ethiopia. A mixed

research approach has been followed mainly using a qualitative analysis with some

supportive quantitative data analysis from primary and secondary sources. 24 stakeholders

were sampled to understand stakeholder’s desired and current engagement using a

stakeholder’s assessment matrix and an additional of 51 stakeholders were included in the

study to collect further detail through questionnaires. The result clearly demonstrates that

the engagement of stakeholders in the pre-feasibility assessment practice of IAIP initiative

was very restricted to some sectors and minimal while a large number of key stakeholders

has not been aware of the presence of pre-feasibility assessment. The study also found that

there is a gap in the desired and current level of stakeholders’ engagement where most key

stakeholders from the agricultural sector, cooperatives agency and unions, potential

investors and investors signed agreement with the RIPDC falls under unaware, resistant and

neutral categories although the desired level of their engagement is to be supportive of

leading the initiative. Apart from these, the major strengths stakeholders’ engagement in the

implementation of IAIP project in the region are identified to be the presence of well

documented stakeholders list to engage them in the implementation process while the

observed key weakness is the lack of clearly designed stakeholder’s engagement plan. In line

with these, it is recommended there should be a peer to peer discussion programs with key

stakeholders considering the current status of stakeholder engagement; and prepare a clear

and participatory stakeholders’ engagement plan considering the muti-stakeholders demand

of the IAIP initiative.

Key Works: IAIP, Stakeholders, engagement, Assessment Matrix, Agro-Industries, Project

v
Table of Contents
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................ viii

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................ ix

Abstract .................................................................................................................................................... v

Chapter One ............................................................................................................................................ 1

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Back Ground of the Study ....................................................................................1

1.2 Back Ground Information of the Project ...............................................................3

1.3 Statement of the problem .....................................................................................4

1.4 Research Questions ..............................................................................................6

Chapter Two.......................................................................................................................................... 10

2.1 Concept and Definitions ..................................................................................... 10

2.2 Theoretical Literature Review ............................................................................ 17

2.3 Empirical Literature Review .............................................................................. 21

2.4 Conceptual Framework of the Study .................................................................. 23

Chapter Three ....................................................................................................................................... 25

3.1 Study Population................................................................................................ 25

3.2 Sample Size and Sampling Procedure ..................................................................... 26

3.2 Data Collection Instrument and Data Sources .................................................... 27

3.3 Methods of Data Analyses ................................................................................. 29

Chapter Four ......................................................................................................................................... 30

Results and Discussions ..................................................................................................................... 30

4.1 Background Characteristics ................................................................................ 30

4.2 The Role and Engagement of Stakeholders in the Pre-feasibility Assessments of

IAIP Initiative ............................................................................................................... 33

4.3 Stakeholder’s Level of Engagement in the Implementation of IAIP

Development Project ........................................................................................................................ 37

vi
 4.4 Strengths and Weakness of Stakeholder’s Engagement in the implementation of
IAIP Initiative ............................................................................................................... 45

Chapter Five .......................................................................................................................................... 48

Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................................ 48

5.1 Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 48

5.2 Recommendations .............................................................................................. 49

I.References .......................................................................................................................................... 51

II. Annex: Tools of Data Collection ................................................................................................ 53

vii
List of Tables
Table 1: IAIPs and RTCs under construction in four regions ..............................................4
Table 2: Significance of the study ......................................................................................8
Table 3: Stakeholders of IAIP Development Project ......................................................... 12
Table 4: Sex of respondent ............................................................................................... 31
Table 5: Age of respondents ............................................................................................. 32
Table 6: Educational status of respondent......................................................................... 32
Table 7: Stakeholders Engagement in Pre-feasibility assessment of Bure IAIP ................. 34
Table 8: Ways of engagement and roles of stakeholders in the prefeasibility assessment of
Bure IAIP development.................................................................................................... 34
Table 9: Stakeholders knowledge in the presence of prefeasibility assessment for Bure
IAIP development ............................................................................................................ 35
Table 10: Stakeholders’ level of agreement on what the roles of stakeholders should have
been on prefeasibility assessment practice ........................................................................ 37
Table 11: Key government stakeholders’ level of engagement in the implementation of
IAIP development project ................................................................................................ 39
Table 12: Project affected communities’ level of engagement in the implementation of
IAIP development project ................................................................................................ 41
Table 13: Potential investors’ level of engagement in the implementation of IAIP
development project ......................................................................................................... 42
Table 14: Level of engagement of investors currently signed agreement and Bure IAIP
operational investors ........................................................................................................ 44
Table 15: Level of engagement of unions found in the ACPZ of Bure IAIP ..................... 45
Table 16: Major Strengths and Weaknesses Stakeholder’s Engagement in the
implementation of Bure IAIP development project ........................................................... 46
Table 17: Solutions and strategies to encourage successful engagement of stakeholders in
the implementation and development of IAIP initiative .................................................... 47

viii
List of Figure
Figure 1: conceptual Framework of the study ................................................................... 24

ix
 Chapter One
Introduction
1.1 Background of the Study

Agriculture is the key driver of Ethiopia’s long-term growth and food security. The sector

directly supports 85% of the population, contribute the largest proportion in the GDP and

about 90% of the export value apart from its wide-reaching contribution in employment. In

consideration of its potential and derive economic transformation through the sector, the

Ethiopian government started a platform for the establishment of Integrated Ago-Industrial

Parks (IAIPs). The initiative is expected to commercialize the agricultural sector and boost

the agro-industry sector. It has been under implementation with a project model which

integrate various value chain components via the cluster approach where fresh farm feed

from the Rural Transformation Centers (RTCs) will be transported to IAIPs where the

processing, management and distribution activities takes place (Mahindra, 2018).

The realization of the initiative from feasibility assessment to planning and operation needs

the engagement of many stakeholders apart from the Industrial Parks Corporation at federal

and regional level which is primary unit responsible for developing and operationalization

of the IAIPs. Stakeholder engagement involves identifying, planning, and implementing

actions to influence key stakeholder groups. Hence, a stakeholder includes both sides,

persons or group of persons who are affected directly or indirectly by a project or affecting

the project performances. In the field of project management, a stakeholder is an individual

and/or organization having an interest in the success of a project. Project stakeholder

management includes the processes required to identify the people, groups or organization

that could impact or be impacted by the project (Prodan & Fanjul, 2011; Mahindra, 2018)

Participation or engagement of stakeholders in planning, implementation, monitoring and

evaluation of projects and programs is an effective tool in promoting greater transparency

1
and accountability in development governance (Aaltonen, Kujala & Oijala, 2008); Prodan

& Fanjul, 2011. In the IAIP initiative to develop an agro-food park, increased engagement

of stakeholders in the implementation process would create an enabling environment for the

them to set their own targets, support them to meet the targets and build their capacities.

Recent development and studies in stakeholders engagement indicated that project or

program implementation success and effectiveness is linked to stakeholder proper

engagement. Hence, identifying stakeholders at the beginning of the projects, recognizing

and managing their needs and expectations will contribute to the creation of a suitable

environment and be catalyst for success. Evidences shows that projects which neglected the

proactive planning and management of stakeholder’s requirements suffered from waste in

time and resources and many issues that appear as a result of poor planning, and the lessons

learned from it (WB, 2021; Alqaisi, 2018; Ndengwa, 2015).

Overall, the IAIP development project implementation platform needs to involve multi-

stakeholders including government counterparts, contractors, project affected communities,

smallholder farmers, commodity aggregators and suppliers, IAIP agro processing

enterprises, unions and small-scale service providing enterprises. Devising appropriate

mechanism to engage these stakeholder leads to synergy of efforts and success of the IAIP

initiative in general and the one implemented in Amhara National Regional State in

Particular. Therefore, this study has been initiated with the aim of examining stakeholder’s

engagement in the implementation of IAIP development project using evidences from

Amhara National Regional State and specifically known by the name Bure IAIP found in

the south western agro-processing development zone of the region.

2
1.2 Background Information of the IAIP Project

Ethiopian economy is largely dependent on agriculture. The country achieved an average

economic growth rate of 9.4% a year from 2010/11 to 2019/20 where agriculture still plays

a pivotal role (WB, 2021). The government has launched a new 10-year perspective plan

which run from 2020/21- 2029/30 aiming to sustain economic growth achieved under the

Growth and Transformation Plan while giving more emphasis for private sector involvement,

among others agro-industrial development is given due emphasis. In this respect, Integrated

Agro-Industrial Parks (IAIPs) and associated infrastructures of Rural Transformation

Centres (RTCs) are considered as a vehicle for the structural transformation of the Ethiopian

economy through the commercialization of the agricultural sector (MOTI, 2018, Mahindra,

2018).

Integrated Agro-Industrial Parks has a primary aim of devising a world class agro-ecosystem

where farmers, growers, processors, marketing institutions, exporters, research institutions,

government, academic institutions, industrial bodies, are engaged seamlessly for sustainable

agro-business development. IAIP can be seen as the application of industrial ecology in the

agro-sector by arranging processing and production facilities, industry specific

infrastructures, social infrastructures like housing, schooling, health facilities, training

centres and service providing centres in one site (Mahindra, 2018)

In achieving the objectives of better employment creation, forging exchange earning, agro-

processing development and agro-commercialization Ministry of Industry (MOI) and federal

and regional Industrial Park Development Corporations (IPDCs) has been constructing four

pilot IAIPs in Bure (Amhara Region), Bulbula (Oromia Region) , Yirgalem (Sidama Region)

and Baker (Tigray Region) and started operation very recently while several investors are

3
already registered and some have started operation while others are undertaking construction

of factory shades/buildings in the park (MOI, 2022).

Table 1: IAIPs and RTCs under construction in Amhara region (Bure IAIP ACPZ)
IAIP RTC Under Remark
Construction
Bure IAIPin Amhara 7 20 projects currently signed agreements
1 currently operating and started production
with soybean input (Protein powder and
edible oil)
 3 projects in under construction of factory
Source: MOI progress report on the IAIP projects, 2022

In the year 2018, Bure IAIP in Amhara region has a proposed total area to developed 1000

hectare at full capacity while the first phase, about 260.58 hectare of land, is currently

developed and open for investors. Currently, as of March 2022, 20 investment projects have

signed memorandum of understanding with the regional IPDC to work in Bure IAIP while

1 investment project started operation, production and started exporting with a share of 85%

of its produce of protein powder and edible oil from soybean. Hence, different governmental

organizations, project affected communities, investment companies, small holder farmers,

unions, commodity aggregators and private enterprises are expected to be involved in the

implementation process where engagement of government offices form customary, trade and

marketing facilitation and service providers like banks in one stop shop services and directly

in the implementation and across the value chain would have a multidimensional effect

which need to be studies effectively for to devise appropriate strategies for interventions and

better coordination (Amhara RIPDC, 2022).

1.3 Statement of the Problem

Development project initiatives like IAIP are known for their multi stakeholder engagement

and participation from planning, implementation to monitoring and evaluation activities. In

4
general sense, stakeholder engagement in projects have been long recognized and promoted

worldwide by governments, NGOs, UN and the World Bank. Moreover, this has also been

outlined in UN declaration for Human Rights of 1948 by emphasizing on the participation

of people in all segment during decision making as a right. Stakeholder participation has

been the term of any development initiative for over 50, though this term and efforts are

being in plague by Criticism, there has been an assentation that, policy are formulated and

will be practical only if they are locally accepted hence sustainability will be achieved (WB,

2021). In most case the community and stakeholders are only viewed as beneficiary and

hurdle in implementing the project which limits the engagement of stakeholders and gains

from their participation (Peter et al., 2015). This needs to be clearly understood through a

deeper study on identifying stakeholders and their level of engagement in project

implementation.

Accordingly, Green hall and Revere (1999) clearly stated that most of implementing partners

find difficulties where the involvement of communities and other stakeholders are present

as they have little competence and capacities as well as illiterate in running the project. On

the other hand, Karl (2000) view local people engagement in development intervention will

achieve their objective if the targeted group or affected population will be included in the

social change process. In spite of the fact that, some studies such as the one done by Hodgkin

et al., (1994) and Tiffow (2013) have argued that for projects sustainability multi-dimension

factors should be considered including the socio-cultural, economic and conducive

environment as well as the involvement of stakeholders which play a major role which

demands more clear understanding.

In most and recent studies (Bal, 2013) and (Ndengwa, 2015) reveal that, there has been ever

increased project success due to a well design stakeholder participation. Both studies

5
conclude that stakeholder participation contribute to sustainability of donor funded project

though their description and explanation were insufficient in exploring how participation

employed by different stakeholder contributes to project sustainability. In view of this, the

IAIP based on the 2018 Mahindra’s feasibility study which has been considered as a multi

donor project and initiative is reported to involve different stakeholders although key

challenges are currently observed in the engagement of stakeholders for IAIP operation and

implementation which are clearly slowed down the implementation phase not to achieve the

target within a short and planed period of time. This clearly pointed out the need for in-depth

analysis of current stakeholders, level of engagement, challenges and opportunities to

appropriately respond to existing situation.

1.4 Research Questions

 What roles has been played by Stakeholders during the pre – feasibility assessment

of IAIP initiative?

 To what extent stakeholders are engaged in the implementation of IAIP initiative?

 What is strength and weakness of stakeholder’s engagement in planning and

implementation of the IAIP project?

1.5 Research Objectives

1.5.1 General Objective

The overall objective of the study is to examine the Stakeholders’ Engagement in Project

Implementation in the case of Integrated Agro-Industry Park (IAIP) initiative in Amhara

Region, Ethiopia.

1.5.2. Specific Objectives

 To assess the role played by stakeholders in the pre-feasibility assessments of IAIP

initiatives

6
  To examine the level of stakeholder’s engagement in the implementation of IAIP

project in the Amhara region.

 To identify the key strengths and weakness of stakeholders’ engagement in the IAIP

project.

1.6 Scope of the Study

The study is designed to have conceptual, geographical, methodological, and temporal scope.

Although there are several ways of conceptualizing stakeholders’ engagement, this paper

concentrates on the stakeholder’s assessment in the IAIP project with a matrix that helps to

document desired and monitor actual engagement levels of stakeholders as suggested by the

PMBOK 6th Edition classifying desired and actual engagement level as unaware, resistant,

neutral, supportive and leading stakeholders. Hence, the study able to identify stakeholder’s

engagement in prefeasibility and implementation of IAIP project as well as identify the

challenges in stakeholder’s engagement with an added thematic area to be examined.

Spatially, the study is delimited to the IAIP project of Amhara region which is developed as

a pilot project among 17 identified national Agro-processing industries development zones

identified by the Ministry of Industry and Trade in the reay 2018. The IAIP is found in Bure

Town ad its network (the Agro-Commodities Procurement Zone) is expected to cover the

South Western Amhara including Awi, east and West Gojjam Zones of the regional state.

Moreover, methodologically, the study uses mixed research approach of both qualitative and

some quantitative methods although it is more of a qualitative research because it undergoes

analysis of qualitative statements from stakeholders and custodian of IAIP project i.e.

Amhara National Regional State Industrial Pars Development Corporation. Overall, the

issues at hand issues has been assessed using a cross sectional collected data from regional

7
RIPDC and Stakeholders as well as pre-documented evidences on the initiative in the year

2022.

1.7 Limitation of the Study

The study has not been done without any limitation, in this regard this study has been limited

in accessing sufficient information as a result of turnover in individuals involved as focal

persons from stakeholders which could have its-own bearing in the final result. Apart from

this, the study would have been better if capacity allows o cover the cases from all pilot

project of IAIP initiative in the country so as to give a better impression.

1.8 Significance of the Study

Effective stakeholder’s management and engagement is crucial to ensure project success

which is a serious problem in most of the development initiatives. Hence, the study would

have importance for implementing institution and key stakeholders who wishes to effectively

develop the IAIP initiative as a pilot for agro-processing industrial development in the

country.

The outcome of this study is believed to have wide variety of significant for different

stakeholders of IAIP development initiative as indicated in the Table below based on each

group of stakeholders.

Table 2: Significance of the study

Stakeholder Expected significance of the study
IAIP Implementing Helps them in understanding the tradeoff between desired current
Organization level of stakeholders’ engagement
Key Government Highlights the development of IAIP initiative and evaluate their
Stakeholders level of engagement against targets so as to act accordingly
Partners and Enable them to understand the participation of key stakeholders
Donors in the development of IAIP

8
 Stakeholder Expected significance of the study
Project Affected It helps them to express how stakeholder’s engagement captures
Community the interest of the community
Potential investors Enable potentials investors to identified who will be involved in
the development of the IAIP project
Investors Signed Enables them to understand the list of available stakeholders with
Agreement their level of engagement in supporting the IAIP development.
Unions Provides a detail to act accordingly and use available
opportunities for their development.
Bure IAIP Enable them to evaluate the level of stakeholders’ engagement so
Operational as to support the development of IAIP
enterprises

1.9 Organization of the Study

The research paper is organized into five chapters. The first chapter deals with background

of the study, statements of the problem, basic research questions, objectives, significance,

scope and organization of the research paper presented in the above sessions. The second

chapter presents the operational definition of terms, review of theoretical literature, related

empirical literatures regarding to the research area and conceptual framework of the study.

The third chapter outlines research methodologies that consists study design, study

population, sampling technique, sampling size, data collection instruments and data analysis.

Chapter four on the other hand deal with the presentation, analysis, and interpretation of the

findings, while the last one, chapter five, presents the summary, conclusion, and

recommendation of the study.

9
 Chapter Two
Review of Related Literature
This chapter deals with the available literature regarding the subject matter at hand. Mainly,

it includes sessions dedicated to basic definition and concepts used in the study, the

theoretical literature review to identify theories related to stakeholder’s engagement in

development projects, empirical literature Review and conceptual framework of the study.

2.1 Concept and Definitions

The study deals with a pilot project in the area of agro-processing industrial development

with specific reference to the stakeholder’s engagement.

Project:

Stakeholders: The concept of stakeholders is very wide which is defined in different ways

by different stakeholders. Stakeholders are people/ community who may directly or

indirectly, positively or negatively affect or be affected by the outcome of the project or

program. Those people may be Primary stakeholder and Secondary stakeholder. Primary

stakeholder, are the beneficiary of development, intervention or those directly affected by it.

Secondary stakeholder, are those who influence a development intervention or are indirectly

affected by it (ADB, 2000).

Stakeholder has also been defined as any group or individual that can affect or is affected by

the achievement of corporation or purpose (Freeman, 1984). In response to the explored

study the most appropriate definition is, Project stakeholders who are viewed as individual

or organization who are actively involved in project and whose interest are affected by the

execution of the project or completion of it (PMI, 2000). This is because the definition is

more comprehensive than other and considers the period after project completion. Hence, in

our case of IAIP development project a number of stakeholders including government

agencies, development partners, NGOs, project affected community, farmers, unions,

10
cooperatives, investors, construction companies, Micro and small enterprises and others

involve across the value chain and development processes.

Stakeholders Engagement: It is very hard to thinks of a project without stakeholders. But

the number and involvement of stakeholders vary greatly among the different types of

projects to be undertake which could partly depend on the sector in which they involve. For

instance, a small software development project, for instance, might only have a few

stakeholders while a large mega-project like construction of infrastructure like IAIP, can

involve a huge number of individual stakeholders and groups of stakeholders. Irrespective

of the size of the project, managing a project’s relationship with stakeholders is crucial to

ensure project success. This is especially true for influential and interested stakeholders

(Project-Management.info, 2022). Stakeholder engagement is a necessary but not sufficient

condition for organizations to become ‘good’ or ‘great’ social performers, particularly due

to the contribution that this process can make to positive and material changes in the

organization’s organizational behavior and internal structure. Stakeholder engagement is an

iterative process where learning from action should be continually fed back to improve that

action (Jeffery, 2009).

Stakeholders Engagement Matric: although it has been defined in many different ways a

stakeholder’s engagement assessment matrix is a model which a project manager uses to

judge stakeholders’ current level of engagement with a project (PMI). The Stakeholder

Engagement Assessment Matrix is a simple yet powerful project management technique to

document desired and monitor actual engagement levels of stakeholders. It helps identify

potential gaps in the involvement of stakeholders. The stakeholder engagement assessment

matrix basically consists of several rows, each of them representing one stakeholder (or a

11
group of homogenous stakeholders, if applicable). The columns indicate the level of

engagement.

Integrated Agro-Industrial parks (IAIPs): the IAIP is to integrate various value chain

components via the cluster approach. Fresh farm feed and agricultural produce from Rural

Transformation Centers will be transported to IAIP where the processing, management, and

distributing (including exporting) activities will takes place (Mahindra, 2018).

Rural Transformation Centers (RTCs): RTC is an integral part of Agro Commodity

Procurement Zone (ACPZ) and would primary serve as an aggregation point of the IAIP and

will act as backward integration of the IAIP ensuring the required quality and quantity of

raw material (Mahindra, 2018).

2.1.1 Stakeholders of IAIP Development Project

The development and conceptualization of Integrated Agro Industrial Parks is by its nature

a multi stakeholder project which involve farm household, project affected community,

value and supply chain actors, service providers, government institutions, associations like

unions and cooperatives, agro-processors/ enterprises or investors working in the IAIP and

potential investors in the IAIP/RTCs. Based on the initial feasibility assessment of Bure IAIP

undertaken by Mahindra in 2018 and latter undated by the Ministry of Trade and Industry

(MoTI) and the Regional Industrial Parks Development Corporation (RIPDC), the major

stakeholders are identified and their interest and their role are briefly explained in the Table.

Table 3: Stakeholders of IAIP Development Project

Stakeholder Category List of stakeholders and their role and interest
The direct implementer of the project with their hierarchy

IAIP Implementing includes Ministry of Industry (MoI), Amhara National

Organization Regional State Industrial Parks’ Development Corporation

and Bure IAIP Administration. Their role and interest include

12
 Stakeholder Category List of stakeholders and their role and interest
construction of IAIP facilities, leasing and administration of the
park.
IAIP initiative involves may key government stakeholders
including:
Regional Industry and Investment Bureau and Ethiopian
Investment Commission: Both institutions have interest and the
role of undertaking investment attraction, investment promotion
and administration of One Stop Shop (OSS) services (customers,
licensing and taxation, work permit and supporting services like
Key Government electricity, telecom, etc.) for the IAIP investors:
Stakeholders Bureau of Agriculture and Bureau of livestock resources
development: provide agricultural mechanization services for
smallholder and commercial farms to enable the development of
sustainable value chain for uninterrupted supply of raw material
for agro-processors in the IAIP.
Regional Cooperatives promotion Agency: supports and
develop cooperatives and unions to involve in the aggregation of
raw materials and or agri-inputs in the RTCs and supply quality
raw material to the IAIP as a supply chain actor.
Bureau of Labour and Training: works to supply agroindustry
skill labour demand by identifying key area that need
intervention through short- and long-term trainings.
Bureau of Revenue and Ethiopia Customs Authority north
western Branch: facilitate tax and customs services for
enterprises operating in Bure IAIP and RTCs in the OSS.
Universities, TVTEs and PTCs (10): with their industry
university linkage packages support innovation, research and
technological development in the IAIP apart from supplying
skilled labor force targeting the industry labour demand.
Regional Administration (President Office): Leads the overall
coordination of sectors as a leader of the Regional Project
Steering Committee

13
 Stakeholder Category List of stakeholders and their role and interest
Bureau of Finance: supporting project administration, financing
and budget allocation for actors. Attracting donors to support
IAIP initiative.
Bureau of trade and market development: facilitate the
market, value and supply chain of raw materials for agro-
processors in the IAIP, products trading and facilitate easy trade
licensing among enterprises that would start business related to
IAIP.
Agricultural Transformation Agency: identify agri-products
demanded by the IAIP of Bure for agricultural technical support
to enhance production and productivity of crops, vegetables,
fruits, dairy products and meat products to improve sustainable
supply of inputs for agro-industries in the IAIP.
Agricultural Research Institutes (4): have a role of developing
improved varieties for better production among farmers and
improved supply of agro-products to the IAIP processors. (Adet
Agricultural research center, Andasa, Amhara agricultural
Research Institute, etc).
The partners and donors of IAIP development project are
coordinated under the (PROSEAD coordination platform mainly
coordinated by United Nations Industrial Development
Organization (UNIDO). The platform has five components and
each donner has its own role, area of work and support identified
during the implementation of the project as clearly described
below.
Component 1: Park-related infrastructure development (co-
funded by European Union (EU), African Development Bank
Partners and Donors (AfDB) and Korean Exim Bank through the IAIP-SP project.
Component 2: facilitate Access to finance (co-funded by EU,
EIB and implemented by IFAD through the RUFIP project.

14
 Stakeholder Category List of stakeholders and their role and interest
Component 3: Value chain development (co-funded by EU, The
Netherlands and Denmark and implemented by the Agricultural
Transformation Agency (ATA).
Component 4: Skill development (co-funded by EU and BMZ
through the STEP project and implemented by GiZ).
Component 5: Coordination and agro-industrial governance
(co-funded by EU and AICS and implemented by UNIDO).
There is about 531 project affected households as a result of Bure
IAIP and related RTCs infrastructure development and facility
development activities of the project which are affected
Project Affected negatively and demands mostly rehabilitation and sustainable
Community job creation specially for youth and unemployed family
members. On the other hand, the Dwellers of Bure Town could
also be taken as project affected community in a more positive
way where their main interest is the development of the parks
and employment of local people.
As a mandated organization the industry and investment bureau
in collaboration with the regional IPDC identified 34 potential
investors that would have interest in investing the in e IAIP.
Potential Investors While their main role is to invest in the park their interest is
getting land for investment and better facilities for agro-
industrial development.
There are currently 20 IAIP investors and or projects that which
are operational, construction and preconstruction phase, and that
signed agreement with the RIPDC to work in the IAIP. Their
main role is to process agro-products for export and domestic
Investors Signed market while their interest is to have a full facility in the IAIP
Agreement, Operational and efficient OSS service.
and under construction in 1. Richland Biochemical Production PLC for processing Soya
Bure IAIP Bean
2. Richland Biochemical Production PLC for processing Maize
3. Bahir Dar Agro Processing for processing Maize

15
 Stakeholder Category List of stakeholders and their role and interest
4. Yoseph Tomato Processing for processing Tomato
5. Metadel Assefa for processing Avocado
6. Zelalem Kebede for processing Wheat
7. DandiniTrading PLc for processing Soya Bean
8. Yaregal Dereje for processing Cearals
9. WSB PLC for processing Milk
10. Hanen agro-Processsing PLC for processing Teff
11. Hanen agro-Processsing PLC for processing Meat/Live
Animals
12. Sun Set Trading PLc for processing Tomato
13. Enyew Almu for processing potato
14. Hanen agro-Processsing PLC for processing potato
15. Mequanint Esubalew for processing Maize
16. GATEGONE for processing Red Pepper, chickpea, lentils,
beans,peas etc…
17. AS Trading for processing Red Pepper, chickpea, lentils, beans, peas etc…
18. Damot Union for processing Maize
19. Adane Taye for processing Milk, soyabean, maize, potato
20. Lal Honey processing plc for processing Honey
In the Bure IAIP Agro Commodity Procurement Zone (ACPZ)
which include three administrative zones there are about 6
unions portioning in the area of crop and cereals, fruits and
vegetables, and dairy products. They are basically interested in
the aggregation of raw products from the farmers and creating
Unions linkage with agro-processors in Bure IAIP as a supply chain
actor. The list includes:
1. Damot Multipurpose Farmers Cooperatives union
2. Gozamin Multipurpose Farmers Cooperatives union
3. Motta Multipurpose Farmers Cooperatives union
4. Merkeb Multipurpose Farmers Cooperatives union
5. Zengena Irrigation Farmers Cooperatives union
6. Koga Irrigation Farmers Cooperatives union

16
2.2 Theoretical Literature Review

The literature in the project management and stakeholder’s participation, engagement and

analysis provide a wide range of theoretical foundation to explain stakeholder engagement

and understanding their level of engagement. Among the many, two of them to be inferred

for the study as presented in the sections below.

2.2.1 Skinner’s Operant Conditioning Theory

Skinner (1938) designed a theory called Skinner’s Operant Conditioning Theory, it

conceptualizes that while behavior which is reinforced tends to be repeated or strengthened,

behavior which is not reinforced tends to die out, be extinguished or weakened. Skinner

studied operant conditioning by conducting experiments using animals which he placed in a

'Skinner Box'. Skinner's theory of operant conditioning further states that the process does

not require repeated efforts, but is instead an immediate reaction to a familiar stimulus. The

theory indicates that reinforcers in any intervention can be positive or negative and both are

used to strengthen behavior. The theory clearly indicates that unlike animals, human beings

often respond to verbal operant by taking advice, listening to the warnings of others and

obeying given rules and law even without having personally experienced any negative

consequences from disobeying. The knowledge of what could happen if certain behaviors

are chosen can be enough to keep us from acting in certain ways which could be linked to

stakeholder’s behavior and action.

The term operant conditioning means roughly changing of behavior by the use of

reinforcement which is given after the desired response. Skinner identified three types of

responses that can follow behavior. The theory is applicable to the study since behavior

modification can be carried out in the stakeholders of IAIP projects to suit the study

recommendations. Behavior modification comprises changing environmental events that are

17
related to a person's behavior. It can be carried out by way of giving positive reinforcement

in behavior modification through providing compliments, approval, encouragement, and

affirmation stakeholders so that all stakeholders are involved in decision making.

2.2.2 Treseder’s Degree of Participation

Phil Treseder in 1997 postulates a theory that uses five degrees of participation that have no

hierarchy of involvement. The type of involvement or engagement is dependent on the

wishes of stakeholders, the context, stakeholder’s developmental stages and the nature of the

organization among others. Under this theoretical model, stakeholders are informed;

sponsors decide the project and stakeholders volunteer for it mostly for planning and

implementation of the project. Hence it is considered that the stakeholders not only

understand the project but also know who decided to involve them and why the stakeholders

are involved. This implies that sponsors respect the stakeholder’s views. The other degree

of participation is one of sponsor-initiated, shared decisions with stakeholders whereby

sponsors have the initial idea but stakeholders are involved in every step of the planning and

implementation. This is mostly the case designed for the IAIP project where stakeholders

are working in an initiated project idea by UNIDO. Here stakeholder’s views are considered

and they are involved in making decisions to insure consistent implementation.

Treseder’s other degree of involvement is where stakeholders are consulted and informed in

every stage of the development, implementation and evaluation processes. This is where the

project is designed and run by sponsors but stakeholders are consulted. This is unlikely in

the cae of IAIP project since the stakeholders are the key players where their views and

action are important for the project success. The Autor or developer believes that the

stakeholders have a full understanding of the processes and their opinions are considered in

the running of the project. Next are projects that are stakeholder-initiated and directed

whereby stakeholders have the initial idea and decide on how the project is to be

18
implemented. Though available, sponsors do not take charge but let the stakeholders run the

project which is mostly the case in the implementation of nationwide project by international

organizations. Finally, are those projects that are stakeholder-initiated with shared decisions.

In these projects, stakeholders come up with the initial idea, set up projects and come to

sponsors for advice, discussion and support. The sponsors in this case do not direct but offer

expertise for the stakeholders to consider (Treseder , 1997).

2.2.3 Importance of assessing stakeholder’s engagement

The IAIPs development platform is base on the creation of strong linkage and engagement

of stakeholders which include farmers and rural community, cooperative and unions,

investors, government service providers, contractors, researchers and research institutions

and other stakeholders. Sine the platform is based on strong stakeholders’ involvement and

coordination of their engagement stakeholder’s assessment mechanisms has been among the

available tools of stakeholders’ assessment matric is the one which provide a powerful

insight of stakeholders’ level of engagement. It is a simple yet powerful project management

technique to document desired and monitor actual engagement levels of stakeholders. It

helps identify potential gaps in the involvement of stakeholders. According to PMBOK 6th

Edition (2017), the Stakeholder Engagement Assessment has a wide range of benefits and

importance which include:

 Grow project support: by identifying those stakeholders who are broadly

supportive of or actively championing the project under implementation and the

project implementation team can target communications to ensure their continued

support. Making sure those stakeholders have the most up-to-date information and

encouraging them to share that information with others can be a significant step

toward preparing the business for an upcoming change wining their support for better

19
 project success with effective engagement of stakeholders (PMI, 2017) . The case is

mainly true for stakeholders who are influential and trusted by others in the

organization like the case of IAIP project donors like the African Development Bank,

European Union and UNIDO.

 Surprising people with an unwanted or difficult change: this is one of the quickest

ways to negatively impact the likelihood of project success. Hence, people like to be

kept in the loop with what’s happening and given a chance to engage with and

provide feedback on the changes. By identifying those stakeholders who appear to

be unaware of the project, the team can build an effective communications

management plan focused on increasing their awareness and engagement. The

project team may be able to turn them into champions for the change, or they may

offer beneficial feedback that wouldn’t have surfaced had they remained unaware. In

an occasional case, keeping stakeholders unaware is a deliberate move by the project

team for a purpose. Perhaps the project is highly sensitive and could result in job loss.

In that case, the team may choose to keep stakeholders unaware until appropriate

support mechanisms are established and communicated demanding their engagement

(PMI, 2017).

 Convert resistant or neutral stakeholders: Finally, using a stakeholder’s

engagement assessment matrix helps you identify and target resistant or neutral

stakeholders which are strictly affecting performance negatively and with no any

intention and interest for the project although it is demanded. This is important

because it allows the project team to explore why they hold that position. Perhaps

they perceive the future state as less beneficial to them or the project itself. Or maybe

the organization has tried to make the same change previously and failed which keep

them away from engagement. Or they’re worried about whether they have the right

20
 skills for the future to involve in the project endeavor. Whatever the reason, exploring

and understanding it gives the team an opportunity to influence their position and

shaper perspectives of stakeholders to the level demanded by the project. That might

be targeted updates to show positive project progress comparative to failed projects.

Or it could be sharing the training and development plans that will help people feel

ready for change. It might even just be an acknowledgment of their concerns and

showing the remedial for their actions. Sometimes the project tea need to be aware

of the fact that making people feel heard is all that’s needed to help them get on board

(PMI, 2017).

2.3 Empirical Literature Review

The section provides a highlight of the available empirical literatures in the area of

stakeholders’ engagement. In the nutshell, the literature lakes to provide detailed overview

and studies in the subject matter which could be one of the motives for initiating the study

at hand that will add to the body of empirical knowledge existed currently.

In stakeholder’s engagement management monitoring and assessing stakeholder’s

engagement could have wide reaching importance. The assessment by CIDA (2011) says

that involving, training and supporting people who are stakeholders in monitoring and

evaluation can produce more accurate data that will help in future decision making. Reed

(2008) on the other hand believe that the benefits of monitoring in development practice are

well understood, however, the availability of clear monitoring systems is lacking across most

donors’ approaches. Through monitoring of project activities that stakeholders gain a better

understanding of strengths and weaknesses of their activities, identify the procedures of the

project that are beneficial and those that are obstructive and redundant which inurn help in

the development of appropriate engagement strategy.

21
More specifically to the subject matter of engagement, stakeholder’s inadequate

participation and engagement in project activities led to poor project implementation and

end result was not met as expected. For instance, the study by Nyabera (2015) realized that

most stakeholders in Compassion projects (80% and above) participate very frequently in

planned project activities. However, these activities are imposed on them by the workers and

partner committee because they are not involved in their need assessment and budgeting.

Hence, stakeholder’s engagement is crucial in the implementation of IAIP project initiative

which is multi stakeholders by type.

Furthermore, a study by on the level of stakeholder’s participation in project monitoring and

evaluation of a municipal project in Gahana revealed that stakeholder participation in M&E

of projects and programmes was high among the Municipal Planning and Coordinating Unit

(MPCU) members and the District Assembly members but low at the Zonal Council and

community levels. This has impacted negatively on the transparency, accountability and the

sustenance of projects and programmes. The study concludes that stakeholders were rarely

involved in M&E of projects and programmes due to lack of concerted effort by the MPCU

for grass root stakeholder participation and poor attitude on the part of community level

stakeholders in M&E of projects and programmes which could adversely affect the

performance project results. This study in line with the result recommends that the District

Assembly through the MPCU should establish strategies such as increased engagement of

the substructures in the planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation process,

creating an enabling environment for the substructures to set their own targets, support them

to meet the targets and build their capacities to report regularly to communities under them

and to the Municipal Assembly which further strengths the need for stakeholders

engagement (Sulemana, Musah and Simon, 2018).

22
The effect that stakeholders have on project processes influences the success of the project

directly and/or indirectly. Authors like (Jergeas et al., 2000) claim that project success is

dependent on the appropriate management of the stakeholders. This includes knowing who

they are, what their motives are, and what expectations they have for the project. Serrador

& Turner (2015) on the other hand mentioned the importance of knowing what project

stakeholders actually expect from the project as one of the aspects that would determine an

overall project success. It is not easy to say that every project that are delivered on time,

within budget and meet scope specification may not necessarily be perceived to be successful

by key stakeholders. Because, the project product does not solve a problem it was meant to

(Jepsen and Eskerod, 2013).

Generally, the available small number of evidences entails us there should be a clear

understanding of the stakeholder’s engagement level in project implementation where the

case of IAIP involves to have a multiple level of stakeholders including project affected

households, farmers, unions, cooperatives, investors and other in the value chain. Hence,

their engagement should be assessed for devising appropriate response strategy.

2.4 Conceptual Framework of the Study

Stakeholders engagement encompasses the involvement of stakeholders in pre-feasibility,

feasibility, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation and redevelopment of

projects. More specifically, stakeholder’s engagement in project implementation process is

wide reaching as this stage determines the success of the project and achieving targets. Hence,

engagement of the stakeholders could be assessed using different approach in which the

study prefers to use stakeholder’s engagement assessment matrix and it has been

conceptualized as indicated in the conceptual framework presented below.

23
 IAIP project
IAIP project construction and
conception and development
feasibility

Stakeholders’
Engagement

Level of engagement (unaware,

resistant, neutral, supportive, leading).

IAIP project
operation and
management

Figure 1: conceptual Framework of the study

Sources: Developed by the researcher based on literature and project documents.

The IAIP development project has evolved from conception, design and construction phases

to that of operation and management by accepting agro-processors in the park which

involves a large number of stakeholders like government service providers like licensing,

customary service, fire control, police stations; input suppliers like farmers, aggregators,

unions, cooperatives; the community like laborers, project affected households; investors,

etc. all these have a stake in the project implementation and involve to a certain degree where

their engagement decides the success of the IAIP initiative in the region. Hence, their level

of involvement and current position should be well understood using an assessment matrix

to respond appropriately.

24
 Chapter Three
Methodology

3.1 Research Approach and Design

3.1.1 Research Design

Studies can follow a wide variety of research approach based on the objective set to be

achieved. In this case, the study follows an exploratory research design as it tries to explore

the available situation to reach on some sort of conclusion to understand the stakeholders’

level of engagement in the development of IAIP project in Amhara Region.

3.1.2 Research Approach

The study as an approach employed a mixed research by using both qualitative and

quantitative methods. Basically, the study is more of a qualitative research using a

participatory method of assessing the engagement level of key players or stakeholders in the

sector with an application of quantitative approach to some extent to visualize tabulated

results to describe background characteristics.

3.1 Study Population

Population of the study indicates the one where the final result of the study will be inferred

and concluded. As the study is about the stakeholders of IAIP development project which

looks in to their role in pre-feasibility assessment, engagement in in the implementation and

management as well as the dimensions of their engagement, the population of the study are

considered to be 24 identified government sectors with a stake on the project in the area of

providing OSS service, investment promotion, value and supply chain development; 531

project affected communities in Bure IAIP and related RTC of which 336 are located around

25
bure IAIP; 34 identified potential investors of the IAIP by the regional Industry and

Investment Office which expressed their willingness to invest; 6 unions found within the

Bure IAIP Agro-Commodities Procurement Zone; and 20 investors that signed agreement

and or operational in the IAIP as per the Report of Amhara RIPDC as of 30 March 2022,

and Regional industry and investment office report. Hence, all these covers the key

stakeholders and population of the study to which the study on stakeholder’s engagement

could be concluded.

3.2 Sample Size and Sampling Procedure

The study is expected to be more of a qualitative one in nature as it involves an in-depth

qualitative data assessment of stakeholders and largely with an expectation of qualitative

data. Hence, the sample size of the study is considered to be restricted to serve an in-depth

study which is determined considering capacity to cover and available information at the

grass root level where the project is under implementation. The sample selected to populate

the stakeholder assessment matrix include:

 10 randomly selected government stakeholders from the identified list of

stakeholders in the feasibility study i.e. from 24 government institutions. As the study

is more of qualitative the sampled were kept within the limit of the researcher to get

a deeper detail also considers representation as well.

 Project affected community Considered as a group for the assessment matrix which

include a number of projects affected or displaced households of Bure IAIP

development which are list to be 336 in number.

 5 potential investors randomly selected from the list documented by Amhara

Regional IPDC and Industry and Investment office which were documented to be 34

in total.

26
  5 randomly selected IAIP enterprises currently signed agreement with the Regional

IPDC.

 2 randomly identified unions in the ACPZ of bure IAIP from the total of 6 unions.

 1 operational IAIP enterprise in Bure IAIP which is purposively included as it is the

only company that started operation, production and distribution of products related

to soybean protein powder and edible oil.

On the other hand, to supplement the stakeholder’s assessment matrix with sufficient date

from key stakeholders 51 samples were again included in the study to collect data on the role

and engagement of stakeholders in the prefeasibility studies of IAIP initiative. Hence, the

overall sampling procedure of the study follow a stratified sampling technique in which each

group or type of stakeholder is first stratified based on the characteristics set to form a

stratum of different types of stakeholders in the IAIP initiative and followed by a random

selection of sampling units of the study except the one where IAIP operational company is

purposively included in the study.

3.2 Data Collection Instrument and Data Sources

The study uses both primary and secondary data sources to come up with sufficient data to

assess the situation of stakeholder’s engagement in the IAIP project implementation. The

primary data for the study was collected from key stakeholder s based on the sample size of

the study using the instruments presented below:

Key Informant Interview (KII): KII has been the basic tools of data collection for the

qualitative study at hand. Key informant interview was undertaken with RIPDC management

and Project Management Unit (PMU) as well as Industry and Investment office of the region

to understand the desired and current level of stakeholders’ engagement in the

27
implementation of IAIP project which has been used to populate the Stakeholders

engagement matrix where the repeated option responses from each respondent is

documented for analysis and the average values were taken to finally determine the status of

each stakeholders. The RIPDC as a key implementer of the project has been exempted from

being evaluated using the Matrix. In doing so, 15 experts and management bodies were

participated and interview to rate the stakeholder’s engagement level (10 from Regional

IPDC and 5 from Regional Industry and Investment Bureau).

Structured Questionnaire: Structured questionnaire has been used to collect data from

identified key stakeholders added to the key informant interview to examine the

stakeholder’s engagement and participation in the prefeasibility assessment practice of IAIP

development. Hence, questionnaire was administered to some selected stakeholders (15

government offices, 20 project affected households, 10 potential investors, 5 currently

signed agreement and 1 operational enterprise in the IAIP) and results were analyzed to

provide answer raised in first research question.

Focus Group Discussion (FGD): apart from the above stated tools of data collection, FGD

was employed to draw detail information from selected 2 FDGs of government, IAIP

investors, unions and affected community group representatives in their level of engagement

as well as the strength and weakness of stakeholder’s engagement in the implementation of

IAIP initiative. This provides detailed qualitative data which enable to identify the strength

and weakness of stakeholders’ level of engagement in the implementation of IAIP initiative.

On the other hand, the secondary data for the study was gather from document review of

existing evidences about stakeholder’s engagement on the feasibility, planning and

implementation of IAIP development in Amhara Region published and documented by

IPDC and Industry and Investment offices. Apart from these, published and unpublished

28
articles, reports and manuals were used to draw background information and understand the

overall IAIP initiative and list of preidentified stakeholders of the project.

3.3 Methods of Data Analyses

The study in general employed a mixed research approach. Hence, both qualitative and

quantitative data analysis methodologies were used to present results and findings. Basically,

the study is a qualitative research using a participatory method of identifying the engagement

level of key players in the implementation of IAIP initiative in Amhara region with an

application of quantitative approach to some extent to visualize tabulated results to describe

socio-economic background and current situations. Therefore, qualitative approach based on

a stakeholders’ assessment engagement matrix has been used to analyses the level of

stakeholders’ engagement in the implementation of IAIP initiative in the region. Moreover,

descriptive statistical analysis was employed to analyze tabulated data in terms of frequency

percentage and standard deviation while the data was coded and analyzed using a statistical

application software i.e. SPSS Statistical Software Package.

As it is clearly indicated, the main data collection and analysis tool of the study is a

stakeholder’s assessment matrix which is a simple yet powerful project management

technique to document desired and monitor actual engagement levels of stakeholders. Hence,

a stakeholder engagement assessment matrix used by the study consists of several rows, each

of them representing one stakeholder (or a group of homogenous stakeholders in the case of

project affected community where considering in group is preferred against listing

individuals) while the columns indicate the level of engagement measured interns of

unaware, resistant, neutral, supportive and leading ratings. The matrix developed were made

to be two in number where the one indicating the desired level of engagement, represented

with a letter ‘D’ while the other indicating the actual level of stakeholders’ engagement ‘C’.

29
Once the assessment matrix is developed the desired one is documented as D and the current

level of engagement as C. Overall, “C” can basically occur in any of these columns. However,

a “D” is typically not applicable for the “unaware” or “resistant” columns for obvious

reasons that no one really wish to have unaware and resistant stakeholders in a project.

Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
This chapter discusses the main results and findings from the primary and secondary data

descriptive about the stakeholder’s engagement in the implementation of IAIP in Amhara

Region i.e. Bure IAIP. The result was supplemented by qualitative and qualitative results

from questionnaires, key informants and FDGs to get a better insight about the issues at

hand. Data analyzed were collected from 15 key experts selected from implementing

organization (RIPDC) and closely related sector (Bureau of Industry and Investment) to rate

the level of stakeholder’s engagement using stakeholder’s assessment matrix; 22

stakeholders to identify the role and engagement of stakeholders in the prefeasibility

assessment of Bure IAIP and 2 FDG groups. Hence, many of the result were qualitatively

analyzed which are supplemented by quantitative results as well.

4.1 Background Characteristics

The study briefly visualized the participants of the research undertaking which are restricted

since the nature of the study is more of qualitative in nature for an in-depth understanding of

desired and current situation in stakeholder’s engagement. Looking to the sex of respondents

first, the result presented in Table 4 presents among those who rated the level of stakeholders’

engagement using the stakeholder’s assessment matrix through KII 86.7% (13) were male

and the rest 13.3% (2) of them were female implicating the well-known dominance of male

in the industrial development sectors. Hence, in the implementing partners the presence of

30
female is minimal as manifested by the result which includes a randomly identified

professional from implementing organization of IAIP i.e. mainly the regional Industrial

Parks Development Corporation and to some extent Bureau of Industry and Investment.

Table 4: Sex of respondent

Group Sex Frequency Percentage
KII Respondents Male 13 86.7
Female 2 13.3
Total 15 100.0
Male 42 82.4
Questionnaire Respondents Female 9 17.6
Total 51 100

Source: Primary Data, 2022

Similarly, respondents involved in the study to respond to structured questionnaires were

also dominated by male group where 82.4%(42) of them were male and the ret 17.6%(9) of

them were female which could also a reflection of the culture in the dominance of male in

economically productive activities and employment in different sectors.

Age is another background characteristic assessed by the study. The result shown in Table 5

indicated that the mean age of respondents from the key informant interview were about 37.2

year with a standard deviation of plus or minus 7.61 which sows a moderate within group

difference in age. On the other hand, those respondents involved in responding

questionnaires have a mean age of 40.51 with a standard deviation relatively higher to

indicate a larger within group different in age as manifested by the minimum and maximum

values as well. Overall, most of the study participants were in the adult age group where

there age could have its own bearing on their level of experience in different sectors

including the agro-processing industry development.

31
Table 5: Age of respondents
Group Age
Freq. Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
KII Respondents 15 37.22 7.61 24 59
Questionnaire Respondents 51 40.51 11.24 20 68
Source: Primary Data, 2022

Further more the educational status of respondents was examined at a glance by the study.

The result presented in Table 6 indicated that most of the respondent that were involved in

populating the stakeholder’s assessment matrix have educational status which are mostly

above diploma. Spesifically 13.3% (2) of them have an educational status of Diploma and

below, 60% (9) of them completed their first degree while the rest 26.7%(4) of them have

an educational status of master’s degree and above. On the other hand, looking the second

group of respondents the result shown in the table below clearly demonstrated that 23.5%

(12) of them have an educational level of grade 12 and below, 13.7% (7) different types of

certificate, 11.8% (6) of them possess a diploma level of education, large number of the

group like the other one, 39.2% (20), holds a first degree level of education while the rest

11.8% (6) of the have a master’s degree and above educational status. The result implicates

that there is some difference n educational status of key stakeholders which could also affect

the interest in the development of IAIP and shape their level of understanding the initiative

which in turn could have an impact on their level of engagement.

Table 6: Educational status of respondent

Group Educational status Frequency Percentage
Diploma and Below 2 13.3
First Degree 9 60.0
KII Respondents Master’s Degree and Above 4 26.7
Total 12 23.5
Grade 12 complete and below 12 23.5
Certificate 7 13.7

32
 Questionnaire Diploma 6 11.8
Respondents First Degree 20 39.2
Master’s Degree and Above 6 11.8
Total 51 100
Source: Primary Data, 2022

4.2 The Role and Engagement of Stakeholders in the Pre-feasibility Assessments of

IAIP Initiative

The development of large-scale industrial parks involves muti-stakeholders which need to

be clearly identify the list of stakeholders, the way how the can play their role in

predevelopment, implementation and operationalization of IAIP project. The study at a

preliminary level tries to examine the presence of stakeholder engagement in the feasibility

assessment practice to initiate the idea of IAIP which demand the relocation of project

affected community and involvement of different sector to support the OSS and the supply

chain from farm to products delivery. Respondents from composed of different stakeholders

were asked to where they or their organization get the opportunity to engage in the pre-

feasibility assessment practice of Bure IAIP where the large proportion of them, about 62.7%

(32), expressed as if they were not involved in the prefeasibility assessment which may have

also contributed for lower level of engagement during implementation of the IAIP project

for the development of Bure IAIP and related RTCs. This could also be linked to the fact

that the development of the project takes more than 10 years starting from its conception in

the year 2009 to that of its construction and operation which was started before two years.

Hence, the low level of involvement of stakeholders in the prefeasibility could be attributed

to the fact that in the initial stage the project itself was resisted by different stakeholders

which latter join in supporting the initiative after a serious of awareness raising programs

targeted to create a better understanding although their sustainability was under question.

33
Table 7: Stakeholders Engagement in Pre-feasibility assessment of Bure IAIP
Involved in Prefeasibility Frequency Percentage
Yes 19 37.3
No 32 62.7
Total 51 100
Source: Primary data from Stakeholders, 2022

In continuation with the above result, those respondents who get the opportunity to

participate in the prefeasibility assessment of Bure IAIP has been asked their ways and roles

of engagement in the practice. The qualitative responses were summarized and ranked to

identify the most pertinent one. Hence, the result from the study as presented in Table 8

revealed that among those stakeholders involved in the prefeasibility assessments of IAIP

intuitive most of them were engaged to express their saying and suggestion about the

development of the park in the area. The other pertinent role and way of stakeholders’

engagement was found to be involvement in community discussions and dialogues while the

third ranked prominent ways of engagement I found to be invitation in the prefeasibility

assessment draft report and provision of inputs to qualify the final one that will guide

implementation practices of IAIP development. Apart from these, others ways and roles of

stakeholders’ engagement in the prefeasibility assessment practice with moderate level of

expression include involvement in the facilitating the undertaking of the assessment practice

and directly involved in prefeasibility assessment by undertaking surveys and data

collections.

Table 8: Ways of engagement and roles of stakeholders in the prefeasibility assessment of

Bure IAIP development
Ranking Ways of Stakeholders Engagement and their role

1st Get the opportunity to express their saying and suggesting

2nd Involved in community discussions and dialogues

34
 3rd Invited and provided inputs in the prefeasibility assessment draft report

4th Facilitate the undertaking of the assessment practice

5th Directly involves in prefeasibility assessment by undertaking surveys

Source: Primary data from Stakeholders, 2022

Another part of respondents which have not been involved and get the opportunity to involve

in the prefeasibility assessment of IAIP initiative at Bure were also further asked whether

they know the presence of a pre-feasibility assessment done for Bure IAIP initiative.

Surprisingly, the large proportion of them or stakeholders, about 71.9% (23) does not have

such information which implicates they could raise an issue related to the inclusion of their

interests in the development and implementation of the IAIP project in Bure given the lack

of information and knowledge about how it is conceptualized and what major underling

assumption were taken in to consideration.

Table 9: Stakeholders knowledge in the presence of prefeasibility assessment for Bure

IAIP development
Hear or know that a Pre-feasibility assessments of Frequency Percentages
Bure IAIP initiative was undertaken
Yes 9 28.1
No 23 71.9
Total 32 100
Source: Primary data from Stakeholders, 2022

Finally, the stakeholders involved in the study were given the opportunity to rate what should

have been the role of stakeholders in the prefeasibility assessment practice of IAIP initiative

for a better and smooth implementation of objectives and better engagement of stakeholders

in developing the intended IAIP at Bure. Six predetermined list of expected roles of

stakeholders were considered from the feasibility study to be rated by stakeholders. The

result show in Table 10, indicates that among the different roles of stakeholders most of the

35
respondents strongly agree (76.5%, F=39) and agree (13.7%, F=7) that the role of

stakeholders should have been sharing individual and local knowledge which will be helpful

in the development of IAIP initiative at Bure. This has been partly implemented by the

project as some of the respondents expressed their sayings in the course of prefeasibility

study. But, local experience in the development of other industrial efforts has not been yet

captured by the feasibility as their role was restricted. Next to this, the other most pertinent

role identified by the respondents is sharing challenges which could arise in the start-up and

implementation of the project where 60.8% (31) of the study participants strongly agree and

25.5% (13) of the agree to the statement. Review of the final prefeasibility assessment report

and synthesis with the current result indicates there is some degree of deviation from

stakeholder’s expectation on their role and the roles played by stakeholders in the

prefeasibility assessment practice where most of the time the stakeholders were asked about

their agreement with the development of the project and compensation issues rather than the

challenges that could arise latter on the implementation of IAIP project in the area. Further,

thirdly identified stakeholder’s role is found to be identification of stakeholders

responsibilities during the course of IAIP development and implementation where only

35.3% (18) and 23.5% (12) of the respondents strongly agree and agree with the statemen

although this has to be the very intention of most project expected from their stakeholders

for a smooth and engaging project implementation.

On the other hand, the least identified stakeholders’ roles found by the study were

identification of risk and uncertainty that could happen during project implementation and

identification of areas of conflicting interests in the initiation of IAIP to resolving them early

which could be attributed to the fact that the stakeholders could have been little knowledge

about these matters as the effort is related to industrial development which again need some

technical skill.

36
 Table 10: Stakeholders’ level of agreement on what the roles of stakeholders should have

been on prefeasibility assessment practice

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree
Disagree (2)

Neutral (3)

Agree (4)

Total
(5)
(1)

Preferred roles of
Stakeholders in the
Prefeasibility assessment
Practice of IAIP F % F % F % F % F % F %
Share individual and local
knowledge that will be
helpful in the development
of IAIP initiative 0 0 2 3.9 3 5.9 7 13.7 39 76.5 51 100
Identify their responsibilities
during the course of IAIP
development and 19.
implementation 4 7.8 7 13.7 10 6 12 23.5 18 35.3 51 100
Identify risk and uncertainty
that could happen during
project implementation 14 27.5 9 17.6 17 33.3 7 13.7 4 7.8 51 100
Share challenges which
could arise in the start-up
and implementation of the
project 0 0 0 0 7 13.7 13 25.5 31 60.8 51 100
Identify areas of conflicting
interests in the initiation of
IAIP to resolve them early 4 7.8 7 13.7 12 23.5 19 37.3 9 17.6 51 100
Generate innovative ideas
and solutions 3 5.9 5 9.8 18 35.3 14 27.5 11 21.6 51 100
Source: Primary data from Stakeholders, 2022

4.3 Stakeholder’s Level of Engagement in the Implementation of IAIP Development

Project

37
The overall development process of IAIP involves many stakeholders as an implementor,

facilitator and service provide to achieve the target of economic structural change there by

enable job creation, agricultural commercialization and generate foreign exchange earning

by exporting value added products. As the project is a muti-stakeholder project where

stakeholder plays a key role in the implementation process, the study ties to examine the

level of stakeholders’ engagement in the development of IAIP project using case evidences

from bure IAIP in Amhara region. The main implementer organization i.e. Regional IPDC

and some key expert involved in the selection of investors for the IAIP from regional

Industry and investment Bureau were involved in the rating of stakeholders desired and

current level of engagement in the implementation of IAIP in Bure using a stakeholder’s

assessment matrix and the result are presented in Table 11.

The result presented in Table 11 shows the level of key government stakeholders’

level of engagement in the implementation process of IAIP development project so

as to enable the smooth development of the project in Bure. These government

stakeholders mostly have a responsibility of providing support in the value chain,

licensing and customs services in the ones stop shop, supply of skilled and trained

labour force for the agro-industries, providing technical support in research and

development, and the like. As the result indicate those sectors which are expected to

provide support for the improvement of agricultural production and productivity and

improve the overall raw material supply chain remains resistant and unaware

although they are expected to have a supportive and leading role and level of

engagement in the implementation process of IAIP. In more detailed view, ANRS

Cooperatives Promotion Agency and ANRS Bureau of Agriculture remains resistant

to the IAIP implementation which is clearly manifested as expressed by the key

38
informants they were not open for discussion to identify the major crops and

commodities needed currently by industries in the IAIP so as to improve the

production system for these specific commodities and as well as create a smooth

supply of raw materials. As a case, one of the operational companies in the production

of protein powder and edible oil from soybean expressed the unresponsiveness of the

agricultural sector to support farmers to produce and supply such product to the

factory even though the company tried to reach the sector repeatedly. The other key

government partner from the agricultural sector as well, ANRS Bureau of

Agricultural Research, is rated to be unaware as no action has not yet been taken by

the institution to support the IAIP initiative although supporting productivity issues

in the supply chain of raw material is give as a mandate for the organization.

Table 11: Key government stakeholders’ level of engagement in the implementation of

IAIP development project
Resistant
Unaware

Supporti

Leading
Neutral

Name of the Stakeholder

ve

Amhara National Regional State (ANRS) C D

Cooperatives Promotion Agency
Bahir Dar University C D
Debre Markos University C, D
ANRS Bureau of Agriculture C D
ANRS Bureau of Trade and Market Development C D
Amhara Region Agricultural Transformation Agency C, D

Bure TVTE College C, D

ANRS Bureau of Industry and Investment and C D
Ethiopian Investment Commission
ANRS Bureau of Agricultural Research C D

39
 ANRS Bureau of Labour and Training C D
Note: D = Desired C= current
Source: Primary data from IAIP implementer organization rating, 2022

Looking further to the results in Table 11, the overall observation on the resut from

the stakeholders assessment matric indicates there is a great deal of deviation from

on the desired and currently leve of stakeholders engagement as the currently level

of rating represented by ‘c’ mostly falls to the left side of the matrix to implicate most

of the stakeholder in the IAIP implementation were unaware, resistant and neutral

which could have also a negative bearing in the implementation process and the delay

of project implementation as clearly manifested by the IAIP project in Bure which

delays for or that four year from the planned operationalization period. On the other

hand, Debre Markos University, Amhara Region Agricultural Transformation

Agency and Bure TVTE College were found to be engaging themselves in a desired

manner as the level of desired and their current level of engagement concedes. The

institutions were mostly engaging in technical support to Bure IAIP, supporting

farmers to engage in IAIP industrial products through agricultural extension service

and training on specific commodities, and targeted skill development initiatives

respectively.

The development of Bure IAIP results in households to be relocated from their living

areas and affected the community around as the effort involves infrastructure

development in the IAIP and related RTCs. Hence, these projects affected community

are key stakeholders in the implementation process as their livelihood needs to be

changed and most of them were found around the park infrastructure. The study

examined their level of engagement and the result shown in Table 12 indicated that

40
the project affected communities were rated to be resistant in their level of

engagement in the implementation of the IAIP project although they are expected to

be supportive. This is partly attributed to the fact that the expected operation period

of the IAIP at Bure was delayed for some period which is believed to create

employment opportunities for displaced and project affected communities and in-turn

creates dissatisfactions among the group. Very recently started efforts to involve

youths in the park development and allied activities like greener and landscaping

could improve the situation

Table 12: Project affected communities’ level of engagement in the implementation

of IAIP development project

Resistant
Unaware

Supporti

Leading
Neutral
Name of the Stakeholder

ve
Project accepted community
(Project affected households as a result of Bure IAIP C D
infrastructure Development)
Note: D = Desired C= current
Source: Primary data from IAIP implementer organization rating, 2022

The back bone of IAIP initiative are investors with interest in the development of

agro-processing industries. They play a central role in the establishment of industries

in the park, creating employment opportunities, and production and sale of value-

added agricultural products. Potential investors identified by the regional Bureau of

Industry and investment were examined for their level of engagement in the

implementation of the IAIP project at Bure. The result shown in Table 13 revealed

that the Temesgen Kefalew Investment and BEAKA General Business remains

unaware in their level of engagement in the IAIP initiative. This could decrease their

41
likelihood of involvement for establishing agro-processing industries in the IAIP and

needs targeted intervention to enable their level of engagement improve from the

current stand. On the other hand, PLC. WA PLC and Merkeb Union although the are

aware of the IAIP initiative they remain neutral in their level of engagement although

they are expected to be supportive by engaging themselves in the part to support the

development of IAIP at Bure. The only potential investor of the IAIP where the

desired and currently level of engagement concedes is BK group which is manifested

in terms of its provision of support to inaugurate the part operation, supporting

technically currently operating investors technically through corporate training model

and providing and sharing utility facilities like power.

Table 13: Potential investors’ level of engagement in the implementation of IAIP

development project

Supportive
Resistant
Unaware

Leading
Neutral

Name of the Stakeholder

WA PLC. C D

Merkeb Union C D

Temesgen Kefalew Investment C D

BEAKA General Business PLC. C D

BK Group C, D

Source: Primary data from IAIP implementer organization rating, 2022

The other group of stakeholders examined by the study on their level of engagement

in the implementation of IAIP initiative at Bure are investors that signed agreement

with the regional RIPDC for operation in the IAIP and currently operational investor

42
in the IAIP which started production and supply of products. Among the list, four of

them were under construction of their processing factory in the IAIP, one (Bahir Dar

agro processing) has signed agreement but no action has been taken by the investor

to start construction or operation while the other one (Richland Biochemical

Production PLC) has started operation and distributed its production to export and

domestic market. As indicated in Table 14, their desired level of engagement is

expected to be leading as they will be the key players in the IAIP through processing

of agro-commodities and supply them to the market which involve and initiate the

engagement of other stakeholders as well. The results indicated that their current level

of engagement in the IAIP implementation process is below the desired one for most

of the (50% of stakeholders including Dandini Trading PLC, Bahir Dar Agro-

processing and Hanen agro-processing PLC. Theother two (Yoseph Tomato

Processing and Zelalem Kebede Pasta and Macaroni Production) fall in the

supportive category as there are trying their best to erect their plant in the IAIP and

commission machineries. Looking further, Richland PLC is the only one company

which is rated to have a level of engagement which concedes with the desired one to

implicate the company is playing a leading role which is also manifested as the only

company which started production and supply. Hence, the case of lower level of

engagement of investors in the IAIP implementation could also be attributed to the

delay of some basic infrastructure construction in Bure IAIP which include liquid

waste treatment plant and power substation that the investors mostly considers basic

to fast truck their involvement in the IAIP.

43
Table 14: Level of engagement of investors currently signed agreement and Bure
IAIP operational investors

Supportive
Resistant
Unaware

Leading
Neutral
Name of the Stakeholder
Yoseph Tomato Processing C D
Dandini Trading PLc C D
Bahir Dar Agro-processing C D
Zelalem Kebede Pasta and Macaroni Production C D
Hanen agro-processing PLC C D
Richland Biochemical Production PLC C, D
Source: Primary data from IAIP implementer organization rating, 2022

Lastly, the stakeholders examined by the study for their level of engagement in the IAIP

project are farmers cooperatives unions which are mostly considered as a supply chain actor

through aggregation and supply of raw materials and some times even as IAIP investors for

those with a capacity. The result indicated in Table 15 shows that Damot Multipurpose

Farmers Cooperatives union have better level of engagement where the desired and current

level of engagement concedes to implicate the union is aware of the IAIP project,

supportive of change and wish it to succeed. On the other hand, Gozamin Multipurpose

Farmers Cooperatives union is found to be unaware meaning that they are not aware

of the project and its potential impacts on them and the larger community. This shows

the presence of wide disparity in the awareness level of unions operating in Bure IAIp ACPZ

and urging the need to raise awareness of stakeholder to achieve a better level of engagement.

44
Table 15: Level of engagement of unions found in the ACPZ of Bure IAIP

Supportive
Resistant
Unaware

Leading
Neutral
Name of the Stakeholder
Damot Multipurpose Farmers Cooperatives union C, D
Gozamin Multipurpose Farmers Cooperatives union C D
Source: Primary data from IAIP implementer organization rating, 2022

4.4 Strengths and Weakness of Stakeholder’s Engagement in the implementation of

IAIP Initiative

The study also tries to examine the strengths and weaknesses of stakeholders’ engagement

in the IAIP initiative implementation through an in-depth focus group discussion with

selected stakeholders and implementing organization. The summary result and ranking of

the results indicated that the top three observed strengths of stakeholders’ engagement are

the presence of documented stakeholders list to engage them in the implementation process;

the practice of periodic campaigns to initiate and engage stakeholders although not

sustainable; and the presence of high level IAIP project steering committee in charge of

coordinating stakeholders. These could contribute greatly in the smooth implementation of

IAIP initiative through effectively engaging stakeholders if the efforts are implemented in a

sustained manner.

On the other hand, the major weaknesses identified by the study as presented in the Table

16 are the absence of clearly designed stakeholder’s engagement plan in the implementation

process of IAIP in Bure; problems in identifying who does what and some missed key

stakeholders and Emphasis on campaigns rather than sustainable engagement of

stakeholders in the implementation process. The presence of these is also manifested in the

lower level of stakeholders engagement as indicated in the stakeholders assessment matrix

45
where most of the stakeholders are found to be acting below the expected or desired level of

engagement. Table 16 below summarizes detailed results of the assessment on strengths and

weaknesses of stakeholder’s engagement in the IAIP initiative.

Table 16: Major Strengths and Weaknesses Stakeholder’s Engagement in the

implementation of Bure IAIP development project
Ranking Strengths
1st The presence of documented stakeholders list to engage them in the
implementation process.
2nd The practice of periodic campaigns to initiate and engage stakeholders
3rd The presence of high level IAIP project steering committee in charge of
coordinating stakeholders
4th Existence of large number of stakeholders interested to engage in the
implementation and development of IAIP at the regional, national and
global level
5th Setting of multi-stakeholder involvement or engagement approach for the
development of IAIP in the feasibility document
Ranking Weaknesses
1st The absence of clearly designed stakeholder’s engagement plan in the
implementation process of IAIP in Bure
2nd Problems in identifying who does what and some missed key stakeholders
(Agri-products aggregators and agri-input suppliers in the supply chain and
production system respectively)
3rd Emphasis on campaigns rather than sustainable engagement of
stakeholders in the implementation process
4th Not clearly identified roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in the
implementation of IAIP project
5th Loos power relationship of implementing organization and stakeholders to
follow-up on the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in the
implementation process of IAIP project in Bure.

Finally, the study tried to synthesize stakeholder perspective in the solution and strategies to

encourage successful engagement of stakeholders in the implementation and development

46
of IAIP initiative through KII and FGDs. The result presented in Table 17 clearly revealed

that the most pertinent suggested ways for successful and effective ways of stakeholders

engagement are development of participatory stakeholder engagement plan considering the

local context and stakeholders existing realities; undertaking of continuous assessment on

the power and interest of stakeholders in implementation process of IAIP initiative for

effectively suiting strategies to stakeholders need; and maintaining smooth relationship

among implementing organization and stakeholders for coordinated efforts for successful

implementation of roles and responsibilities of stakeholders.

Table 17: Solutions and strategies to encourage successful engagement of stakeholders

in the implementation and development of IAIP initiative

Ranking Ways of Stakeholders Engagement and their role

1st Development of participatory stakeholder engagement plan considering the

local context

2nd Continuous assessment on the power and interest of stakeholders in

implementation process of IAIP initiative

3rd Maintaining smooth relationship for coordinated efforts for successful

implementation of roles and responsibilities of stakeholders

47
 Chapter Five
Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 Conclusions

Development project’s successful implementation and achievement of targets bases proper

engagement of stakeholders. The study tries to examine stakeholder’s engagement in project

implementation using the case of Amhara Region where Bure Integrated Agro Industrial

Park project is developed and implemented. In achieving its objectives, both primary and

secondary data were employed mostly using a qualitative data analysis technique through

deep assessment of exiting situation while the results were also supplemented with some

quantitative data analysis. Stakeholders engagement assessment matrix was the basic tool

used to identify stakeholders desired and current level of engagement in the implementation

process of IAIP project.

The study demonstrated that the engagement of stakeholders in the IAIP initiative from the

very beginning in the IAIP initiative was very restricted to some sectors where their

engagement to in the pre-feasibility assessment practice is mainly manifested in a way of

expressing their views and suggestions. Apart from this, still a large number of key

stakeholders has not been aware of the pre-feasibility assessment practice making which

could also affect their level of engagement in the implementation of IAIP initiative. The

study also concluded from the result that the role of stakeholders and engagement in the pre-

feasibility assessment would have been better if it was targeted to sharing individual and

local knowledge which will be helpful in the development of IAIP initiative at Bure.

On the other hand, the study basically examined the level of stakeholders engagement in the

IAIP initiative and the result from the stakeholders assessment matric clearly demonstrated

their is a gap in the desired and current level of stakeholders engagement where most key

48
stakeholders from the agricultural sector, cooperatives agency and unions, potential

investors and investors signed agreement with the RIPDC falls under unaware, resistant and

neutral categories which are like undesired level of current stakeholders engagement levels

which need to be improved to make them supportive and leaders in the implementation of

leaders IAIP initiative in Amhara Region. The level of engagement has also experienced to

some extent stakeholder’s engagement where the desired and current level of engagement

concedes to indicate these stakeholders are in line with supporting and leading the

development process of IAIP initiative which needs to be sustained for successful

achievement of targets.

Lastly, looking to the strengths and weakness of stakeholders’ engagement in the

implementation of IAIP project in the region, the most visible strength of the practice has

been found to be the presence of documented stakeholders list to engage them in the

implementation process while the major weakness is the lack of clearly designed

stakeholder’s engagement plan in the implementation process of IAIP in Bure using the

available documented and identified list of stakeholders.

5.2 Recommendations

The results, discussions and concluding remarks provided bases for setting recommendation

to improve the overall level of stakeholders’ engagement in the implementation of IAIP

project for successful achievement of targets set by IAIP initiative. Based on the findings of

the study the under stated major recommendation were forwarded.

 There is an observed deviation of stakeholders’ current level of engagement in the

implementation of IAIP initiative from the expected level of engagement. Efforts

targeted to improve stakeholders’ level of engagement in the development process of

IAIP should be in place. The interventions may include arranging a peer to peer

49
 discussion with key stakeholders considering the current status of stakeholder

engagement and their responsibility they should play in the IAIP implementation process.

 Some of the key stakeholders of the IAIP initiative remains unaware of the program

which could be a manifestation of poor awareness raising efforts and targeting. Hence,

implementing partners should implement targeted and sustainable awareness creation

programs for better engagement of key stakeholders and creating a better awareness

about the IAIP initiative.

 The practice shows that although there is a clear instance that stakeholders list was

identified and many stakeholders have interest to join in supporting the initiative, there

is no clear stakeholder’s engagement plan for guiding the practice. Hence, it is

recommended that the key implementing organization should prepare a clear and

participatory stakeholders’ engagement plan considering the muti-stakeholders demand

of the IAIP initiative.

 From the academic perspective, the study was based mostly on a qualitative analysis of

stakeholders’ engagement with some quantitative data analysis of the case only in one

region, Amhara Region – Bure IAIP. This could have given more deepen insight if the

study was conducted considering the four IAIPs at the national level. Therefore, in future

studies it is recommended that the studies are better to visualize perspectives from

different sites of IAIPs development.

50
 I. References

Aaltonen, K., Kujala, J. and Oijala, T. (2008). “Stakeholder salience in global projects”

International journal of project management; 26:509-516.

Ababa, C. T. (2013). Factors affecting sustainability of rural Community BasedWater

Projects in mtito Andei kibwezi Sub County. MA Project University of Nairobi

Kenya. Adam, J. and Kamuzora, F. (2008) research Methodology for Social Science

and Business Studies. University Of Dar-es-Salaam.

ADB (2001) Handbook on Stakeholders Consultation and Participationin ADB operation

Organization on environment and sustainable Development Unit.

Adhiambo, L. (2013). Factor affecting the effectiveness of Donor Funded Project in Kenya.

Ackland University.

Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). (2011). Lessons learned on

stakeholders and young people’s participation in development. Canada, CIDA.

Eskerod Pernille and Jensen, Anna Lund (2013).Project Stakeholder Management concepts

and issues behind project stakeholder management. Gower Publisher.

Jeffery, N. (2009). Stakeholder Engagement: A Road Map to Meaningful Engagement,

Doughty Centre, Cranfield School of Management, Carnfield University.

Jergeas, G. F., Williamson, E., Skulmoski, G. J., and Thomas, J. L. (2000). ―Stakeholder

management on construction projects.‖ AACE International Transactions, 12, 1-5.

Mahindra Consulting Engeneers, 2018. Integrated APCZ and IAIP – South West Amhara,

Revised Feasibility report.

Nyabera, (2015). Influence of Stakeholder Participation on Implementation of Projects in

Kenya: A Case of Compassion International Assisted Projects in Mwingi Sub-

County, thesis, University of Nairobi.

51
Prodan, D. and Fanjul, E. (2011). Mechanisms for stakeholder analysis and engagement in

mobility management projects: A case study of Sustainable Travel in Umeå Region,

Sweden, Umeå School of Business, Umeå University.

Project-Management.info (2022). Retrived from https://project-

management.info/stakeholder-engagement-matrix/, accessed on march, 2022.

Reed. J. T. (2008). Project stakeholder management. Engineering management journal.

Serrador P & Turner R.The Relationship between Project Success and Project Efficiency, Pr

Mat Journal, 2015.Vol.46, no. 1.

Sulemana, M., Musah, A., and Simon, K. (2018). An Assessment of Stakeholder

Participation in Monitoring and Evaluation of District Assembly Projects and

Programmes in the Savelugu Nanton Municipality Assembly, Ghana.

52
 II. Annex: Tools of Data Collection

St. Marry University

Department of Project Management
Post Graduate Program
Questioner

I am Haregewoin Gochel MSC student in Project Management at St. Marry College of

Postgraduate Studies. Currently I an undertaking a research in titled “Examining

Stakeholders Engagement in Project Implementation: The Case of Integrated Agro Industry

Park (IAIP), Amhara Region, Ethiopia” for partial fulfillment of my master degree. Kindly

provide me your genuine answers for each question and all the answers will remain

confidential and no individual identity will be published.

Respondent ID Code

Date of Interview / /

Part One: Questionnaire on the Role of Stakeholders in the Pre-feasibility

Assessments of IAIP Initiative

1.1 Background Characteristics

1.1.1 Age: (In years)

1.1.2 Sex: Male Female

1.1.3 Educational Status

A) Grade 12 complete and below B) Certificate C) Diploma

D) First Degree E) Master’s Degree and Above

1.2 The Role of stakeholders in the Pre-feasibility Assessments of IAIP Initiative

1.2.1 Do you get the opportunity to be involved in the in the Pre-feasibility

assessments of Bure IAIP initiative?

A) Yes B) No

53
1.2.2 If Yes for Q. No 1.2.1, in what way you have been engaged in the Pre-

feasibility assessments of Bure IAIP initiative and what was your/ your

institution role?

Way of Engagement and their role

1.2.3 If No for Q. No 1.2.1, do you hear or know that a Pre-feasibility assessments

of Bure IAIP initiative was undertaken?

A) Yes B) No

1.2.4 What do you think the role of stakeholder should have been in the Pre-

feasibility Assessments of Bure IAIP Initiative?

Express your level of agreement

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree (5)

(2)
Disagree (1)

Neutral (3)

Agree (4)

Role of Stakeholders

Share individual and local knowledge that will be helpful

in the development of IAIP initiative
Identify their responsibilities and during in the course of
IAIP development
Reduce risk and uncertainty during project implementation
Share challenges which will arise in the start-up and
implementation of the project
Resolve conflicting interests in the initiation of IAIP
Generate innovative ideas and solutions

54
1.2.5 What particular strategy (state only the one you think is best) do you suggest

to encourage and successfully engage stakeholders in the implementation and

development of IAIP initiative?

1.2.6 Any additional information on the level of engagement and roles of

stakeholders in the prefeasibility assessment practice of IAIPs and engagement

in its implementation?

55
 Respondent ID Code

Date of Interview / /

For Selected Key personnel from Amhara RIPDC and Bureau of Industry and investment

Part Two: Key Informant Interview Questions for Rating Stakeholder’s

Engagement.

1.3 Background Characteristics

1.3.1 Age: (In years)

1.3.2 Sex: Male Female

1.3.3 Educational Status

A) Diploma and Below B) First Degree C) Masters Degree and Above

1.4 Stakeholder Level of Engagement Rating in the IAIP Development Project

Instruction: Kindly rate each stakeholder listed below in the table based on examining their

level of engagement in the implementation of IAIP project considering the explanation given

for each type of rating category.

Unaware (1) – stakeholder is unaware of project and impact. They are not aware of
the project and its potential impacts on them.

Resistant (2) – aware of project and impact, but resists change. They are aware of
the project but not in support of it.

Neutral (3) – aware of project but nonchalant. Neither supportive nor resistant. They
are aware of the project but have no opinion regarding their support or
resistance for it.

Supportive (4) – aware of project and supportive of change. They are supportive of
the project and wish it to succeed.

Leading (5) – aware of project, impacts and actively participates to make the change.
They are actively engaged in project success and willing to lend assistance to
help it succeed.

56
 Note for recording results:
Present or record desired status of each stakeholder engagement in the IAIP project
implementation as (D) and current status as (C) in the table provided:
Stakeholder Group: Key Government Stakeholders

Supportive
Resistant
Unaware

Leading
Neutral
Name of the Stakeholder
Remark
Amhara National Regional State (ANRS)
Cooperatives Promotion Agency
Bahir Dar University
Debre Markos University
ANRS Bureau of Agriculture
ANRS Bureau of Trade and Market
Development
Amhara Region Agricultural
Transformation Agency
Bure TVTE College
ANRS Bureau of Industry and Investment
and Ethiopian Investment Commission
ANRS Bureau of Agricultural Research
ANRS Bureau of Labour and Training
Stakeholder Group: Project affected Community
Project accepted community
(Project affected households as a result of
Bure IAIP infrastructure Development)
Stakeholder Group: Identified Potential Investors in Bure IAIP
WA PLC.
Merkeb Union
Temesgen Kefalew Investment
BEAKA General Business PLC.
BK Group

57
 Stakeholder Group: Key Government Stakeholders

Supportive
Resistant
Unaware

Leading
Neutral
Name of the Stakeholder
Remark
Stakeholder Group: IAIP Enterprises/ Investors currently signed agreement with the
Regional IPDC
Yoseph Tomato Processing
Dandini Trading PLc
Bahir Dar Agroprocessing
Zelalem Kebede Pasta and Macaroni
Production
Hanen agroprocessing PLC
Stakeholder Group: Unions found in Bure IAIP ACPZ
Damot Multipurpose Farmers Cooperatives
union
Gozamin Multipurpose Farmers
Cooperatives union
Stakeholder Group: Bure IAIP Operational Enterprise
Richland Biochemical Production PLC

58
Part Three: FDG Guiding Questions – Strengths and Weakness of Stakeholder’s

Engagement in the implementation of IAIP Initiative

3.1 Is there any stakeholder engagement plan by the implementation organization and

continuously monitored?

3.2 In what way the stakeholders are engaged in the successful implementation of Bure IAIP

development project?

3.3 What are the major strengths of stakeholders’ engagement in the successful

implementation of Bure IAIP development project?

3.4 What are the major weaknesses of stakeholders’ engagement in the successful

implementation of Bure IAIP development project?

3.5 What solutions are suggested to improve stakeholder engagement in the successful

implementation of Bure IAIP development project?

59