Land Degradation in Ethiopia: Two Theoretical Eyes

Hoben (1996) clearly reflects his theoretical position on his writing as a political ecologist relating the land degradation issues to history, power and individual property rights. He presents a historically grounded culturally constructed paradigm which was rooted form the narrative. He gives the thick descriptions of traditional Ethiopian context and indigenous agricultural society as well as an effect of highly authoritarian and military ruling society on indigenous practice. Later on, he describes the acceptance of neo-Malthusian environmental narrative by state, development aid agencies and other international environmental conservation institutions. He also explains that, the poor performance and failure of those involved agents in Ethiopian environmental reclamation; mainly the top-down approach of large programs food-for-work (FFW) that supported to the farmer that helps to plant trees and make terraces was became counterproductive.

But Munro et al. (2008) present the issues reflecting as a critical rationalist and they also state the land degradation history but they give less account on power and policy. Furthermore, using photo-set monitoring; more quantitative the method they analyzed the environmental changes during the last 30 years’ period. They come up with some results which are directly contrasted with Hoben (1996) view. Because their analysis shows that the situation of natural resources has locally strongly improved due to the rehabilitation program.

Problems in Ethiopia

The major problem of Ethiopia is land degradation however identification and definition of the problem are different in both texts. According to Hoben (1996), though, the major problems such as famine, soil erosion, and war are in the local and indigenous groups of people and they are facing it for a long time but causing factors behind those problems are not themselves. There was an indigenous farming system that did not cause serious problems before the agrarian reform by the Derg regime. But when the military regime forced an ambitious agrarian reform program, it aimed to change all aspects of society in better condition but the results became beyond the expectation. Indigenous farming systems where vanished due to the nationalization of natural resources. The establishment of peasant’s association and production cooperation also became inefficient in comparison to individual farming. Similarly, increasing the use of top-down approach and forced eviction of an individual’s household for ministerial propose and resettled in lowland brought many other environmental degradations (ibid). In this way, Hoben (1996) presents the problem based on populist discourse. In populist discourse, smallholder and pastoralists have been believed as heroes in the problem of environmental degradation whereas multinational cooperation modern farming has been held as villains (Andersen, 2016).

Hoben (1996) sees the problem with the approaches of different reclamation programs that support building stone bounds, terraces, plant trees. He also indicates that such programs made additional problems to the farmers, for instance, reduction of arable land, an increase in soil erosion due to rodents. On the other side, the recent study of Munro et al. (2008) argues that the main problem was with the peasant’s poor land husbandry and their resource utilization practice. Drought, impoverishment also contributing to environmental degradation. But after the intervention of the reclamation program, they find several positive changes in Tigray. This is more related to the dominant discourse on desertification, the “The Global Environment Management” discourse. This discourse assumes that the overpopulation and misuse of local people were the main cause of desertification (Andersen, 2016).

Blame game in two text

Although, two studies have been done in two different time periods, there is direct and indirect blame game while dealing with the issue. In Munro et al. (2008) text traditional and indigenous farming practices and their resource utilization practices are being blamed whereas to the NGOs, donor agencies, foreign aid agencies are said to be on the right track because they find good results in their work. In another text of Hoben (1996), retrospect the historical, political, and cultural context and in this text mainly military regime and state-run approach including different production cooperatives, peasant groups are being blamed. Hoben also disagree with the work of different NGOs, the United Nations, and donor agencies. Particularly the FFW is being blamed as making peasants dependent on aid food. He also sees the problem with the data stories and the misrepresentation of events, exaggerating the rate of degradation.

Policy implication

There are some policy implications in both discussions. From the study of Hoben (1996) policymakers and decision-makers can get lots of things which are in detail from the local perspective. It also reflects that a local perspective and indigenous practice of Ethiopian people have not been considered in policy making process so that, top-down policy approach did not work properly in conservation practice. This means that policy and program should retrospect the cultural, historical context of the society. The development narrative itself sometime could have problems due to having poor data stories and misinterpretation. In the case of Munro et al. (2008), they found successful improvement in the Ethiopian environment due to the work of NGOs and donor authorities. One of the policy implications of Munro et al. text is that the result reinforces the development actors and their program and policy. They believe that; developmental interventions can solve the socio-environmental problems.

Summary

Both texts have their own dealing prospective of the same phenomenon which contradicts in some aspect but not all. Ethiopian environmental degradation narrative has been seen in two different ways. Hoben (1996) sees that the Ethiopian neo-Malthusian narrative could mislead the issue and problem. Whereas Munro et al. (2008), see as the development blueprint for the Ethiopian environmental conservation practice. In my opinion, the process of knowledge production varies due to interconnected factors. It is also affected due to how someone is dealing with the issues and how the perception being created. Furthermore, we can simply generalize that, accepting local’s views and taking them in environmental conservation practices as well as in decision making processes could give better way for long-term achievement that resolve the problems.

References

ANDERSEN, P. 2016. Desiccation, Desertification, Erosion, Land Degradation, and Other Evils. Curriculum text on Critical Perspective on Environment and Development session 3 [Online].

HERRMANN, S. M. & HUTCHINSON, C. F. 2005. The changing contexts of the desertification debate. Journal of Arid Environments, 63, 538-555.

HOBEN, A. 1996. The Cultural Construction of Environmental Policy. Paradigms and Politics: in Ethiopia. In: LEACH, M. & MEARNS, R. (eds.) The Lie of The Land: Challenging Received Wisdom on the African Environment. London, James Currey: Oxford.

MUNRO, R. N., DECKERS, J., HAILE, M., GROVE, A. T., POESEN, J. & NYSSA, J. 2008. Soil landscapes, land cover change, and erosion features of the Central Plateau region of Tigrai, Ethiopia: Photo-monitoring with an interval of 30 years. CATENA, 75, 55-64.