Dereje Teklemariam

Agricultural outsourcing or land grabbing: a meta-analysis

ContextThe phenomenon of known as ‘land grabbing’ is not a new process. Especially, since the 1990s, some capital-rich countries have started to buy or lease foreign lands to be able to produce food and biofuels.ObjectivesThis article aimed at investigating the (un)sustainability of ‘transnational land deals’ (TLDs) for investors, host governments and local communities. Given the three dimensions of sustainability, the “social acceptability”, “economic viability” and “environmental conservation” of the TLDs have been studied.MethodsTo understand whether and to what extent the TLD is sustainable in each dimension a meta-analysis was conducted on 73 journal articles.ResultsResults showed that tenure arrangements and livelihoods were the main drivers for the matter’s social acceptability. Accordingly, local communities are affected by losing and receiving little or no compensation for their land, and making them have to face the increasing vulnerability of their livelihoods. This results in a win–win–loss situation for investors, host governments and local communities, respectively. Economic (un)sustainability mainly depends on capital flow, infrastructure and employment. This aspect is evidenced as a win for investors and host governments and implies the aforementioned win–win–loss situation. The main aspects of environmental (un)sustainability are considered as biodiversity, ecosystem services, and climate change.ConclusionsAccording to the results, both host governments and local communities experience loss. This results in a win–loss–loss status of the TLDs. The major challenge remains in establishing good land governance, which can guarantee the benefits to local people and their access to land.

Livelihood alternatives model for sustainable rangeland management: a review of multi-criteria decision-making techniques

AbstractAlthough a set of appropriate livelihood alternatives has already been developed to approach sustainable rangeland management (SRM), determining an appropriate livelihood model for supporting policy makers still remains to be a challenge. Livelihood alternatives are affected by multiple factors such as livelihood capital, vulnerability contexts as well as policies, institutions and processes which can be identified by stakeholders from different perspectives. Accordingly, determining appropriate livelihood alternatives is a multifaceted challenge that requires multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques. This paper aims to review MCDM methods that have the potential to be applied in SRM. It discusses how different MCDM techniques can be used and which techniques are well matched to determine appropriate livelihood alternatives. First, it justifies the need for decision support systems followed by an explanation of the most common MCDM techniques. Among them, two techniques, namely analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), are found to be the most suitable MCDM in the case of SRM. Furthermore, based on the reviews on different hybrid approaches, AHP–TOPSIS is introduced as a superior approach to select appropriate livelihood alternatives. Accordingly, AHP is introduced to elicit the relative importance of livelihood criteria and TOPSIS is employed to provide a score for livelihood alternatives. As a conclusion, the application of AHP–TOPSIS approach is proposed where many decision criteria, alternatives and stakeholders are involved. Subsequently, a methodological framework to determine a livelihood model is also developed. This study concludes that, as well as recognizing the theory of appropriate livelihood alternatives, the application of MCDM techniques can be further pursued toward devising a workable policy framework for SRM. At the end, we have elaborated future methodological issues to be considered when selecting feasible alternatives to resolve the current challenges in SRM.

Persistence and changes in the peripheral Beles basin of Ethiopia

We have investigated the relevance of the notion of “peripheralism” in the Beles basin. In this lowland border area of Ethiopia, important investments require an evaluation of their socio-economic and ecological impacts in the light of Ethiopia’s Climate-Resilient Green Economy (CRGE) strategy. We contrasted literature of different periods with field observations. In the middle and lower parts of the basin, the Gumuz people traditionally practised shifting cultivation. Resettlement of highlanders is particularly linked to water and land resources. A large irrigation project was initiated in the 1980s, but vegetables and fruits face post-harvest losses. Large water transfers from Lake Tana since 2010 affect the movement of people, the hydrogeomorphology, and ecology of the river. In several parts of the basin, the settlers’ economy now dominates. Many Gumuz became sedentary but maintained their agricultural system, particularly in the south of the lower basin. Land titling allowed allocation of “vacant” areas to transnational or domestic investors. As a result, the semi-natural vegetation is frequently replaced by open cropland, leading to decreased carbon storage and increased soil erosion. This and water abstraction for irrigation jeopardise hydropower production, in contradiction with the CRGE objectives. Despite the recent developments, the contrasts in economic activity make the core-periphery dichotomy to remain actual in the Beles basin. The resettlements and permanent cropping tend to make the upper basin part of the core. However, the installation of a transit road and commercial farms in the lower basin do not allow to consider that a non-peripheral integration has taken place.