Monday 7 February 2011

Land grabbing and its dire consequences in Ethiopia

eFebruary 7th, 2011 |

By Hundee Dhugaasaa
The suffering of farmers in Ethiopia, especially in Oromia, Benishangul, Somali and Gambella regions is going from worse to the worst in Ethiopia as a result of inequitable land acquisitions, better called “neo-colonial land grabbing,” by foreign investors in the name of lease by the Ethiopian regime. This act is worsening the already broken food security situation in Ethiopia. The peasants are losing their farming and grazing land they owned for centuries in a matter of months. The draconian proclamations and the brutal police force behind the mess is a point to be noted. This new form of agrarian neo-colonialism is launched under the pretext of utilizing “Wastelands” while the reality and reason behind is completely different.
The Ethiopian regime officials already acknowledged that 8420 foreign investors have received licenses for commercial farms. Even if the problems started when contemporary Ethiopia assumed its current territorial definition at the end of the nineteenth century, the danger posed by this regime — even if it looks it is going under the pretext of law and the cover of investment — is extremely huge. The regime change in 1991 and the subsequent ratification of the Constitution (1995) failed to restore any tangible land ownership right. Articles of the new Constitution complicated the problems of alienation and powerlessness experienced by the people for so long. In the FDRE Constitution, the rights of citizens to possess farming land are maintained (Art.40.4). Proclamation no.89/1997 (Art.2.3) provides for the right to lease one’s holding. In line with the provisions of the decree, the Oromia State issued a Directive (no.3/1995) which states that any farmer may rent a maximum of half of his holding to anyone at any rate for a maximum of three years (Art.23.2). But contrary to all these pillars and precedents, proclamation 455/2005 gives authority to the Woreda and urban administration, not to defend and protect but to confiscate and expropriate land for any purpose the higher authorities believes are for ‘public purpose and/or investment.’ The farmers are expected to evacuate from their ancestral land with a short notice of 30 days, as per Article 4(4) of the same proclamation in discussion. Failure to comply with this short notice will entitle authorities to use police force to forcefully evict farmers from their land. This very proclamation clearly marked the end of land right of Ethiopian farmers and opened big door for land grabbers.
Looking at the controversial and self contradictory part of the constitution itself, the FDRE constitution Article 52(2) d that relate to the powers of Regional States are defective as they tie the latter’s power to administer land and the use of other natural resources to the provisions in the Federal Laws. Put it another way, the provisions give only nominal power to the Regional States, because the latter are not free to exercise full freedom to administer land and other natural resources in their respective regions. In effect it is the Federal State that decides how the land and other natural resources of Regional States should be administered and used. They maintain that the Federal State deliberately shaped the constitution in such a way that Regional States do not enjoy real autonomy, because if they did, the former could not manipulate the laws to fit its interests. The constitution and federal laws are designed to empower the Federal State to influence the decisions made at the level of the Regional States. This is particularly so when it comes to the use of land and other natural resources. State monopoly of land under the guise of ‘public ownership’ reduced land to a marketable commodity contrary to what had been the case before the state formation when land was seen not only as a vital source of life but also, if not more, as a symbol of identity since ‘people relate to land not just as individuals, but also as members of groups, networks, and categories’. What is more, even if the laws are perfect and states are autonomous on land issue, the regional state authorities are not there to protect the interest of the nation they claim to represent but that of the TPLF top decision makers. They are picked from their region just to show up and boost with empty federal structure. This can be well understood by looking at the formation and the last 20 years functioning of OPDO and others surrogate regional authorities. Read More

No comments:

Why cows may be hiding something but AI can spot it

  By Chris Baraniuk Technology of Business reporter Published 22 hours ago Share IMAGE SOURCE, GETTY IMAGES Image caption, Herd animals like...