Part III - Meles says no land grab in Ethiopia—Not
today, not tomorrow!
25 August, 2011 | By Keffyalew Gebremedhin
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dispossessing and displacing people to settle them down
minister’s first reaction was a scoff followed up by denial, saying not a
single person was moved. When the journalist persisted that he had
seen “evidences of many displaced, worried and frightened people”,
the vice minister simply said, “…It is their choice…Either to choose to
have these basic services come to the villages…it is based on their
willingness. But of course, they have to abandon their previous ways
of life. [Otherwise] you cannot provide any basic services to the
community.”
When I heard the word ‘either’ in the video, I was waiting for the ‘or’
end of it, which did not come out, perhaps aware that it would lead to
giving away everything that has been cause for the problem to start
with. This situation is limited to Western Ethiopia, to minority
population and settlers from other parts of the country under the
previous regime and during the past two decades. However,
Kassahun Zerrfu of the Gambela office for investments in March 2011
told John Vidal, “It is a coincidence that the investors are coming at
the same time as the villages are being relocated.”
Their intention, the officials claim, is to bring people where they could
be provided with governmental services. The problem is, however it
appears that government has chosen to submerge these people into
the 21st century with utmost speed. The urgency is certainly there, in a
country where profound poverty and backwardness are its defining
features. Also undeniable is the fact that the regime has been in search
of records of achievements to rally behind it the distrustful Ethiopian
population. What it does not realize is that, as in so many other areas,
where heavy-handedness has proved to be its hallmark policy
instrument, these have worsen its unpoopularity it cannot now willingly
advance within the people its expressed causes.
The prime minister litigates farmland grabbing in theory, while
ignoring the reality on the ground
It is with the above in mind that I watched Prime Minister Meles
Zenawi’s interview and his responses to the different questions raised
by Vickram Bahl. The prime minister was dismissive of both the
international concerns and also that of a sizable number of Ethiopians
at home and abroad about the danger and consequences of farmland
grab in the country. Nevertheless, the problem once again is that his
responses do not address the charges out there. This failure has only
allowed the allegations against, misgivings and distrusts of the regime
to linger, although it appears the Meles regime might not mind it, since
it realizes it cannot survive and thrive without enemies.
Perhaps for the uninitiated, the prime minister’s response may appear
forceful and logical. But I doubt it if the real thing could be lost on
Vickram Bahl. As a seasoned journalist, I am sure he understands that
the conditions that could backfire on the Meles regime and investors
could not be undone by denials and dismissiveness. After all, in
Gambella human dignity has been breached; the human rights of those
populations have been violated. The fact that the government behaved
cruelly towards its citizens in front and on behalf of foreign investors
leaves these people vulnerable for future abuses by the guest farmers.
Even if the locals complain against any injustices, with a single call to
local and federal officials, the investors can scoff at them since they
have pocketed the law and the officials. I do not want to speculate
where this would lead to.
In spite of official denials that there is landgrab in Ethiopia, however,
the concerns of many at home and abroad have not been silenced. At
the international level, there are strong concerns over the traditional
issues of human rights, minority issues—as those minority populations
have been invisible to successive Ethiopian governments—and
exploitation of poor Africans by international capital have persisted.
There is also concern about the future of global food security, at a
moment in history when the owners of capital, especially rich
governments and its speculative side, have targeted large tracts of
agricultural lands in developing countries to monopolize food
production. Where would that leave the billions of small producers in
developing countries?
Here is how the prime minister sees the whole question of farm
landgrab, with no reference to what actually is happening in Western
Ethiopia:
He then amplified the above to justify his dismissive conclusion and
denial of reality, above, arguing:
Why the prime minister’s point of view is unhelpful
It is essential to put here a few things in their proper perspective,
especially in regard to the claim the federal government has given “a
clearly set out lease arrangement” how farmland lease should be
handled, as follows:
First, let alone in 2004, when the government first started leasing out
lands secretly, which was exposed by FAO, IFAD and IIED in May
2009 (International Land Deals in Africa), not even in 2011 does
Ethiopia have in place “a clearly set out lease arrangement,” as
claimed above. Until late 2010, things in every region went the way
each one deemed right or suited its situation. The country did not even
know overall how much land had been committed. I am not sure it
knows today.
No environmental standards were incorporated properly, although
Environmental Impact Assessment Proclamation No. 299/2002 was
issued in 2002, amended several times subsequently. The problem
was seen more clearly in the course of the 2010 controversy, when
local people in their helplessness protested in a spontaneous rally in
Gambella the silence by local and federal governments against
destruction of forest resources by foreign companies. The regional
administration, the federal ministry of agriculture and the office
responsible for environmental matters coalesced against the people,
labeling them as regime leftovers of the previous regime, trouble-
makers and terrorists (The Reporter, 5 May 2010). After all, the
directives by the council of ministers were issued in late 2010.
It was the personal involvement of the federal president that tried to
shine light on this problem, where Ethiopian laws, institutions and
officials have kept silence—a situation where even he as president
could not secure the actions he needed after two letters to concerned
officials. The World Bank reports that in Ethiopia, less than 10
percent of state forest boundaries have been mapped, and very few
claims to rights over forestland have been identified and registered. It
concludes that this makes it difficult to protect public lands with high
environmental value–because the state cannot fulfill its duties to the
nation.
Secondly, in 2008 the government set up lead agency for farmland
leasing and also a federal land bank above 5000 hectares from which
investors could pick. Below 5000 hectares, it was left for the regions
to decide. This then was endorsed by the 2010 directive issued by the
council of ministers, basically outlining the administration of agricultural
investment in farmlands, the focus of which is on investments. The
regime’s priority consideration is foreign exchange, not the nation’s
wellbeing.
Based on its case study, the World Bank also concluded:
sustainable and equitable benefits? 2011).
Incidentally, the government owned Agricultural Equipment &
Technical Services (AETS) was hired in 2009 by wealthy investors
such as Sheik Al-Amoudi in Gambela to clear natural forests. For
those services, AETS agreed to be paid ETB 9,000 ($670, 2009
rate) per hectare, according to Addis Fortune of 12 October 2009.
What is interesting here is that the government was later persuaded to
sale the state-owned AETS and when it was put at the auction’s
block twice, one of the tenders was Saudi Star, the company Mr Al-
Amoudi owns. It offered ETB 171 million and ETB 149 million, much
less than the minimum ETB 275 million bid. The fate of that company
is still unknown or it would eventually be disposed of (Addis Fortune,
31 July 2010).
Interestingly, this month AETS sued Saudi Star Agricultural
Development, the rice plantation Sheik Al-Amoudi co-owns, for ETB
35.2 million for failure to pay for land the latter had cleared in the
Gambella Regional State, according to Addis Fortune of 7 August
2011. While admitting it owned money to AETS, Saudi Star had
asked for more time to pay the money, lest the court revisit the issue
on 19 October.
Secondly, out of the nine regions of Ethiopia by April 2010 only four
regional states — Amhara, Oromia, Southern Nations, Nationalities
and Peoples (SNNP) and Tigrai — have almost finalized issuance of
land certificates to peasant households, formally recognizing the rights
of individuals to lands through the certificates. This means, five
regional states—Afar, Somali, Benishangul‐Gumuz, Gambella and
Harari—have not issued legislation how to ensure and protect the
rights of farmers and pastoralists, or implement land-leasing
arrangements.
To the extent that the government could respect the certificates it
handed out, it is mostly in these regions that there has been serious
disenfranchisement of the farming and pastoralist population. In a very
useful paper presented to the World Bank Conference on Land
Policy and Administration in Washington DC from April 26‐27, 2010,
Imeru Tamrat cautiously indicated his worries, “In the absence of
detailed land administration laws in the other five regional states, it is
not clear how the landholding rights given to peasants and pastoralists
under the Constitution is being implemented within these regional
states” (Imeru Tamrat, Governance of Large-scale Agricultural
Investments in Africa: the Case of Ethiopia, 2010).
Thirdly, if the federal government has set in place, as the prime
minister claimed, “a clearly set out lease arrangement,” it should also
have ensured protection of natural resources. That not being the case,
too many natural forests have been destroyed, with the regions not
knowing how they should handle lease agreements. There were also
too many interventions by politicians on behalf of foreign investors,
according to informal sources. For instance, by the admission of the
former President of Benishangul-Gumuz Regional State Yaregal
Aysheshum, commercial farmland demarcation was done by what he
called “sheer guesstimation.” By this what he meant was that, other
than natural landmarks or landscape delineation, no other
measurement was taken, because of which many investor farmers
were given excess lands beyond what is provided in their lease
agreements. The federal government claims it is working to correct
this situation. I would not be surprised, if as a nation, Ethiopia knows
at this very moment how much land has been put in the hands of
foreign investors.
In Rising global interest in farmland: can it yield sustainable and
equitable benefits? the World Bank indicates, “Compared to an
average annual expansion of global agricultural land of less than 4
million hectares before 2008, approximately 56 million hectares worth
of large-scale farmland deals were announced even before the end of
2009. More than 70 percent of such demand has been in Africa;
countries such as Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Sudan have transferred
millions of hectares to investors in recent years.” This does not give
specific quantity, but the magnitude in Ethiopia is unmistakable.
Fourthly, the lack of proper guidance by the federal government has
also led to the destruction of huge masses of natural forests, without
the culprits held accountable. This arose from failure to examine
properly proposed investment projects in any given part of the
country. The destruction in Gambela and Benishangul-Gumuz has
been catastrophic. In that regard, nothing could match the horrors
inflicted on the country by the British company Sun Biofuels,
according to President Yaregal Aysheshum. Sun Biofuels was given
land to start biofuels development in Benshangul-Gumuz. But, it
changed its mind after destroying 80,000 hectares of natural forests.
When the former president was asked why the company was not
asked to pay for damages, he was not willing to give reasons (http:
//www.ethiopianreporter.com/pre-en). Possibly, it could be the case
of some senior government official(s) working as go between and
threatening the regional president, not to take action.
Fifth, the prime minister is convinced that renting out as much land as
possible would benefit both investors and the Ethiopian people. He
anticipates that it would make available more food and income and
also sees it as beneficial employment. The World Bank disagrees with
that expectation of betterment of life through the current practice of
landgrab. The Bank states:
equitable benefits?
With regard to the overall statement denying the existence of land
grab, the following response seems to be in order. There are two
things to consider here. For this, let us revisit the two interviews by
him and his deputy in June 2011 and December 2010, respectively,
with Vickram Bahl of ITMN television.
Firstly, the two gentlemen were defensive. They chose to sublimate
their controversial and illegal actions, even by the laws of Ethiopia,
through objectives of existing national development goals. This is,
because they know that no one in his right mind would be opposed to
the state working to provide better life for its citizens. The reference
here is to relocation of people to new settlements to set up villages to
provide them with governmental services.
The mistreatment of mostly minorities in Western Ethiopia by a regime
that says it has come for the “equality of all nations and nationalities” is
ironic and not any different from the previous regimes that have
ignored or forgot these people existed. Much in the same way, today’
s mistreatments have reduced them to invisibility. The interpretative
emphasis by the prime minister and his deputy seems to hammer on
the notion that land has moved from being public property, as
entrusted in cthe ustody of the state in 1974, now has only become
state property in full. Interpretatively, this smacks of the aphorism
what ‘Caesar giveth, Caesar taketh Away’ at any time. Therefore,
whatever the state has tried to do to benefit the people has come,
without making room for popular participation, any possibilities to
properly identify pros and cons of any goals from the perspective of
the people. What should add clearer evidence that government heavy-
handedness in Ethiopia is a perennial problem that this?
Secondly, the prime minister and his deputy tried to emphasize
constitutional safeguards, referring to the fact that land in Ethiopia has
been public property for 36 years now, i.e., since the 1974 revolution.
They have not, however, considered when they use force to throw out
people by military means, which is equally illegal, is no different from
land grabbing by force, as it used to happen under colonialism, or the
imperial system in Ethiopia, or in some African countries after the
onset of farmland grab in this 21st century.
Conclusion
At this stage in Ethiopia, therefore, the issue regarding land gab is
more about state brutality in continually violating the human rights of
humble and peaceful villagers, dispossession of citizens and
destruction of pristine natural environments. As mentioned above, for
the future there is also the land ‘give away’ for 99 years, i.e., which in
essence means in perpetuity, endangering Ethiopian sovereignty in so
many ways. It is a shameful and useless exercise that on balance
would hardly benefit the country.
In his excellent analytical research on landgrab, LAND TO
INVESTORS: Large-Scale Land Transfers in Ethiopia (2011) the
noted Ethiopian land tenure expert Dessalegn Rahmeto concludes:
vulgarity of farmland grab, violation of our country’s dignity and its
environmental virginity. They strongly resent the actions of an arrogant
political, military and economic power that neither has a sense of
responsibility or proportionality.
Although the Melese regime has contributed in some ways to
improving the country’s infrastructures, it has badly missed many good
opportunities, both at home and abroad, to unite the country along a
democratic path and do more in facilitating broad-based economic
growth and national development of Ethiopia as common cause for
everyone.
With bad temper and greed for power, it has unwisely lost the politics
and psychology of nation building falling on the wayside because of its
preference of political deception and corruption!
(http://transformingethiopia.wordpress.com/)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The writer was a former civil servant and diplomat in the Ethiopian
government. Later he served as International Staff with the United Nations
and is currently in retirement, devoting his time for research and writing.
He can be reached at kef730@gmail.com.
today, not tomorrow!
25 August, 2011 | By Keffyalew Gebremedhin
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dispossessing and displacing people to settle them down
- Last March, when the
Guardian’s environment
editor John Vidal returned
from Gambela after
documenting the destruction
that has befallen the
population there, he saw
State Minister of Agriculture
minister’s first reaction was a scoff followed up by denial, saying not a
single person was moved. When the journalist persisted that he had
seen “evidences of many displaced, worried and frightened people”,
the vice minister simply said, “…It is their choice…Either to choose to
have these basic services come to the villages…it is based on their
willingness. But of course, they have to abandon their previous ways
of life. [Otherwise] you cannot provide any basic services to the
community.”
When I heard the word ‘either’ in the video, I was waiting for the ‘or’
end of it, which did not come out, perhaps aware that it would lead to
giving away everything that has been cause for the problem to start
with. This situation is limited to Western Ethiopia, to minority
population and settlers from other parts of the country under the
previous regime and during the past two decades. However,
Kassahun Zerrfu of the Gambela office for investments in March 2011
told John Vidal, “It is a coincidence that the investors are coming at
the same time as the villages are being relocated.”
Their intention, the officials claim, is to bring people where they could
be provided with governmental services. The problem is, however it
appears that government has chosen to submerge these people into
the 21st century with utmost speed. The urgency is certainly there, in a
country where profound poverty and backwardness are its defining
features. Also undeniable is the fact that the regime has been in search
of records of achievements to rally behind it the distrustful Ethiopian
population. What it does not realize is that, as in so many other areas,
where heavy-handedness has proved to be its hallmark policy
instrument, these have worsen its unpoopularity it cannot now willingly
advance within the people its expressed causes.
The prime minister litigates farmland grabbing in theory, while
ignoring the reality on the ground
It is with the above in mind that I watched Prime Minister Meles
Zenawi’s interview and his responses to the different questions raised
by Vickram Bahl. The prime minister was dismissive of both the
international concerns and also that of a sizable number of Ethiopians
at home and abroad about the danger and consequences of farmland
grab in the country. Nevertheless, the problem once again is that his
responses do not address the charges out there. This failure has only
allowed the allegations against, misgivings and distrusts of the regime
to linger, although it appears the Meles regime might not mind it, since
it realizes it cannot survive and thrive without enemies.
Perhaps for the uninitiated, the prime minister’s response may appear
forceful and logical. But I doubt it if the real thing could be lost on
Vickram Bahl. As a seasoned journalist, I am sure he understands that
the conditions that could backfire on the Meles regime and investors
could not be undone by denials and dismissiveness. After all, in
Gambella human dignity has been breached; the human rights of those
populations have been violated. The fact that the government behaved
cruelly towards its citizens in front and on behalf of foreign investors
leaves these people vulnerable for future abuses by the guest farmers.
Even if the locals complain against any injustices, with a single call to
local and federal officials, the investors can scoff at them since they
have pocketed the law and the officials. I do not want to speculate
where this would lead to.
In spite of official denials that there is landgrab in Ethiopia, however,
the concerns of many at home and abroad have not been silenced. At
the international level, there are strong concerns over the traditional
issues of human rights, minority issues—as those minority populations
have been invisible to successive Ethiopian governments—and
exploitation of poor Africans by international capital have persisted.
There is also concern about the future of global food security, at a
moment in history when the owners of capital, especially rich
governments and its speculative side, have targeted large tracts of
agricultural lands in developing countries to monopolize food
production. Where would that leave the billions of small producers in
developing countries?
Here is how the prime minister sees the whole question of farm
landgrab, with no reference to what actually is happening in Western
Ethiopia:
- “I think there is some misplaced fear of the so-called ‘land
grab’, stalked by people who should know better. Of course,
we are aware of the history of land grab in Africa. It happened
at the end of the 19th century and early 20th century. The land
grab in Zimbabwe, for example… South Africa…People who
should know better about the circumstances of this land grab
are now transposing this onto the rest of the continent in a
completely different environment. In the case of Ethiopia, for
example, as you rightly indicated, private ownership of land is
not allowed. All land is publicly owned and, therefore, the
possibility of ‘land grab’ simply does not exist.
“Secondly, what we are doing is putting all unutilized land in this
country and we have a lot of unutilized land in the
lowlands…What we have done is to build infrastructures in
those areas and therefore open up the area for investments
both by domestic and foreign private sector on the basis of a
clearly set out lease arrangement. That is a win-win
arrangement. It is not a land grab. And, therefore, we are very
comfortable with the fact that we have put in place all the
necessary guidelines, environmental and otherwise, to make
sure that everyone benefits from this exercise.
“Small-scale farmers have all the property rights they need,
except the ability to buy and sell land. And that provides more
protection to the small-scale farmer from being dispossessed in
one form or another. This is the best policy for us in Ethiopia.”
He then amplified the above to justify his dismissive conclusion and
denial of reality, above, arguing:
- “First, these agreements that we are signing with Indians as well
as other foreign companies are precisely designed to make sure
that everybody benefits. Once people begin to see the results
of the investments in terms of job creation, availability of foreign
exchange, availability of various agricultural products in our
markets and so on, they will see the benefits for themselves and
it will be completely irrational for them [his critics] to try to
shoot themselves on the foot. And so the benefit of the
investment, in my view, will be its ultimate protection.
“And secondly, we have a constitutional order here. The
constitution clearly states you do not disempower you do not
grab property from anybody. There is a rule of law here and it
is firmly entrenched in our system. That provides additional
and, in my view, adequate protection to all investments,
including agricultural investments…”
Why the prime minister’s point of view is unhelpful
It is essential to put here a few things in their proper perspective,
especially in regard to the claim the federal government has given “a
clearly set out lease arrangement” how farmland lease should be
handled, as follows:
First, let alone in 2004, when the government first started leasing out
lands secretly, which was exposed by FAO, IFAD and IIED in May
2009 (International Land Deals in Africa), not even in 2011 does
Ethiopia have in place “a clearly set out lease arrangement,” as
claimed above. Until late 2010, things in every region went the way
each one deemed right or suited its situation. The country did not even
know overall how much land had been committed. I am not sure it
knows today.
No environmental standards were incorporated properly, although
Environmental Impact Assessment Proclamation No. 299/2002 was
issued in 2002, amended several times subsequently. The problem
was seen more clearly in the course of the 2010 controversy, when
local people in their helplessness protested in a spontaneous rally in
Gambella the silence by local and federal governments against
destruction of forest resources by foreign companies. The regional
administration, the federal ministry of agriculture and the office
responsible for environmental matters coalesced against the people,
labeling them as regime leftovers of the previous regime, trouble-
makers and terrorists (The Reporter, 5 May 2010). After all, the
directives by the council of ministers were issued in late 2010.
It was the personal involvement of the federal president that tried to
shine light on this problem, where Ethiopian laws, institutions and
officials have kept silence—a situation where even he as president
could not secure the actions he needed after two letters to concerned
officials. The World Bank reports that in Ethiopia, less than 10
percent of state forest boundaries have been mapped, and very few
claims to rights over forestland have been identified and registered. It
concludes that this makes it difficult to protect public lands with high
environmental value–because the state cannot fulfill its duties to the
nation.
Secondly, in 2008 the government set up lead agency for farmland
leasing and also a federal land bank above 5000 hectares from which
investors could pick. Below 5000 hectares, it was left for the regions
to decide. This then was endorsed by the 2010 directive issued by the
council of ministers, basically outlining the administration of agricultural
investment in farmlands, the focus of which is on investments. The
regime’s priority consideration is foreign exchange, not the nation’s
wellbeing.
Based on its case study, the World Bank also concluded:
- “In Ethiopia, few agricultural investment projects had an
environmental impact assessment (EIA), as required by law.
Key reasons were a lack of capacity and a rush to approve
projects by the investment authority that precluded sectoral
agencies from performing due diligence… The mandate of
requiring or reviewing agricultural EIAs has been passed to the
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development or respective
regional bureaus, which lack the technical capacity and
motivation to make compliance with EIA regulations a priority.
Often the definition of situations that require environmental
assessments is not clear or open to manipulation…”
sustainable and equitable benefits? 2011).
Incidentally, the government owned Agricultural Equipment &
Technical Services (AETS) was hired in 2009 by wealthy investors
such as Sheik Al-Amoudi in Gambela to clear natural forests. For
those services, AETS agreed to be paid ETB 9,000 ($670, 2009
rate) per hectare, according to Addis Fortune of 12 October 2009.
What is interesting here is that the government was later persuaded to
sale the state-owned AETS and when it was put at the auction’s
block twice, one of the tenders was Saudi Star, the company Mr Al-
Amoudi owns. It offered ETB 171 million and ETB 149 million, much
less than the minimum ETB 275 million bid. The fate of that company
is still unknown or it would eventually be disposed of (Addis Fortune,
31 July 2010).
Interestingly, this month AETS sued Saudi Star Agricultural
Development, the rice plantation Sheik Al-Amoudi co-owns, for ETB
35.2 million for failure to pay for land the latter had cleared in the
Gambella Regional State, according to Addis Fortune of 7 August
2011. While admitting it owned money to AETS, Saudi Star had
asked for more time to pay the money, lest the court revisit the issue
on 19 October.
Secondly, out of the nine regions of Ethiopia by April 2010 only four
regional states — Amhara, Oromia, Southern Nations, Nationalities
and Peoples (SNNP) and Tigrai — have almost finalized issuance of
land certificates to peasant households, formally recognizing the rights
of individuals to lands through the certificates. This means, five
regional states—Afar, Somali, Benishangul‐Gumuz, Gambella and
Harari—have not issued legislation how to ensure and protect the
rights of farmers and pastoralists, or implement land-leasing
arrangements.
To the extent that the government could respect the certificates it
handed out, it is mostly in these regions that there has been serious
disenfranchisement of the farming and pastoralist population. In a very
useful paper presented to the World Bank Conference on Land
Policy and Administration in Washington DC from April 26‐27, 2010,
Imeru Tamrat cautiously indicated his worries, “In the absence of
detailed land administration laws in the other five regional states, it is
not clear how the landholding rights given to peasants and pastoralists
under the Constitution is being implemented within these regional
states” (Imeru Tamrat, Governance of Large-scale Agricultural
Investments in Africa: the Case of Ethiopia, 2010).
Thirdly, if the federal government has set in place, as the prime
minister claimed, “a clearly set out lease arrangement,” it should also
have ensured protection of natural resources. That not being the case,
too many natural forests have been destroyed, with the regions not
knowing how they should handle lease agreements. There were also
too many interventions by politicians on behalf of foreign investors,
according to informal sources. For instance, by the admission of the
former President of Benishangul-Gumuz Regional State Yaregal
Aysheshum, commercial farmland demarcation was done by what he
called “sheer guesstimation.” By this what he meant was that, other
than natural landmarks or landscape delineation, no other
measurement was taken, because of which many investor farmers
were given excess lands beyond what is provided in their lease
agreements. The federal government claims it is working to correct
this situation. I would not be surprised, if as a nation, Ethiopia knows
at this very moment how much land has been put in the hands of
foreign investors.
In Rising global interest in farmland: can it yield sustainable and
equitable benefits? the World Bank indicates, “Compared to an
average annual expansion of global agricultural land of less than 4
million hectares before 2008, approximately 56 million hectares worth
of large-scale farmland deals were announced even before the end of
2009. More than 70 percent of such demand has been in Africa;
countries such as Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Sudan have transferred
millions of hectares to investors in recent years.” This does not give
specific quantity, but the magnitude in Ethiopia is unmistakable.
Fourthly, the lack of proper guidance by the federal government has
also led to the destruction of huge masses of natural forests, without
the culprits held accountable. This arose from failure to examine
properly proposed investment projects in any given part of the
country. The destruction in Gambela and Benishangul-Gumuz has
been catastrophic. In that regard, nothing could match the horrors
inflicted on the country by the British company Sun Biofuels,
according to President Yaregal Aysheshum. Sun Biofuels was given
land to start biofuels development in Benshangul-Gumuz. But, it
changed its mind after destroying 80,000 hectares of natural forests.
When the former president was asked why the company was not
asked to pay for damages, he was not willing to give reasons (http:
//www.ethiopianreporter.com/pre-en). Possibly, it could be the case
of some senior government official(s) working as go between and
threatening the regional president, not to take action.
Fifth, the prime minister is convinced that renting out as much land as
possible would benefit both investors and the Ethiopian people. He
anticipates that it would make available more food and income and
also sees it as beneficial employment. The World Bank disagrees with
that expectation of betterment of life through the current practice of
landgrab. The Bank states:
- “Given the central nature of asset and employment generation
through planned investments, the level and recording of
information on planned (temporary or permanent) employment
and physical investment is surprisingly limited. The patchy data
that are available suggest that investments create far fewer jobs
than are often expected (or promised, as discussed later) and
that their capital intensity varies widely. For example, projected
job creation ranges from less than 0.01 jobs/ha (for a 10,000
ha maize plantation) to 0.351 jobs/ha (for an outgrower-based
sugarcane plantation) in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Expected job creation in Ethiopia is similarly limited, with an
average of 0.005 jobs/ha for cases where figures are
given…Case studies point to high expectations in employment
generation, which, at least in some cases, do not seem to be
commensurate with the investment or the qualifications of the
local populace. The extent to which assets are provided or
local people gain access to knowledge and technology varies
widely across investments. Most successful investments
provide social services and encouragement for local
entrepreneurship. As many of the projects considered began
only recently, few positive impacts have yet materialized.
Careful future monitoring as well as attention to the time profile
of benefits and the distribution of risks will be important.”
equitable benefits?
With regard to the overall statement denying the existence of land
grab, the following response seems to be in order. There are two
things to consider here. For this, let us revisit the two interviews by
him and his deputy in June 2011 and December 2010, respectively,
with Vickram Bahl of ITMN television.
Firstly, the two gentlemen were defensive. They chose to sublimate
their controversial and illegal actions, even by the laws of Ethiopia,
through objectives of existing national development goals. This is,
because they know that no one in his right mind would be opposed to
the state working to provide better life for its citizens. The reference
here is to relocation of people to new settlements to set up villages to
provide them with governmental services.
The mistreatment of mostly minorities in Western Ethiopia by a regime
that says it has come for the “equality of all nations and nationalities” is
ironic and not any different from the previous regimes that have
ignored or forgot these people existed. Much in the same way, today’
s mistreatments have reduced them to invisibility. The interpretative
emphasis by the prime minister and his deputy seems to hammer on
the notion that land has moved from being public property, as
entrusted in cthe ustody of the state in 1974, now has only become
state property in full. Interpretatively, this smacks of the aphorism
what ‘Caesar giveth, Caesar taketh Away’ at any time. Therefore,
whatever the state has tried to do to benefit the people has come,
without making room for popular participation, any possibilities to
properly identify pros and cons of any goals from the perspective of
the people. What should add clearer evidence that government heavy-
handedness in Ethiopia is a perennial problem that this?
Secondly, the prime minister and his deputy tried to emphasize
constitutional safeguards, referring to the fact that land in Ethiopia has
been public property for 36 years now, i.e., since the 1974 revolution.
They have not, however, considered when they use force to throw out
people by military means, which is equally illegal, is no different from
land grabbing by force, as it used to happen under colonialism, or the
imperial system in Ethiopia, or in some African countries after the
onset of farmland grab in this 21st century.
Conclusion
At this stage in Ethiopia, therefore, the issue regarding land gab is
more about state brutality in continually violating the human rights of
humble and peaceful villagers, dispossession of citizens and
destruction of pristine natural environments. As mentioned above, for
the future there is also the land ‘give away’ for 99 years, i.e., which in
essence means in perpetuity, endangering Ethiopian sovereignty in so
many ways. It is a shameful and useless exercise that on balance
would hardly benefit the country.
In his excellent analytical research on landgrab, LAND TO
INVESTORS: Large-Scale Land Transfers in Ethiopia (2011) the
noted Ethiopian land tenure expert Dessalegn Rahmeto concludes:
- “Finally, the government has not given sufficient consideration
to different land-use options but has instead blindly put its faith
on large-scale farming. There are a variety of sound land-use
options that have been tried successfully in Africa and
elsewhere which have been high foreign currency earners and
also beneficial to local communities but without posing a threat
to the environment, natural and wildlife resources. In the case
of Gambella, for example, experts now in the field have
suggested that if its extensive wildlife resources are properly
managed and conserved they could provide immense economic
and social benefit to the people and the Region and create high
employment opportunities through a variety of sustainable
schemes that do not damage the ecosystem and the wildlife but
on the contrary preserve and support them (TFCI 2009). Such
schemes include ecotourism, game ranching, controlled hunting,
fishing, income from conservation-based schemes such as
REDD, and improved livestock production programs. Experts
even think that Gambella could be eligible for a world heritage
status for its incredibly rich wildlife resources which,
unfortunately, are now being threatened by ill-conceived
agricultural investment programs.”
vulgarity of farmland grab, violation of our country’s dignity and its
environmental virginity. They strongly resent the actions of an arrogant
political, military and economic power that neither has a sense of
responsibility or proportionality.
Although the Melese regime has contributed in some ways to
improving the country’s infrastructures, it has badly missed many good
opportunities, both at home and abroad, to unite the country along a
democratic path and do more in facilitating broad-based economic
growth and national development of Ethiopia as common cause for
everyone.
With bad temper and greed for power, it has unwisely lost the politics
and psychology of nation building falling on the wayside because of its
preference of political deception and corruption!
(http://transformingethiopia.wordpress.com/)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The writer was a former civil servant and diplomat in the Ethiopian
government. Later he served as International Staff with the United Nations
and is currently in retirement, devoting his time for research and writing.
He can be reached at kef730@gmail.com.
| All rights reserved. |
| Ethio Quest News Together We Can Make It! |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| Previous Articles By Keffyalew Gebremedhin |
| Ethio Quest News: For latest Ethiopian News, views, Reviews and More |
| The Nile River: Least developed of all Major international rivers By Keffyalew Gebremedhin "Recall that, one of Egypt's excuses and stubborn blocking of agreement on the Nile has been its charge against upper riparian states that they are unstable, and could not afford to get control over the Nile into their hands... More |
