![Why land sharing
Justifications
19
conservation of farm
biodiversity
Biophysical
compatibility
livelihood benefits of
farm diversification
Imposition of technologies,
strategies and plans
“trees such as the sycamore fig [Ficus sycomorus], which
is rare in the forest but occurs on farmland, provide shade
under which conflicts are resolved, powers are transferred,
oaths are made, and traditional cultural ceremonies are
undertaken. We therefore prefer a sharing approach”.
Challenges](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/6outreachpresentationtolerajftstobeupdated1-181127152458/75/governance-food-security-biodiversity-SW-Ethiopia-Tolera-Jimma-2018-18-2048.jpg)
More Related Content
Similar to governance food security biodiversity SW Ethiopia, Tolera, Jimma 2018
governance food security biodiversity SW Ethiopia, Tolera, Jimma 2018
- 1. Food Biodiversity ? Tolera SenbetoJiren Email: [email protected] Blog: http://ideas4sustainability.wordpress.com/ Twitter: @ideas4sust Governance of food security and biodiversity: The case of southwestern Ethiopia
- 2. Governance of foodsecurity and biodiversity Two key challenges: food security and biodiversity conservation How to achieve both? Many discourses, preferences, governance arrangements and challenges Research questions: 1. Which discourses are prominent around food security? What is the institutional base of the discourses? Which challenges hinder their implementation? 2. Which discourses are prominent around biodiversity conservation? What is the institutional base of the discourses? Which challenges hinder their implementation? 3. Which actors are involved in biodiversity conservation vs. food security? Is there sufficient interaction between these actors? 4. What are the policy and institutional challenges within each sector and between sectors?
- 3. Discourses and institutionalsupport in food security Four Discourses Smallholder commercia- lization Agroeco- logy and resilience Local economy and equity Market liberali- zation 1. Q-method to identify discourses 2. Multi-level governance 3. 50 stakeholders ranking
- 4. Methods used toidentify discourses Q-method was used to elicit different discourses around food security Initially four primary discourses were identified from literature : (1) green revolution (2) agricultural commercialization and efficiency optimization, (3) food sovereignty, and (4) resilience Then eight written statements representing each of these approaches was formulated to define a 32- item Q-set. Ranking of the Q-sets into a forced quasi-normal distribution were made by purposively selected stakeholders from woreda to federal level Respondents read all the 32 statements and prioritize them into ‘most important’, ‘medium important’ and ‘least important’ The most important statements (+4 and +3), then the least important statements (-4 and -3), and lastly the medium important statements (+2 to -2) principal component analysis (PCA) to analyze the 50 Q-sorts
- 5. 1. Smallholder commercialization Premises: foodsecurity is the result of increasing production and income Supported smallholder economic growth via Intensive production (green revolution type) Commercial crops Smallholder income and profit maximization Government supply of agricultural extension services Research and science focus on high yielding crops Smallholder transformation from subsistence to profit-oriented Farmers’ ownership of land Rejected diversified and agro-ecological production
- 6. Smallholders commercialization Justifications: large population,and transforming their livelihoods is a key priority Development interventions that disregard the vast majority of smallholders risk failure modern agriculture, commercialization, smallholder growth and food security priority was usually given to food security over biodiversity conservation. “People conserve biodiversity, but first people need to be fed by all possible means” (woreda respondent) Challenges: poor capacity of farmers and policy implementers costs of agricultural modernization
- 7. 2. Agroecology andResilience Premises: Agro-ecological methods: diversified landscape and livelihoods for food security social-ecological resilience as a pathway to ensure food security resilience of the social-ecological system adaptive governance respect for local knowledge and cultures Against: intensification, commercialization and market liberalization large-scale private commercial agriculture state control of resources
- 8. Agroecology and Resilience Justifications: Importanceof ecosystems and biodiversity to provide essential ecosystem services local people’s experience, knowledge and capacity change their condition and ensure food security Challenges: Institutional gaps and a lack of coordination between stakeholders policy emphasis on intensification lack of strong institutional support
- 9. 3. Local economyand equity Premises: Food security is the result of increasing production and smallholders’ income rising Protection of local people from market competition Local production for local market (closed economy) Focus on local development and equity as means to achieve food security State control of land for potential redistribution Rejected diversified production Rejected market liberalization
- 10. Local economy andequity Justifications: Income from local market enhances development Food security depends on the speed and intensity of agricultural production Redistribution and protection of smallholders Challenges: Population pressure Market fluctuation Scarcity of land
- 11. 4. Market liberalization Premises: Emphasizedthe role of agricultural research and innovation, intensification international market integration to generate income, profit and accumulate wealth Focus on the production of marketable crops based on the comparative advantage principle to maximize profits Focus on trade liberalization and open markets Against Smallholders’ rights to choose what to produce & determine the market price for their produce
- 12. Market liberalization Justifications: Emphasis onand compatibility with current trade policies (i.e. focus on import substitution and export promotion) State is not benign state Challenges: Weak, thin and missing market facilities and institutions
- 13. Institutions behind thediscourses 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Woreda (n=14) Zone (n=13) Region (n=7) Federal (n=5) Food security (n=14) Biodiversity (n=14) Both (n=11) GO (n=34) NGO (n=4) CBO (n=1) Governance levels (A) Sector of stakeholders (B) Type of stakeholders (C) Smallholder commercialization Agroecology and resilience Local economy and equity Market liberalization
- 14. Objective 2: Preferencesand challenges to land use strategies Land sharing Land sparing ?
- 15. Preferences of landuse strategies Governance level and community wealth determined land use preference Land sharing was more popular at the implementation level (45%, n = 62) Land sparing and a mixture were preferred at the policy-making level (39% each, n=18) Poor community members unanimously preferred land sharing (100%, n=11) Rich community preferred land sparing followed by a mixed land use strategy (50% and 33%, n=12)
- 16. Preferences of landuse strategies
- 17. Why land sparing 18 Bestfor biodiversity conservation and protection Access to agricultural technologies for intensification Institutional support Gains from forest carbon markets Population pressure and increased demand for food lack of coordination, and contradiction of sectoral plans, strategies and activities “the only viable solution in the face of climate change, population increase and land degradation is to use production enhancing technologies and increase yield”. “Agricultural expansion and illegal settlement were primary causes of forest decline in the zone. Therefore, we segregate agricultural land from conservation land, and demarcate conservation boundaries”. Challenges Justifications
- 18. Why land sharing Justifications 19 conservationof farm biodiversity Biophysical compatibility livelihood benefits of farm diversification Imposition of technologies, strategies and plans “trees such as the sycamore fig [Ficus sycomorus], which is rare in the forest but occurs on farmland, provide shade under which conflicts are resolved, powers are transferred, oaths are made, and traditional cultural ceremonies are undertaken. We therefore prefer a sharing approach”. Challenges
- 19. Objective 3: Structuralnetwork in the governance of food security and biodiversity •How do food security and biodiversity governance stakeholders interact? •How does integration take place? •Who are the brokers? Biodiversity FoodSecurity
- 20. Network characteristics We identified244 relevant stakeholders 71% were simultaneously involved in both food security and biodiversity governance 23% had only food security and 6% had biodiversity links, Most of them are governmental stakeholders 80% were governmental NGO 9% and 11% in biodiversity and food security Links: 34% of links were simultaneously about both food security and biodiversity 50% were links about food security and 16% links about biodiversity only 72% of food security and 51% of biodiversity links were bidirectional interactions
- 21. Network structure andgaps • Hierarchical • No horizontal linkages between woredas • Implementation deficit Federal Regional Zone Woreda 1 Woreda 2 Woreda 3
- 22.
- 23. Network structure andgaps (Setema)
- 24. Network structure andgaps (Gera)
- 25. Network structure andgaps (Gumay)
- 26. Network structure andgaps (without the zone) • Zone is the broker between policy makers and implementers
- 27. Integration mechanisms Individual integration Is mainly an outcome of the routines, policies and activities of an individual stakeholder Assists a stakeholder to balance between activities But can lead to prioritization of one over the other May create redundancy, lacunae or incoherence Collaborative integration always involves two stakeholders, with different roles, experiences, and capacities. is a requirement for inter-organizational negotiation, learning, and conflict resolution enhances coordination that prevents single-goal agendas, competition and fragmentation collaboration – was found at the implementation level, while integration was much poorer at the policy level implementation deficit and poor local capacities
- 28. Brokers Broker = abridging stakeholder linking different other stakeholders Administration sector stakeholders had high betweenness centrality and brokerage ADMJZ; ADMGU;CIGUJZ;SECGU;COUSE;WOMESE;ADMGE;EWCA;MOA This could facilitate integration formal authority (by their very nature as a government body) and structural position authority But could also hamper integration misuse of the structural and formal authority, such as via centralization of decision- making or manipulation of information Power capture
- 29. Objective 4: Governance challenges •Whatare the challenges in FS? •What are the challenges in BD? •What are the challenges in both? Biodiversity FoodSecurity
- 30. Classifications 31 Institutional misfit: problemson how well institutions fit with social and ecological system Problems of institutional interplay: issues arising from institutional interaction Policy incoherence: policies not compatible with each other or practices, or are contradictory to the problem the policy seeks to address
- 31. Challenges in eachsector Overall challenge Specific challenge Sector FS BC Institutional misfit Overlapping institutions x - Institutional gap - x Institutional jurisdictional incompatibility - x “No proper institutional support was provided to biodiversity conservation in general and for farmland biodiversity in particular”. Zone “Illegal hunting is widespread partly because the federal institutions face challenges to enforce rules at the local level, because the local institutions rarely cooperate with us. …”. Federal level
- 32. Interplay problems Overall challenge Specific challengeSector FS BC Institutional interplay problems Poor coordination x x Intervention fragmentation x x Conflicting interests x x Poor participation x x Lack of meritocracy x x Accountability problems x x fit-for-all strategies x - “We understand the importance of coordination. But we pursue our task since we will be evaluated in terms of our specific task, and there is no point in wasting resources in fostering coordination”. Woreda “The frequent institutional restructuring and instability, forming and maintaining integration is challenging, and, none integration attempts succeeded so far”. Woreda “What comes Allah and the government, no one dares to refuse or disobey”. Kebele
- 33. Policy incoherence Overall challenge Specific challengeSector FS BC Policy incoherence Contradiction in policy implementation x x Incoherence of proclamations and rules x x Mismatch between policy intent and local conditions x x Institutional power mismatch - x National Forest Policy 2007, Proclamation 542/2007; Regional Forest Law 2007, Proclamation 84/2007 on the establishment of participatory forest management Regional proclamation (ORLP 130/2007) land right vs eviction Regional proclamations (ORLP 130/2007 and 151/2012), land use vs eviction
- 34. Integration challenges 37 Overall challengeSpecific challenge Administrative dimension Institutional misfit Institutional instability ↕ Missing bridging institutions ↕ Institutional interplay problems Poor coordination ↕ Implementation fragmentation ↕ - Structural segregation of sectors ↕ Development and conservation mismatch ↕ Policy incoherence Mismatch in policy goals ↕ Focus and bias in policy - “The basis for sustainable development and ensuring food security relies on the quality of the environment and natural resources we have. Therefore, taking care of biodiversity is a primary goal” . Federal “The primary policy objectives of the nation should be to feed the population using all possible means. Biodiversity conservation needs to support food security”. Federal
- 35. Key points forpolicy and practice 1. Four types of discourses were identified around Food security in Ethiopia. The diversity in discourses is essential to address the multifaceted aspects of food security. intensive production, commodification and income of agriculture was popular pathway to food security. However, this popular discourse could lead to conflict, inequality and environmental degradation integrating aspects from all approaches is important but mostly strengthening the institutional base of the agroecology and resilience is essential Biodiversity conservation has got secondary attention but integrating the two sectors is essential for a sustainable outcome 2. Vertical and horizontal cross-boundary interaction, better cross-sectoral coordination, and enhanced implementation capacities of stakeholders is required for integrated goals. 3. The streamlining of policies to improve coherence within and across sectors is essential to to achieve integrated goals
- 36. Questions and ourpapers related to this section Jiren Tolera Senbeto, Ine Dorresteijn, Jan Hanspah, Jannick Schultner, Arvid Bergsten, Aisa Mnlosa, Nicolas Jager, feyera senbeta, Fischer, Joern Fischer (In review). Alternative discourses around the governance of food security: a case study from Ethiopia. Global food security (In review) Jiren Tolera Senbeto, Dorresteijn I, Schultner J, Fischer, J.(2017) The governance of land use strategies: Institutional and social dimensions of land sparing and land sharing. Conservation Letters. 2018;11:e12429. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12429 Jiren Tolera Senbeto, Nicolas Jager, Ine Dorresteijn, Julia Leventon, Jannick Schultner, Arvid Bergsten, feyera senbeta, Fischer, Joern Fischer (In review). Governance challenges at the interface of food security and biodiversity: a multi-level case study from Ethiopia Jiren Tolera Senbeto, Arvid Bergsten, Ine Dorresteijn, Neil French Collier, Julia Leventon, JoernFischer (2018). Integrating food security and biodiversity governance: A multi-level social network analysis in Ethiopia. Land Use Policy 78 (2018) 420–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.07.014 . Ecology and Society