Presentation of PRELIMINARY findings at the 2016 conference on development research at Stockholm University. Focus is on the governance of food security and biodiversity conservation.

1. » www.leuphana.de
HARMONIZING THE GOVERNANCE OF
FOOD SECURITY AND BIODIVERSITY
A multi-level stakeholder network
analysis in Ethiopia
LEUPHANA UNIVERSITY
Tolera Senbeto, Ine Dorresteijn, Arvid Bergsten, Neil
Collier, Julia Leventon, Joern Fischer

2. — Ensuring food security and biodiversity conservation are contemporary global challenges
— There has been increased attention for harmonizing production and conservation goals
• land sparing vs land sharing strategy
—The governance approaches for attaining this dual goal vary
• green revolution vs food sovereignty
—These approaches have their own strengths and weaknesses:
• Hierarchical vs Participatory .
Introduction
2Leuphana University 26.08.2016

3. Exploring how food security and biodiversity
are governed in the context of multi-level
governance.
Specifically,
 Map stakeholders and their interaction in the
governance of food security and biodiversity
 Assess challenges hampering governance of
food security and biodiversity
Aim of the study
3Leuphana University 26.08.2016

4. Background of the country
4Leuphana University 26.08.2016
—Nearly 40% of the population are still food insecure (USDA,
2014).
—Rich but declining biodiversity (IUCN, 2007).
Federal
Kebele
Woreda
Zone
Regions

5. Background of the study area
5Leuphana University 26.08.2016

6. Methods
6Leuphana University 26.08.2016
Methods
 24 Focus group discussions were conducted at 6 kebeles
 230 Key Informant interviews were administred
Snow-ball sampling
Stakeholders from kebele-national level in both sectors
 Social Network Analysis
 Qualitative thematic analysis for governance challenges

7. 1. Result from the structural data
7Leuphana University 26.08.2016

8. Food security governance network
8Leuphana University 26.08.2016
• Hierarchical

9. Food security governance network
9Leuphana University 26.08.2016
Federal
Zonal
woreda
Woreda
Regional
Woreda
• Hierarchical
• Zone is the central liaison
broker

10. Food security governance network
10Leuphana University 26.08.2016
woreda
Woreda
Woreda
Kebeles
Kebeles
Kebeles
• Hierarchical

11. Food security governance network
11Leuphana University 26.08.2016
woreda
Woreda
Woreda
Kebeles
• Hierarchical
• No horizontal linkages between woredas

12. Food security governance network
12Leuphana University 26.08.2016
Kebeles
Kebeles
Kebeles
• Hierarchical
• No horizontal linkages between
Kebeles

13. Biodiversity governance network
13Leuphana University 26.08.2016
• Hierarchical
• No interaction between woredas
• No interaction between kebelesFederal
Regional
Woreda
Woreda
Woreda
Zone

14. Food security network without Zone
14Leuphana University 26.08.2016
• Zone is the broker between
policy makers and
implementers

15. Food security network without Zone
15Leuphana University 26.08.2016
GIZ/SLM
UNION
• NGO brokering across level
• No interaction without NGO
between policy makers and
implementers

16. Biodiversity network without zone
16Leuphana University 26.08.2016
GIZ
EWCA
• NGO and CBO brokering
across level
• No interaction without
NGO/CBO between policy
makers and implementers

17. Food security and Biodiversity interaction
17Leuphana University 26.08.2016
Biodiversity
Food security
 Majority of stakeholders involve in
both sectors

18. 2. Result of governance challenges
18Leuphana University 26.08.2016

19. Governance challenges
19Leuphana University 26.08.2016
• The preliminary result from qualitative data shows the main governance
challenges:
1. Lack of coordination
2. Interest mismatch
3. Centralization of decision making

20. Lack of coordination
20Leuphana University 26.08.2016
Horizontal
 Between sectors:
Production and conservation
 Within sector:
Coffee vs food crop
Appointees and experts
Vertical
 Across levels:
Policy vs implementation levels

21. Interest mismatch
21Leuphana University 26.08.2016
 Community interest vs government
interest
• land use strategy
“We are forced to use fertilizer without our
choice. The value of our produce is less than
the cost of fertilizer and we sell our assets to
repayback the cost”

22. Centralization of decision making
22Leuphana University 26.08.2016
 Uniformity of plan, and one size fits all
approach
 “we know our services are not inline with the
communty we ought to serve. However, we
keep doing it as long as it is from the top
administration. This is the reason why we
lost credibility” Development Agent

23. Conclusion
23Leuphana University 26.08.2016
Current strengths
 Working on both goals (food security and biodiversity)
Possible improvements
 Involvement and participation of non-governmental actors like NGO’s and CBO’S
 Decentralization of decision making
 Establishment of forums for interaction between and within sectors at all level

24. 24Leuphana University 26.08.2016
Thank you for your attention!!
Questions and suggestions are welcome!
Acknowledgements:
• ERC-project to Joern Fischer
• Local community and all stakeholders who provided the data
• Oromia regional state
• Government of Ethiopia for permission