Ine Dorresteijn presentation, Stockholm Development Research Conference 2016, Ecosystem services and disservices; Ethiopia, human wildlife conflict

1. Integrating ecosystem services & disservices
in cultural landscapes of SW Ethiopia
Ine Dorresteijn, Jannik Schultner, Neil Collier, Kristoffer Hylander,
Feyera Senbeta, Joern Fischer

2. CULTURAL LANDSCAPES: SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
Source: The Resilience Alliance

3. CULTURAL LANDSCAPES: THE ‘GOODS’
Source: The Resilience Alliance

4. CULTURAL LANDSCAPES: THE ‘BADS’
Source: The Resilience Alliance
Ecosystem
disservices
Direct & indirect

5. THE NEED FOR SERVICE/DISSERVICE INTEGRATION
• Ecosystem service research is usually focused on benefits
• However, ecosystems provide both benefits AND cause
problems
• This balance is likely to influence local people’s perceptions
of ecosystems
• Therefore, we need to disaggregate both services and
disservices and study their balance and distribution

6. AIMS
To integrate ecosystem services and disservices with a case-study
from southwest Ethiopia
1. Disaggregate forest ecosystem services and disservices
through grouping of households (profiles)
2. Link these profiles to biophysical, socio-economic, and
attitudes of people to the forest

7. METHODS

8. 20KMSOURCE: GOOGLE MAPS
• Coffee-growing area of Southwest Ethiopia
• 3 Woredas, 6 kebeles
• 25 Households in each kebele
STUDY AREA

9. 20KM
STUDY AREA
• Kebeles: gradients in forest cover & altitude
• Households randomly selected
• Questionnaires

11. Provisioning forest ecosystem services
• Bee hives
• Coffee
• Spices
• Medicinal plants
• Trees for house construction
• Lianas
• Trees for utensils
• Ploughs
• Firewood
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

12. ECOSYSTEM DISSERVICES
Direct Disservices
• Crop loss
• Livestock predation
Indirect Disservices
• Social relationships
• Health
• Education
• Farming opportunities
• Cash income opportunities
• Food security

13. RESULTS

14. CULPRITS AND VICTIMS
Field crops (maize, teff, sorghum) often destroyed by baboons,
bush pigs, warthogs; other crops/animals less important
Larger livestock (cattle, horses) predated by hyena, leopard, lion
Smaller livestock (goats, sheep) and chickens predated by
baboons, civet cats

15. Group 1Group 2Group 3
3 DISTINCT GROUPS OF HOUSEHOLDS

16. 3 DISTINCT GROUPS OF HOUSEHOLDS
High benefits
and high costs
Average benefits
and high costs
Low benefits
and low costs
Group 1; 28 hh Group 2; 75 hh Group 3; 47 hh

17. 3 DISTINCT GROUPS OF HOUSEHOLDS
High benefits
and high costs
Average benefits
and high costs
Low benefits
and low costs
Group 1; 28 hh Group 2; 75 hh Group 3; 47 hh

18. 3 DISTINCT GROUPS OF HOUSEHOLDS
High benefits
and high costs
Average benefits
and high costs
Low benefits
and low costs
Group 1; 28 hh Group 2; 75 hh Group 3; 47 hh

19. 3 DISTINCT GROUPS OF HOUSEHOLDS
High benefits
and high costs
Average benefits
and high costs
Low benefits
and low costs
Group 1; 28 hh Group 2; 75 hh Group 3; 47 hh

20. 3 DISTINCT GROUPS OF HOUSEHOLDS
High benefits
and high costs
Average benefits
and high costs
Low benefits
and low costs
Group 1; 28 hh Group 2; 75 hh Group 3; 47 hh

21. BIOPHYSICAL FACTORS
Forest cover (500 m radius)
Altitude
2 groups close to forest - most people have relatively less
benefits than costs
} Groups 1 and 2 similar, 3 differs
1600
1800
2000
2200
1 2 3
Household profile
Altitude(m)
0
10
20
30
40
50
1 2 3
Household profile
Forestcover(%)

22. SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS
• Group 1: more metal roof houses, cash-crop based income
• Group 3: holds less land than group 1
• No difference: education level, household size, household
head, number of livestock
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
1 2 3
Household profile
Proportionofhouseholds
Roof type
Grass
Metal
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
1 2 3
Household profile
Proportionofhouseholds
Income
sources
Cash crops
Dairy
Homegarden
Labour
Livestock
Poultry
Migration
Staple crops
Trees
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 2 3
Household profileLandsize(oxen)

23. ATTITUDE TOWARDS FOREST
• No difference on attitudes towards cost/benefit of the forest
• Group 1 used own forest plot more often
• Only 10 households unhappy about access to forest services
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
1 2 3
Household profile
Proportionofhouseholds
Attitudes
More costs
Neutral
More benefits
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
1 2 3
Household profile
Proportionofhouseholds
Ownership
Not own
Own

24. DISCUSSION

25. DISCUSSION
Current challenges for local people
• Disservices contribute to difficult livelihood situation overall
• But costs/benefits are not equally distributed among population
• Most people close to forest have relatively higher costs than
benefits
• People far from the forest only bit lower benefits, without high
costs
• Group 1: ‘richer’ - easier to mitigate costs like health problems,
food insecurity, loss of cash income opportunities
But forests also heavily support livelihoods
• Attitudes not affected by service/disservice profiles

26. DISCUSSION
Knowledge of service/disservice balance can help to facilitate
successful ecosystem management
• Strategies to alleviate the differences between households
Future challenges
• Increasing coffee focus promises economic gains but may also
worsen disservices
• Increasing coffee focus may worsen the balance between
services/disservices between people close to the forest

27. `THANKS TO:
Dadi Feyisa, Tolani Asirat, Shiferaw Diriba
All the participants for their cooperation
ERC-council for funding the project
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION