reconciling food production, forest conservation and landscape restoration in ethiopia

1

October, 2016

Phil FranksIIED

Reconciling food production, forest conservation and landscape restoration in Ethiopia: challenges & opportunities

2

3

4

Changes in cereal production due to changes in yield and area 1980-2013

5

Ethiopia

Population (2015) - 99.4 m, 19% urban

GDP growth (2003/4-13/14) 10.8% per year

Forest/woodlands (2016) 17.4 m ha (15.5%)

Small-holder farming (2015) 14.3 m ha (12.8%)

Large scale farming (2015) 0.98 m ha (0.9%)

Small-holder farm size 60% farms <1ha

6

Forest map

7

Biodiversity map

8

Agricultural expansion• Number 1 driver of deforestation and biodiversity loss • Expansion of cropland: 5.0 m ha in the period 2001-12

• 70% of new agricultural land came from conversion of forest and woodlands: 3.5 m ha in the period 2001-12

9

Changes in cereal production due to changes in yield and area 1980-2013

10

Future scenarios: 2015-2030

Growth the Transformation Plan II (2015-2020) Increase major crop production by 50% increase cereal crops productivity by 47% Increase forest area by 5m from 15.5% to 20%

Food demand: 49% increase by 2030, 125-150% by 2050 New York Declaration of Forests: halve rate

of deforestation by 2020, end deforestation by 2030 National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan: by 2020

sustainable use of ecosystems outside protected areas

11

12

What’s the problem?

Tensions………..disconnects• Between targets of different policies/strategies• Between future policy and historical trends

Risky……......killer assumptions regarding performance of key interventions, eg • closing “yield gaps”• Implementing land use plans

Trade-offs (and synergies) not recognised and effectively and equitably managed

13

Why this situation exists/persists• Sectoral siloes

o Forest/biodiversity under a new (junior) ministry split off from Ministry of Agriculture o Pastoralist issues covered by a separate ministryo Lack of awareness of/interest in the bigger picture

• Scale disconnectso Bottom up land use planning does not take into account national goals, eg re water, carbono Little/no capacity in environment/forestry in regional and local governments

• Narrativeso Forest land is vacant?o Large-scale commercial agriculture is more productive?

• Incentiveso Short time horizons of politicians (-> high discounting of forest ecosystem services benefits)o High salaries of NGOs and international agencies causing high turnover of government staffo Conversion of forest to farm helps to secure individual land tenure

• Vested interestso Strong donor influence, e.g. prioritising mitigation target of REDD+ vs development o Domestic investors in agriculture can conceal the scale of their farming enterprise

15

Concluding remarks• Despite ambitious plans for sustainable intensification

rapid deforestation will continue – which areas to keep and which to lose?

• Land use planning vital but how to align global- national-local priorities, what incentives to implement plans and what social impacts?

• Challenges lie mainly in the realm of political economy – incentives, ideas, institutions

• How to create political space for the necessary forward looking dialogue and what process?