Degefa Tolossa (Professor)Yideg Alemu2024-07-232024-07-232023-12https://etd.aau.edu.et/handle/123456789/3289After the 2007–2008 global triple crisis of finance, food, and energy, Ethiopia has strongly promoted Large-Scale Agricultural Investment (LSAI) as a policy instrument and strategy to increase Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and sustain agricultural productivity. Evidence also indicated that LSAI are increasing over time and are likely to continue in the future in the country. In this vein, the study elucidates the process and progress, follow-up, and harmony of various stakeholders in the governance of large-scale agriculture in the historical context of large-scale agricultural investment (LSAI) initiatives, drivers, and institutions. Further, it is essential to take into account their possible consequences on the local community's livelihood, food security, and environment and employ sustainable methods to reduce these effects. The state of Oromia is a prominent regional state in Ethiopia that has actively sought large-scale agricultural investment (LSAI). Government documents reveal that Oromia alone leased 1.0 million hectares of potential land to both domestic and foreign investors for up to 99 years. Since 2008, among zones of Oromia, the Shashaman rural district was predominantly chosen as a practical intervention area of LSAIs due to the availability of fertile land and freshwater, proximity to the capital city of the nation, lower labor costs, and an abundance of "communal" or "underutilized lands. Existing studies on LSAI in Oromia have focused on FDIs, loan misuse, limited rural employment, technology transfer, infrastructure, job creation, food security and livelihoods. Since previous studies have shed light on certain aspects of LSAI in Oromia, there is a pressing need to expand research efforts to explore the multifaceted negative effects of these investments. Therefore, this study was conducted to investigate the impact of LSAI on dispossession, local people‟s livelihood, food security, and the environment in Ethiopia, particularly in Oromia National Regional State, Shashamane Rural District. Further, the study also examined the integration of the three key stakeholders (State, private sector, and affected and interested local people) and looked at how LSAI's multiple benefits were shared among the three key actors. Because one theory could not adequately address the complex and allencompassing problem of LSAI, the study also used a variety of analytical underpinnings. This study looked at the broader political ecology approach, investment policy that supports FDI in large-scale agriculture and public-private partnership (PPP) and associated economic theory as guiding frameworks to the study. The Aestin ladder of involvement, the Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF), food security theories and the four pillars, and the Driver-Pressure-State- v Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework are also used as lenses to analyze the empirical results. Among various impact evaluation approaches, this study used a pseudo-randomization or quasiexperimental treatment/control procedure to answer a specific cause-and-effect question. The study used a combination of data sources and techniques, inviting multi-method qualitative and quantitative data collection tools. The study obtained data through surveys, key and in-depth informant interviews, focus group discussions (FGD), field visits, and direct observations. Secondary data and statistics were obtained from various sources, including Ethiopia's Investment Commission (EIC), Bureau of Investment and Industry of the Oromia Region, the West Arsi zone, and the Shashemene district Investment and Industry Office. Documents from NGOs (GIZ) and Civil Society organizations were also consulted and assessed. Additionally, the study used Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Propensity Score Matching (PSM) economic model to build the index and examine the impact. Data were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) 24 for Windows and Stata Version 13. T-test and χ2 were employed to test the significance of differences between groups for continuous and discrete variables, respectively. The results revealed that 86.6% of respondents expressed that both government and proponents were not taking their concerns into account during the consultation process. Lack of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) reduces local people‟s sense of recognition and status. The study found that the livelihood component's average treatment effect on treated (ATT) results indicate that the treated households' natural, human, and financial capital was lower than that of control families at -0.91, -0.81 and -0.15, respectively. The loss of household livelihoods has deepened and exacerbated local poverty. The study also found that LSAI has no positive or significant impact on local community food security status. Most of the local communities with LSAI and without LSAI were food insecure by all four pillars of food security measures. LSAI-affected households were more susceptible to environmental risk exposure, had higher levels of land degradation, and had lower levels of resilience than LSAIunaffected households. The outcome of the sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the impact (negative) results predicted by this study were an accurate reflection of the local effects of LSAI. Despite the project's failure to mechanize and regulate substantial areas of the land, local farmers have operated on them and used the vacant land. The main adverse effects of LSAI are threats to the official recognition of local people and their sense of ownership of their customary lands, eviction from farmland, resident grazing land, inadequate compensation, a lack of vi transparency and accountability, improvised local people's livelihood capital and food security, and accelerated local environmental degradation. The core argument of this thesis is that the government's vigorous promotion of LSAI has failed to deliver the multiple benefits it promised for significant stakeholders. Since LSAI involves interdependent issues that call for collaboration across multiple actors and sectors, there was little engagement and consultation with stakeholders. In addition, civil society organizations and academia did not participate as much, which hindered the development of consensus and solutions that benefited all parties. Despite the investment's appeal, it fails to address food insecurity, safeguard dispossession persons, or improve local livelihoods and environment. Inadequate stakeholder involvement and malpractice exacerbate the land problem, increase firm risk, and diminish overall benefits. Mitigating the adverse impacts on livelihood resources, implementing effective monitoring, and restoring the local natural environment are urgently needed. Developing corrective institutional arrangements is not just an option; it is an imperative. Making responsible investments and achieving multiple benefits require learning from past mistakes and understanding stakeholder interests, responsibilities, and priorities. The study also offers suggestions for minimizing negative effects while maximizing positive effects.enDispossessionLarge-Scale Agricultural Investment (LSAI)LivelihoodFood SecurityEnvironmentalPropensity Scores Matching (PSM)EthiopiaOromiaThesis