governance food security biodiversity SW Ethiopia, Tolera, Jimma 2018

1. Food Biodiversity
?
Tolera Senbeto Jiren
Email: jfischer@leuphana.de Blog: http://ideas4sustainability.wordpress.com/ Twitter: @ideas4sust
Governance of food security and biodiversity: The case
of southwestern Ethiopia

2. Governance of food security 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 institutional support 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 to identify 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:
food security 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 and Resilience
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:
Importance of 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 economy and 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 and equity
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:
Emphasized the 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 on and 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 the discourses
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: Preferences and challenges to land use
strategies
Land sharing Land sparing
?

15. Preferences of land use 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 land use strategies

17. Why land sparing
18
Best for 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
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

19. Objective 3: Structural network 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 identified 244 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 and gaps
• Hierarchical
• No horizontal linkages between
woredas
• Implementation deficit
Federal
Regional
Zone
Woreda 1
Woreda 2
Woreda 3

22. Network structure and gaps

23. Network structure and gaps (Setema)

24. Network structure and gaps (Gera)

25. Network structure and gaps (Gumay)

26. Network structure and gaps (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 = a bridging 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
•What are the
challenges in
FS?
•What are the
challenges in
BD?
•What are the
challenges in
both?
Biodiversity
FoodSecurity

30. Classifications
31
Institutional misfit: problems on 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 each sector
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 challenge Sector
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 challenge Sector
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 challenge Specific 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 for policy 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 our papers 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