Derba Flowers and Mullo Farm, situated adjacent to Derba Town, according to Ethiopian Horticulture Producer Exporters Association (EHPEA) (2019), these floriculture industries Spanning over 350 hectares, these farms are uniquely positioned with land fenced along the riverside in front of their compound, which crosses the asphalt road ( Table 1 ). According to the field observation made it is estimated that a similar expanse of land is occupied on the other side of the asphalt road, extending the length of their compound ( Figure 2 ). This arrangement suggests that the total land utilized by these farms is extensive, encompassing areas on both sides of the road.

The data collected from the FGD and interview participants indicated that the fenced area was used by smallholder farmers to access river water for various purposes. The area, previously designated by the government for youth irrigation activities, was fenced by floriculture industries in 2019. According to KII-3, the Aleltu River has since begun drying during the dry season. This phenomenon is attributed to extensive groundwater extraction by the floriculture industries, which utilize multiple wells for flower cultivation. Similar patterns have been observed globally, as groundwater abstraction for commercial agriculture has been shown to disrupt river flows. For instance, Leipold and Morgante (2013) and Lanari et al. (2018) demonstrated that horticultural water use in Kenya’s Upper Ewaso Ng’iro Basin significantly impacted river resources. Hengsdijk and Jansen (2006) highlighted the strain on hydrological systems in Ethiopia’s Rift Valley due to agricultural water demands. Furthermore, Fantaye et al. (2023) documented the link between shallow groundwater abstraction and reduced surface water availability in Ethiopia’s Lake Tana sub-basin.

The expansion of control over lands by the floriculture industry is evident in an area located outside the premises of the Mulo and Derba Floriculture industries. This area, situated to the right of the Mulo Floriculture industry, is bordered by a hill in the distance and is covered with trees and shrubs. According to data obtained from Focus Group Discussions (FGD 1&2), interviews with research participants (RPI-5, 6), and key informant (KII-3), this area was previously used as an open communal grazing land. It has also been confirmed that the area has been fenced off and converted into a conservation area for wild animals. Key informant (KII-3) and FGD (1&2) participants have reported that pigs, monkeys, and other wild animals are now protected within this area.

Our investigation into the floriculture industry compounds revealed significant stretches of land that are not being utilized for construction or agricultural purposes. The Ethiopian Horticulture Producers and Exporters Association (EHPEA) reports that the Debra Flowers Industry occupies more than 350 hectares, while Mulo Flowers holds 33 hectares, as confirmed by the Sululta District Investment Bureau. Despite these substantial land holdings, EHPEA’s, 2019 data indicates that only 55% of this land, approximately 210.65 hectares, is actively cultivated. This analysis reveals that 172.35 hectares, or nearly 45% of the land, remains uncultivated, raising critical questions about the efficiency of land use and the potential for adopting more sustainable practices ( Table 2 ).

The expansion of the floriculture industry, driven by the concept of frontier imagination, has significantly impacted smallholder farmers’ access to arable and grazing lands (Alamineh and Eneyew, 2021; Meyfroidt et al., 2022). This concept, which frames undeveloped land as an opportunity for economic growth, has facilitated large-scale acquisitions for high-value flower cultivation (Peluso and Lund, 2011; Asebe et al., 2018; Bergius and Buseth, 2019; Getahun, 2020). However, such expansion has had detrimental consequences for smallholder farmers, including the loss of access to agricultural land, the disruption of grazing spaces, social and economic displacement, and environmental concerns. Additionally, it has eroded cultural and social cohesion, threatening food security and traditional agricultural systems while imposing significant risks to the environment (Asebe et al., 2018).

Although the floriculture industry has potential economic benefits, as noted by Arkebe (2015), these challenges underscore the need for equitable land access, the safeguarding of community rights, and the implementation of sustainable development practices to mitigate adverse effects on smallholder farmers (Chambers and Conway, 1992; Connelly, 2007; Tomislav, 2018; Galli et al., 2020).

However, the interview made with the deputy administration to the Sululta Woreda administration indicates that the Mulo and Derba Floriculture industries are used for dairy farming; On the other hand, the data collected from FGD and key informants indicate that the Floriculture industries are fraudulently holding the land not to be taken away from them. The data from the research participants (RPI-2, 4), key informants (KII-3), and FGD-2 revealed that there were no more than 10 cows and a few sheep ( Figure 3 ). These data also indicate that the Floriculture industries’ activities do not supply any animal products to the local or any other markets. Besides, the products of these cows are only consumed by the workers of the Floriculture industries. The research participant (RPI-23) stated that the Samore flower farm was using uncultivated land for soya plantations, whereas there were no such kinds of activities seen in the compound.

The collected data from key informant (KII-3) in the Derba and Samore flower industries highlights that utilizing vast areas of land for monoculture, specifically non-edible plants like flowers, does not contribute to increasing the food supply. This practice is particularly concerning in Ethiopia, a country grappling with severe land scarcity where smallholder farmers typically manage plots of just 0.9 hectares (George, 2015). Various studies have uncovered Ethiopia’s challenges with not only food insecurity but also chronic food insecurity, emphasizing the country’s ongoing struggle (Salami et al., 2010; Gezmu, 2013; Ayenew and Kopainsky, 2015). Vhugen and Gebru (2019) shed light on the impact of large-scale agricultural ventures on the productivity of smallholder farmers and their critical role in ensuring food security (Kirigia et al., 2016; Moroda et al., 2018; Barreiro-Álvarez et al., 2024). They also point out how the expansion of such large-scale agricultural projects and the creation of jobs can adversely affect the social sustainability of these farmers and their contribution to food security (Chambers and Conway, 1992; Connelly, 2007; Galli et al., 2020).

With global hunger and food insecurity on the rise since 2015, the United Nations introduced Sustainable Development Goal 2 (SDG 2) with the aim of eradicating hunger by 2030 (Gil et al., 2019; Barreiro-Álvarez et al., 2024). Observations reveal that smallholder farmers engage in mixed farming on their limited plots, reinforcing the severe land scarcity challenge highlighted by George (2015). Thus, the practice of dedicating extensive tracts of land to flower cultivation — a single type of crop that does not contribute to the food supply — is particularly problematic in the context of Ethiopia’s acute need for agricultural diversification and enhancement of food security.

Focus Group Discussion (FGD) participants from Group 2 suggested that encounters with certain wild animals, such as monkeys, were infrequent before the establishment of floriculture farms. They observed an apparent increase in wild animal presence, including pigs and monkeys, coinciding with the expansion of floriculture operations. However, these claims are anecdotal, and further research is needed to establish a direct causal link between floriculture activities and changes in wildlife behavior or population.

Research participants (RPI-5-7), along with FGDs (FGD-1 and FGD-2) and a key informant (KII-3) from the Mulo and Derba Floriculture industries, highlighted concerns about conservation practices implemented by the floriculture businesses. These practices reportedly allow wild animals to roam lands surrounding the floriculture compounds, causing damage to agricultural activities and resulting in economic losses for smallholder farmers. While these accounts reflect the experiences of local stakeholders, the extent and specific nature of the impact require further investigation to confirm.

A key informant (KII-3) raised concerns about the challenges faced by local farmers when attempting to protect their crops from wildlife. Farmers fear being accused of harming animals protected under the conservation policies of the floriculture industry, creating a sense of insecurity and apprehension among the community.

Additionally, the use of electric fences by floriculture industries has been reported as a potential hazard. FGD participants (FGD-1) and KII-3 noted that these fences pose risks to smallholder farmers, their children, and livestock, with accidental contact leading to injury or, in some cases, fatalities. The perceived role of these fences in restricting access to grazing land and displacing local farmers further exacerbates community tensions. However, the intent behind the use of such defensive measures remains a matter of speculation, necessitating additional evidence for definitive conclusions.

The observations made during FGDs suggest that conservation practices and defensive measures, such as the use of electric fences, have contributed to socio-economic challenges for smallholder farmers. These include crop damage, security concerns, and fears of displacement. However, the lack of solid evidence on some issues, such as the impact on water quality and wildlife behavior, calls for further research to substantiate these claims and better inform mitigation strategies.

The socio-economic impacts on smallholder farmers, particularly those located in proximity to the Mulo and Derba Floriculture industries, are multifaceted, extending beyond food security concerns to encompass issues related to water management and agricultural sustainability. Observations made in December 2022 highlighted the challenges posed by the geographical layout and industrial activities of floriculture compounds. Smallholder farms, situated downslope from these compounds, are adversely affected by the runoff from greenhouse rooftops during the summer months. This runoff damages grass and crop production on these farms, exacerbating the difficulties faced by smallholder farmers in achieving productive and sustainable agriculture.

The United Nations has set maintaining an environment conducive to sustainable agriculture as a crucial target for achieving Sustainable Development Goal 2 (SDG 2) by 2030 (Lavers, 2012; Gil et al., 2019). This goal underscores the importance of addressing the challenges posed by water management and environmental sustainability in agricultural practices (Morrow, 2008; Mair and Smith, 2022).

Participants in focus group discussions (FGD 1 and FGD 2) proposed that floriculture industries could mitigate some of these challenges by employing technology and manpower to harvest water efficiently for their operations, thereby also addressing water scarcity issues faced by farmers. Despite the potential of using flood runoff for irrigation as a solution for smallholder farmers during the dry season, the complexities of water scarcity, exacerbated by the floriculture industries’ use of river and underground water, remain a contentious issue. Conflicts and complaints from smallholder farmers about water scarcity highlight a significant socio-economic challenge.

The vice manager of the Daraba Floriculture Industries noted the diverse interests among smallholder farmers, ranging from grass production to vegetable cultivation using irrigation. This diversity in agricultural focus underscores the difficulty in managing water supply effectively, which is identified as a weakness among the smallholder farming community.

In summary, the socio-economic impacts on smallholder farmers, particularly those adjacent to the floriculture industries, are significantly influenced by water management issues. The runoff from floriculture compounds during critical growing seasons damages crops and grass, while the broader challenges of water scarcity and effective water use for diverse agricultural practices further complicate the situation. Addressing these challenges is essential for promoting sustainable agriculture and improving the socio-economic conditions of smallholder farmers, in alignment with the goals set by the UN for SDG 2.

Smallholder farmers in Sululta Sub-city primarily rely on milk production for their livelihood. However, their access to grazing land is significantly hindered by adjacent floriculture industries. Data collected from smallholder farmers in Abba Gadaa Woreda reveal a decline in income from milk sales, leading many to abandon livestock husbandry altogether. Consequently, a significant number of the youth have shifted away from farming, opting instead for daily labor or other employment opportunities.

Menzel (2019) critically examines the premise that large-scale agribusiness investments bring benefits such as job creation, capital, technology, and infrastructure. He points out that, over the past fifteen years, such investments have often resulted in land conflicts and socio-economic challenges. Menzel argues that these developments contribute to the process of depeasantization among smallholder farmers, a phenomenon where farmers are pushed away from agricultural activities not as a step toward improved living conditions but rather into a state of deteriorated livelihood. This perspective is supported by the work of Araghi (1995) and Bhogal and Singh (2014:3), who highlight the negative impacts of the large-scale agrobusiness on smallholder farmers, essentially forcing them into non-farming communities due to declining agricultural viability rather than as a choice for betterment.

Irrigable farmland and water scarcity are the primary causes of the socioeconomic impacts in the Derba area. In the past, the area was known for its irrigated cultivation using the Aleltu River.

The interview with the research participant (RPI-1) indicated that the economic impacts of flower farming activities in the area have caused the local youths to be daily laborers and guards which is the non-sustainability of smallholder farmers. The social impact is exposed by the research participants from Sululta sub-city farmers who are living on the side of the Floriculture industries and who gave up on animal husbandry because of the floriculture industries’ restriction of grazing lands (RPI-8-16). The elderly and youth in the area have lost hope of continuing farming activities in the area. As a result, most youths are working in different investments as laborers and guards, while the elders are looking after cattle.

The key informant (KII-3) and the research participants (RPI-3, RPI-5) from the Derba area have indicated that after floriculture industries had already fenced the communal grazing land they used to collect the grass using a combiner and distribute it to the smallholder farmers and sometimes they used to sell grass to the smallholder farmers. However, according to the data collected from the key informants (KII-3) and participants of FGD-2, once the floriculture has been legalized their position over the land has banned distributing and selling grass to smallholder farmers. This condition according to the interview made with the kebele manager in the area indicated that it has created grievances and the smallholders sometimes use force to access grass for livestock.

Ethiopia’s Water Resources Management Policy (WRMP) since 1999 emphasizes Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) and fair access to water resources for all users, including large-scale agricultural enterprises and smallholder farmers, through requirements for water use permits (Ethiopia’s Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Energy, 1999). The smallholder farmers in GulaleBaressakebele, LeloChabeka, and Derba Town are exposed to water scarcity caused by the floriculture industries in the area. These areas are dependent on the AleltuRiver for their socioeconomic services such as domestic use, cattle, and irrigation. According to the data gathered from the Gulale Baressa kebele manager most of the smallholder farmers, including those living in Derba Town, do not have pipe water. According to the data collected from the Gulale Baressakebele manager (RPI-18), over 9,000 Smallholder Farmers living in the three kebeles are dependent on the Aleltu River for irrigation, cattle, and domestic use. One participant stated the following:

A key informant (KII-3) from the Mulo and Derba area reported that in 2019, the Mulo and Derba Floriculture industries fenced off land adjacent to the Aleltu River. According to their account, the river has since been observed to run dry during the dry season. While this observation suggests a possible correlation between the floriculture industries’ activities and changes in the river’s flow, no hydrological studies or direct evidence currently confirm a causal link between the fencing or water usage by the industries and the river’s seasonal dryness.

Given the significance of water resources for local livelihoods and agricultural activities (Ethiopian Water Resources Management Proclamation (No. 197/2000); Doe and Smith, 2020), this issue warrants further investigation. Comprehensive studies analyzing water usage patterns, conservation practices, and the river’s hydrology are needed to substantiate these claims and determine the extent to which floriculture operations may be impacting the Aleltu River.

In the FGD with the local community and interview with the key informant from the smallholder farmers living in the aforementioned kebeles, and other villages in the lower valley of the River such as Adea Kotich were affected because of the floriculture impacts on the water volumedeclined and dried.

According to the data collected from the research participants (RPI-4, RPI-6), the socioeconomic impact of water scarcity is associated with the locals being exposed to expenses to buy and fetch water from long distances. Furthermore, the loss of irrigable land has contributed to the decrease in agricultural and animal productivity, which has impacted the income of smallholder farmers from these sources.

The environmental consequences of Ethiopia’s floriculture industry indicate that it is a chemical-intensive sector. As Mengistie (2017, 2020, 2021) highlights, the floriculture industry uses chemicals, some of which the UN Health Organization has banned due to their hazardous nature. This exposes smallholder farmers to significant health risks, as well as economic burdens due to healthcare expenses. Additionally, Attah and Regasa (2013) show that floriculture activities contribute to heavy metal contamination in nearby water bodies. Gelaye (2023) further supports this, linking water quality degradation to floriculture practices. According to the FGDs, Samore Flower Farm’s discharge of raw sewage into the Laga Dima River has resulted in contamination of the nearby Muger River, a tributary of the Nile ( Figures 4 , 5 ).

The sentiment that the properties of the floriculture industry do not belong to the community stems from the industry’s limited engagement with the smallholder farmer community. This lack of interaction has failed to foster a sense of ownership among the smallholder farmers regarding the floriculture properties. Coupled with strict restrictions on grass resources and measures to safeguard against damage and loss, this situation has created a divide. According to a research participant (RPI-18) from the area, such a gap has left the floriculture industries vulnerable to being grabbed (Borras and Franco, 2010).

In the area, the floriculture industries have been implicated in exacerbating the poverty among smallholder farmers, some of whom are employed as guards. The imposition of resource restrictions has compelled locals to access these resources forcefully. As a consequence, guards have faced salary reductions and are financially liable for any property losses or damages, further deepening their poverty. Moreover, the guards, being part of the local smallholder farmers’ community, find themselves at the center of escalating tensions. This strained dynamic has fueled conflicts within the community, as evidenced by a tragic incident reported by a research participant (RPI-2): a guard, who is a relative of the participant and a member of the smallholder farmers’ community, was involved in the murder of a young man from the same community. This act has starkly highlighted the grave consequences of forced resource access and the ensuing conflict. The research participant from the area has stated that:

The data collected reveal that the conflict surrounding the floriculture industries is characterized by violence, a trend that has escalated over the past few years. A notable incident occurred when locals set fire to the homes of the floriculture industry’s managers in response to water scarcity. The water, which had been directly diverted to the floriculture operations via canals, became scarce, sparking significant unrest. This incident not only endangered the personal security of individuals associated with the floriculture industries within the community but also forced them to either relocate far from the area or live within the confines of the floriculture compounds for safety.

In light of these developments, Gezmu (2013) has pointed out that the floriculture industry in Ethiopia often overlooks the rights of local communities, exploits natural resources, contributes to environmental pollution, and alters water usage. Furthermore, the unfair distribution of land associated with these operations frequently leads to conflicts. This analysis underscores the complex relationship between resource management, local community rights, and the sustainability practices of the floriculture industry, highlighting the urgent need for a more harmonious approach to industry-community relations and environmental stewardship (Lawrence et al., 2001).

Smallholder farmers in the study area are not empowered to address the negative impacts caused by the floriculture industry due to several structural and organizational challenges. Unlike the floriculture industry, which enjoys structured representation and support as a Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), smallholders lack similar representation and advocacy mechanisms. This disparity is exacerbated by the absence of organized environmental programs or water conservation initiatives among farmers, apart from the seasonal tree-planting efforts under the national Green Legacy initiative. Without sustained and localized efforts to conserve water and maintain the area’s ecological balance, smallholders remain vulnerable to the environmental degradation caused by floriculture activities (Ingram, 2011; Gudeta, 2012; Gobena et al., 2020; Goswami, 2023).

Additionally, floriculture farms have not been observed to implement water conservation or reforestation programs to mitigate their environmental impact. This gap highlights the lack of accountability and responsibility on their part to preserve the water potential and ecological health of the region. Focus Group Discussions and interviews with key respondents (e.g., RPI 20 and 21) revealed that while smallholder farmers often raise concerns with Agriculture and Rural Development Bureaus (ARDBs), these bureaus face limitations in addressing the issues effectively. As FDIs, floriculture farms are primarily accountable to federal entities, limiting the capacity of regional bodies like ARDBs to mediate or enforce sustainable practices.

The lack of programs on both sides—smallholders and floriculture farms—can be attributed to factors such as apathy, disinterest, lack of knowledge, inadequate funding, and minimal government intervention. Addressing these issues requires fostering collaboration between smallholders, ARDBs, and the floriculture industry to develop comprehensive environmental conservation strategies, empower farmers, and ensure equitable resource management. Including these aspects in the discussion will present a balanced view of the limitations faced by both small farmers and the floriculture industry while highlighting the institutional and structural barriers that perpetuate these challenges.

Smallholder farmers often face organizational challenges, such as limited capacity for collective action or advocacy, which hinder their ability to address issues arising from environmental degradation caused by floriculture. While Agriculture and Rural Development Bureaus (ARDBs) could play a pivotal role in addressing these gaps by facilitating farmer cooperatives, offering legal and technical support, and advocating for farmers’ rights, this role appears limited in the study area. Focus Group Discussion (FGD) participants revealed that smallholder farmers have lodged complaints with ARDBs about environmental destruction and its impacts on their farms. However, interviews with Respondent Participant Interviewees (RPIs) 20 and 21 indicate that while ARDBs attempt to mediate between the conflicting interests of smallholder farmers and floriculture farms, their efforts are constrained. This is primarily due to the fact that floriculture farms, being Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs), are accountable to federal entities rather than regional administrations. Additionally, the lack of adequate government support or effective interventions further exacerbates the community’s vulnerability. Exploring whether ARDBs provide sufficient support, training, or funding to empower communities to confront these challenges is critical to understanding and addressing institutional shortcomings (RPI 20).

Participants of the research and key informants identified that the primary causes of socioeconomic non-sustainability among smallholder farmers include the dispossession of farmlands, displacement of some farmers to neighboring rural areas, and the relegation of remaining farmers to marginal lands. A poignant example was provided by a woman participant, who gestured toward a stony mountainside and implied, through this silent but powerful gesture, the harsh and unyielding conditions to which they have been pushed. This act underscores the dire circumstances faced by smallholder farmers, highlighting the tangible impact of land dispossession and displacement on their ability to sustain themselves and their families.

Moreover, the displaced smallholder farmers received inadequate compensation and were allocated smaller plots of land with lower productivity compared to their original farmlands; some were even relegated to stony hillside areas. As a consequence, these displaced farmers find themselves socially marginalized and on a downward economic trajectory.

The limitation of access to agricultural resources for smallholder farmers has a direct impact on their economy, leading to a process referred to as depeasantization, as noted by scholars such as Shiva (2010), Bhogal and Singh (2014), George (2015), and Araghi (1995). Bhogal and Singh (2014:3) accurately identified both ‘pull’ and ‘push’ factors in the transformation of a farming society into a non-farming society. ‘Pull’ factors entice the workforce away from farming toward more profitable non-farm activities. Conversely, ‘push’ factors result from distress-induced transformation, driven by challenges such as declining productivity, rising costs, diminishing returns, and unemployment, compelling the agricultural workforce to transition from farming to non-farming activities. In the studied area, some smallholder farmers are shifting toward daily labor as a non-farming activity. This shift is influenced by the proximity to large-scale agribusinesses, prompting farmers to seek opportunities in urban areas or the capital city of Ethiopia, according to Makki and Geisler (2011) and Menzel (2019). This trend highlights the significant impact of both external and internal pressures on the livelihoods of smallholder farmers, pushing them toward alternative sources of income in the face of increasing agricultural challenges.

The discussion reveals a complex tapestry of challenges faced by smallholder farmers, primarily driven by resource access restrictions, displacement, and dispossession. These challenges not only disrupt the traditional agricultural practices but also erode the socio-economic fabric of smallholder farming communities. The restriction of access to essential resources, including water and grazing land, compounded by the forceful displacement and dispossession of fertile farmland, has led to a precarious existence for these farmers. Pushed to marginal lands with limited productivity, they struggle to sustain their livelihoods and maintain the health and well-being of their livestock.

The situation is further aggravated by inadequate compensation for displaced farmers, which fails to match the value of the land lost or to provide a viable pathway for rebuilding their lives. As a result, these communities face an uphill battle against socio-economic decline, finding themselves marginalized within the broader societal framework.

In conclusion, the narrative of the smallholder farmers underscores a critical need for policies and practices that not only recognize but also protect the rights and livelihoods of these communities. Addressing the root causes of resource access restriction, displacement, and dispossession is imperative to ensure the sustainability and resilience of smallholder farming in the face of growing challenges. Without such interventions, the cycle of marginalization and economic decline is likely to persist, eroding the foundation of rural agricultural communities and diminishing their contribution to the food security of the country.