Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
» www.leuphana.de
HARMONIZING THE GOVERNANCE OF
FOOD SECURITY AND BIODIVERSITY
A multi-level stakeholder network
analysis ...
— Ensuring food security and biodiversity conservation are contemporary global challenges
— There has been increased atten...
Exploring how food security and biodiversity
are governed in the context of multi-level
governance.
Specifically,
 Map s...
Background of the country
4Leuphana University 26.08.2016
—Nearly 40% of the population are still food insecure (USDA,
201...
Background of the study area
5Leuphana University 26.08.2016
Methods
6Leuphana University 26.08.2016
Methods
 24 Focus group discussions were conducted at 6 kebeles
 230 Key Informa...
1. Result from the structural data
7Leuphana University 26.08.2016
Food security governance network
8Leuphana University 26.08.2016
• Hierarchical
Food security governance network
9Leuphana University 26.08.2016
Federal
Zonal
woreda
Woreda
Regional
Woreda
• Hierarchica...
Food security governance network
10Leuphana University 26.08.2016
woreda
Woreda
Woreda
Kebeles
Kebeles
Kebeles
• Hierarchi...
Food security governance network
11Leuphana University 26.08.2016
woreda
Woreda
Woreda
Kebeles
• Hierarchical
• No horizon...
Food security governance network
12Leuphana University 26.08.2016
Kebeles
Kebeles
Kebeles
• Hierarchical
• No horizontal l...
Biodiversity governance network
13Leuphana University 26.08.2016
• Hierarchical
• No interaction between woredas
• No inte...
Food security network without Zone
14Leuphana University 26.08.2016
• Zone is the broker between
policy makers and
impleme...
Food security network without Zone
15Leuphana University 26.08.2016
GIZ/SLM
UNION
• NGO brokering across level
• No intera...
Biodiversity network without zone
16Leuphana University 26.08.2016
GIZ
EWCA
• NGO and CBO brokering
across level
• No inte...
Food security and Biodiversity interaction
17Leuphana University 26.08.2016
Biodiversity
Food security
 Majority of stake...
2. Result of governance challenges
18Leuphana University 26.08.2016
Governance challenges
19Leuphana University 26.08.2016
• The preliminary result from qualitative data shows the main gover...
Lack of coordination
20Leuphana University 26.08.2016
Horizontal
 Between sectors:
Production and conservation
 Within s...
Interest mismatch
21Leuphana University 26.08.2016
 Community interest vs government
interest
• land use strategy
“We are...
Centralization of decision making
22Leuphana University 26.08.2016
 Uniformity of plan, and one size fits all
approach
 ...
Conclusion
23Leuphana University 26.08.2016
Current strengths
 Working on both goals (food security and biodiversity)
Pos...
24Leuphana University 26.08.2016
Thank you for your attention!!
Questions and suggestions are welcome!
Acknowledgements:
•...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Tolera. stockholm

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.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Tolera. stockholm

  1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 5. Background of the study area 5Leuphana University 26.08.2016
  6. 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. 7. 1. Result from the structural data 7Leuphana University 26.08.2016
  8. 8. Food security governance network 8Leuphana University 26.08.2016 • Hierarchical
  9. 9. Food security governance network 9Leuphana University 26.08.2016 Federal Zonal woreda Woreda Regional Woreda • Hierarchical • Zone is the central liaison broker
  10. 10. Food security governance network 10Leuphana University 26.08.2016 woreda Woreda Woreda Kebeles Kebeles Kebeles • Hierarchical
  11. 11. Food security governance network 11Leuphana University 26.08.2016 woreda Woreda Woreda Kebeles • Hierarchical • No horizontal linkages between woredas
  12. 12. Food security governance network 12Leuphana University 26.08.2016 Kebeles Kebeles Kebeles • Hierarchical • No horizontal linkages between Kebeles
  13. 13. Biodiversity governance network 13Leuphana University 26.08.2016 • Hierarchical • No interaction between woredas • No interaction between kebelesFederal Regional Woreda Woreda Woreda Zone
  14. 14. Food security network without Zone 14Leuphana University 26.08.2016 • Zone is the broker between policy makers and implementers
  15. 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. 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. 17. Food security and Biodiversity interaction 17Leuphana University 26.08.2016 Biodiversity Food security  Majority of stakeholders involve in both sectors
  18. 18. 2. Result of governance challenges 18Leuphana University 26.08.2016
  19. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

×