Stakeholder
submission to the Universal Periodic Review of the Republic
of Ethiopia
Right
to Livelihood, Right to Culture
For
much of Ethiopia Ethiopia
The
legal framework regulating land rests in two documents: the Federal Democratic
Republic of Ethiopia Constitution, [1] which addresses land issues and other
related rights, and Proclamation no. 456/2005, which addresses the
administration of rural land. It is important to note that most of the
land-related policies regulate rural land, and very little provisions exists
for the governance of urban land. Each region is able to form its own regional
land administration and policies; however, actual land registration can only be
found in five of the nine regions in the country. [2]
The
Constitution of Ethiopia provides for protection of rights related to non-discrimination
and self-determination (articles 25 and 39), as well as the right to property
and the protection of natural resources, specifically land, as the “inalienable
common property of the nations, nationalities and peoples of Ethiopia” (article
40).
Despite
some protections for the people, severe deficits prevail. The Constitution and
legal system do not recognize or mention specifically the land rights of
indigenous communities, and address rural communities only as farmers,
peasants, pastoralists, and semi-pastoralists. Many indigenous communities in Ethiopia
A
core issue, however, is that all land is considered government owned and, although,
according to law, all citizens can gain access to the land, it is a usufruct
right that prevents persons who have historically or traditionally
worked/utilized the land to sell, mortgage or otherwise dispose of it. This
usufruct right gives rural people’s little tenure security or protection
against evictions. In fact, the federal government and the regional authority
retain absolute power to confiscate land for public interest and development
programs.[4] In proclamation no. 465/2005 the government is listed as the owner
of rural land, and thus “communal rural holdings can be changed to private
holdings as necessary” (5(3)). No clear criteria apply to define what
constitutes a “development program.” However, as the past several years have
shown, this complete central ownership has allowed the government to lease land
use rights with generous conditions favouring foreign companies and investors,
primarily for agricultural export ventures.
While
many of the positive provisions listed above have been replicated in the
various regional land systems, but also embody the same potential for abuse. A
worrying provision adopted in all regional rural land laws is that found in the
rural land law 456/2005, article 5(4)(a), which states “Private investors that
engage in agricultural development activities shall have the right to use rural
land in accordance with the investment policies and laws at federal and
regional levels.” Specific mention of privatization, combined with the
government’s ability to privatize land at will and the investment reality on
the ground causes grave concern over issues of corruption and lack of
transparency and clarity regarding land laws and their application.
The
World Bank report on corruption in Ethiopia Ethiopia
Land
corruption, according to the Bank’s report, is “influenced strongly by the way policy
and legislation are formulated and enforced.”[6] The two primary problem areas
related to corruption identified by this report include: the ability of land
capture by a “weak policy and legal framework and poor systems to implement
existing policies and laws,” and corruption in the implementation of land
policy and laws, specifically the institutionalization of informal feeds,
fraudulent actions of officials to allocate land to themselves, willingness of
officials to respond to bribes and nepotism, and the issuance of forged land
documents.[7]
Human
Rights Violations and Forced Evictions
In
2010 the Ethiopian Government reauthorized the National Food Security Program
(NFSP), a nationwide initiative that includes the “Voluntary Resettlement
Program” (VRP). On-the-ground reports make clear that resettlement,
particularly in the Gambella and Lower Omo
regions, have been far from voluntary and have entailed prolonged and systemic
human rights violations. While official statements defend the ambitious
relocation program as a precondition to socioeconomic development and the
realization of basic human rights, research suggests that forced displacement
is exacerbating human insecurity, while violating international human rights
law. [8]
The
government’s 2010 Growth and Transformation Plan called for the relocation of
an estimated 1.5 million people in the country’s Gambella, Afar, Somali, Lower
Omo , and Benishangul-Gumuz regions. [9] Those targeted for
resettlement are mostly lowland pastoral communities, who are dependent on
access to land to meet their basic needs and livelihoods. The stated purpose of
these “voluntary” resettlements is the provision of “socioeconomic infrastructure”
and as former Minister of Federal Affairs Shiferaw Teklemariam explained in
2011, “to tackle poverty and ignorance.” [10] On-the-ground research by the
Oakland Institute corroborates widespread reports of forced and increasingly
violent evictions under the villagization program. [11]
Violations
of Ethiopians’ right to self-determination and adequate standards of living—as
guaranteed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (ICESCR) articles 1 and 11—provoked by the government’s forced-resettlement
scheme have involved both political and physical coercion. At government-hosted
meetings, communities were “notified,” rather than consulted, of their
impending resettlement. As Human Rights Watch found, “if communities were not
cooperative, or indicated their refusal to move, the next meeting, usually
several weeks later, involved visits from the Ethiopian army, regional police,
local militias, and government officials.” [12] Mursi community representatives
explained to investigators from DfID that “the government doesn’t discuss their
plans with the Mursi…they are making all their decisions in their own places,
and they are just coming and going ahead with their plans.” [13] Investigation
conducted by the Oakland Institute in Lower Omo
found that no person interviewed believed their relocation to have been
voluntary, corroborating the conclusion of another investigation in Gambella. [14]
Moreover,
research by the Oakland Institute has found that forced evictions have been characterized
by physical violence in the hands of regional and federal security forces. [15]
Reports of arbitrary arrest, beatings and assaults, rapes and sexual violence
are widespread. Supporting our findings, another independent investigation
found that leaders of “’antivillagization’ communities” were arrested for the
purposes of intimidation, as they were publically arrested and were never
charged or taken before a jury. [16] Allegations of torture and killings have
also been recorded. [17] Violence does not appear to be random, or the result
of rogue local forces. Rather, violence has been instrumental and deliberate in
implementing this unpopular program.
Displacement
and Conditions of Relocation
Many
violations of human rights in the villagization process occur after forced
resettlement, undermining the government’s stated purpose for resettlement as
well as ICESCR article 11(1), stipulating “the right of everyone to…adequate
food, clothing, and housing, and to a continuous improvement of living conditions…based
on free consent.”18 In the Gambella region, those subjected to resettlement
were “forced” to build their own homes in new villages. The Oakland Lower Omo . [19]
A different investigation observed that, “soldiers were there to intimidate and
ensure that villagers built their tukuls swiftly.” [20]
The
Ethiopian government also has fallen drastically short on its commitments of
infrastructure and public services in new villages. While the 2010
Villagization Action Program purports that “the erection of socioeconomic
infrastructure is paramount important and should be in place before moving the
target population to the new sites,” on-the-ground investigation shows that
villagization is deepening human insecurity. [21]
Food
insecurity has been exacerbated by villagization in a few ways. First, in
Gambella the “overwhelming majority” of resettlements occurred at the time of
harvest. While displaced communities interviewed were told they would be able
to return for their crops after their new villages were constructed, the high
levels of vigilance around new villages prevented their return before their
crops were destroyed. [22] Moreover, the Ethiopian government has fallen
dramatically short on its assurance of “up to 3–4 hectare[s]” of land to each
displaced household, both by reneging on promises to provide assistance in
clearing woodlands and by providing insufficient land to sustain displaced
households. [23] Our research shows that in Lower Omo ,
where displacement is making way for large-scale irrigation dams and
plantations, agro-pastoral communities are being forced to give up their cattle
even as their cultivation sites along the banks of the Omo River
Article
6(1) of the ICESCR ensures the “right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his
living by work [that] he freely chooses or accepts…”25 The resettlement scheme
denies this right to pastoral and agropastoral communities by favoring
foreignfunded, large-scale agriculture and essentially coercing these
communities into providing labor for these farms. As one SNNPR official
conceded, “People are being resettled to provide labor for farms.” [26]
Yet,
our research indicated that the labor provided is uneven and insufficient. In
one resettled community in Lower Omo ,
only 20 plantation jobs were created. Those interviewed hoped to work enough to
buy a cow and restore some of their lost cultural practices.27 Moreover, a
significant number of the jobs created are given to cheaper migrant Ethiopians,
and not to dispossessed and resettled community members. [28]
Those
persons and communities subject to involuntary resettlement, a form of forced
eviction, are entitled to reparations as victims of a gross violation of human
rights. [29]
Right
to Food and Food as a Weapon
With
nearly 40 percent of Ethiopians considered chronically hungry, a number that
translates to 34 million people, Ethiopia Ethiopia
This
practice gained attention around the 2010 elections, when reports of
politically motivated food distribution surfaced. In some instances, aid was
outright denied to members of opposition parties, with one village chairman
instructing a farmer in Amhara, “Let the party that you belong to give you
aid.” [33] In other cases, aid disbursements were strategically made after the
elections. [34]
The
political criterion for distribution of humanitarian and food aid appears to be
a widely known, and tolerated, fact. As one civil society spokesperson
explained, “Everybody knows about this kind of intimidation, if you don’t vote
for so-and-so, you won’t get your 25 kilograms of wheat.” [35] Members of the
Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) opposition parties
are denied food aid, agricultural inputs and public services.
Civil
society analysts have pointed to this practice as a method for the ruling party
to constrict political space, among “one hundred ways of putting pressure” on
populations to support the central government. [36] This leveraging of
humanitarian services occurs most widely at the local kebele level, yet, as
researchers have pointed out, “the kebele and woreda structure provides a
potent intrusive mechanism for the ruling party to gather information on and
control communities.” [37]
Right
to Association and Access to Justice
The
widely recognized crowding out of formal political opposition by the EPRDF
requires sustained coercion and consequently incites sustained social
opposition. [38] Particularly targeted have been investigative journalists, the
leaders of opposition political parties and the Muslim community.
The
U.S. State Department’s 2012 Human Rights Report has found that “the most
significant human rights problems included restrictions on freedoms of
expression and association through politically motivated trials and convictions
of opposition political figures, activists, journalists, and bloggers, as well
as increased restrictions of print media.” [39] The persecution of
investigative journalists is particularly widespread. As of July 2012, 54 had
been convicted under terrorism charges, including 31 journalists and at least
four opposition party supporters. [40]
Illustrating
both violations of press and association freedoms is the targeting of Muslim
media outlets by the Ethiopian government. In 2012, following demonstrations
opposing government policies that interfered with the religious affairs of
Ethiopian Muslims, the government charged Yusaf Getachew, editor-in-chief of
the now defunct YeMuslimoch Guday (Muslim Affairs) with treason and incitement
to violence.41 The government also blocked from publication 30,000 copies of
the critical weekly Fetch. With state control over printing presses, government
authorities effectively have shut down critical press outlets.
We
share the concern expressed in the 2012 Report of the Special Rapporteur on
torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, that the
persecution of political dissenters violates the UN Convention against Torture.
[42]
Comment
on Human Rights Action Plan
In
2013, a draft of Ethiopia Ethiopia
In
the section on “The Right to Adequate Housing,” focus on urban homelessness is
well placed, but makes no mention of rural land dispossession or the shortfalls
in housing provision to displaced pastoral and agro-pastoral communities. [43]
Similarly, the sizable section on “The Right to Food,” neglects to mention the
disruption to local practices of subsistence resulting for the government’s
support of large-scale, export-oriented agriculture. This is despite the common
ICCPR and ICESCR prohibition in Article 1.2 that states: “In no case may a
people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.”
The
Plan also contains grave omissions and distortions regarding the rights of
thought, opinion and expression, free association, and religion and belief. The
NHRAP makes no mention of the political prosecution of political opponents and
journalists, such as the widely reported case of Eskinder Nega. Shortfalls in
the provision of these rights are attributed to Derg-era (1974–1991) military
regime holdovers, and not to the current Tigrayan
People's Liberation Front (TPLF) government’s proactive efforts to
exercise political hegemony. The movement away from Derg-era political abuse,
the document contends is synonymous with the government’s economic-development
strategy. The Anti-Terrorism Proclamation is
mentioned in the Plan, but only in the context of the government’s efforts to
secure the “right to life” of its citizens.
Omission
and Violation of Indigenous Rights
Noticeably
omitted from chapter four of the NHRAP on “Rights of Vulnerable Groups,” is any
mention of Ethiopia Ethiopia
It
should be noted that Ethiopia
Human
Rights-centred Development
The fundamental shortfall of the NHRAP is that it does not
address the institutional, state-sponsored policies and practices that violate
the human rights of Ethiopians. Oakland Institute research suggests that the
brand of economic development relentlessly pursued by the Ethiopian government
almost always faces resistance. The Ethiopian government was not developed a
development strategy that enables debate and consensus. Instead, the government
punishes this resistance with the deprivation of human and political rights.
The government’s stated purpose is to implement the NHRAP in tandem with the
Growth and Transformation Plan.
The
NHRAP is one of a series of actions taken by the Ethiopian government to
promote human rights, including the establishment of a Ethiopian Human Rights
Commission. Based on mounting evidence, it is our opinion that no Ethiopian
human rights strategy can be comprehensive without challenging key strategies
in the Growth and Transformation Plan. Rather than a human rights strategy
adapting to an economic development strategy, the Ethiopian government’s
development strategy—as in all states—should be founded on principles of
democratic participation and the primacy of human rights.
Recommendations
to the Republic
of Ethiopia
§
The Republic
of Ethiopia
§
The GoE must stop forced resettlement
immediately and ensure full reparations for those previously subjected to this
gross violation.
§
The state must ensure transparency in
tenure systems and the application of land-use criteria, ensuring the rule of
law as an over-riding principle of its implementation of ICESCR and other human
rights treaty obligations.
§
The state must ensure full reparations
for persons and communities subject to displacement under any development
project, program or policy, including the Villagization Action Program and
Growth and Transformation Plan.
§
The RoE should revise the Growth and
Transformation Plan, in order to enable alternative development paradigms and
to ensure the primacy of human rights within all development projects, programs
and policies undertaken within the territory of its jurisdiction and effective
control.
§
The RoE should specify language in its
Anti-Terrorism Proclamation to prevent its political use and other excesses
that lead to violations of human rights.
§
The RoE should recognize rights of
indigenous populations within the territory of its jurisdiction and effective
control and develop indigenous population’s protections in human rights
strategies, including the National Human Rights Action Plan.
Recommendations
to Other States
§
Any state providing humanitarian or
development assistance in Ethiopia
Source:
1
Ethiopian Constitution,
http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Hornet/Ethiopian_Constitution.html.
2
Tony Burns and Kate Dalrymple, “Land Sector Corruption in Ethiopia Ethiopia Washington
3
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
4
See article 40(8) of the Constitution which states: “Without prejudice to the
right to private
property,
the government may expropriate private property for public purposes subject to
payment
in advance of compensation commensurate to the value of the property” and
Proclamation
No. 456/2005, article 7(3): “Holder of rural land who is evicted for purpose of
public use shall be given compensation proportional to the development he has
made on the land and the property acquired, or shall be given substitule land
thereon. Where the rural landholder is evicted by federal government, the rate
of cOI11'pensation would be determined based on the federal land administration
law. Where, the rural land holder is evicted by regional governments, the rate,
of compensation would be determined based on the rural land administration laws
of regions.”
5
Tony Burns and Kate Dalrymple, “Land Sector Corruption in Ethiopia Ethiopia
6
Ibid., 286.
7
Ibid., 287.
8 Oakland Ethiopia
9
William Davidson, “Ethiopia East
Africa
drought,”
Christian Science Monitor, 1
August 2011 , at:
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2011/0801/Ethiopia-plans-ambitious-resettlement-ofpeople-buffeted-by-East-Africa-drought,
(accessed 2 September
2013 ).
10
Gambella People’s national Regional State 19 December 2011 .
11 Oakland
12
Human Rights Watch, “Waiting Here for Death: Forced Displacement and
‘Villagization’ in
13
Will Hurd, “DFID/USAID Investigation Recordings South Omo , Ethiopia September 9,
2013 ).
14 Oakland
15 Oakland
16
Ibid., p. 34.
17
Ibid., p. 36; US Department of State Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and
Labor, “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2012: Ethiopia
18
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 11.
19 Oakland
20
Human Rights Watch, “Waiting Here for Death,” 35.
21
Gambella Peoples’ National Regional State
22
Human Rights Watch, “Waiting Here for Death,” 40.
23
Gambella Peoples’ National Regional State
24 Oakland
25
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 6.
26
Quoted in: Human Rights Watch, “’What Will Happen if Hunger Comes?’” p. 54.
27 Oakland
28
Ibid; Oakland Institute, “Understanding Land Deals in Africa : Ethiopia
29
Commission on Human Rights resolution 1993/77, paragraph one affirms that “the
practice of forced evictions constitutes a gross violation of human rights, in
particular the right to adequate housing.” See also CESCR General Comment No. 7
“forced evictions (1997). The reparations framework is provided in the
consensus resolution of the General Assembly, “Basic Principles and Guidelines
on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of
International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of
Internationalumanitarian Law,” A/RES/60/147, 21 March 2006, at:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/remedy.htm.
30
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations website, http://www.fao.org/hunger/en, (accessed
September 6,
2013 ); Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development
website, http://stats.oecd.org,
(accessed September 6,
2013 ).
31 Oakland Understanding Land Africa : Ethiopia
32
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No.12
33
“Ethiopia 7
June 2010 .
34
Ibid.
35
Quoted in: Human Rights Watch, “Development without Freedom: How Aid
Underwrites
Repression
in Ethiopia
36
Human Rights Watch, “’One Hundred
Ways
Expression
and Association in Ethiopia
37
Ibid., 22, 24.
38
USAID Ethiopia
39 U.S.
40
Human Rights Watch, “Ethiopia 27
June 2012 .
http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/06/27/ethiopia-terrorism-law-used-crush-free-speech,
(accessed
6 September
2013 ). One month after this article was published, 20
journalists, including Nega, were sentenced under terrorism-related charges.
41
Committee to Protect Journalists, “Ethiopian authorities crack down on Muslim
press,” 9 August 2012 ,
at: http://www.cpj.org/2012/08/ethiopian-authorities-crack-down-on-muslim-press.php,
(accessed 6 September
2013 ); “Ethiopia 11 August
2013 , at:
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article47622,
(accessed 6 September
2013 ).
42
UN Human Rights Council, “Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its sixty-fifth session, 14-23 November 2012, p.7.
43
The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
44
Republic of Ethiopia
45
A letter by the Ethiopian government’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs denies the
first-hand accounts of state violence by suggesting: “informants deployed
appear to be politically and ideologically driven.” Ethiopian Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, “The Oakland Institute’s campaigns to perpetuate people’s
poverty,” A Week in the Horn, 9
March 2012 .
46
United Nations General Assembly, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples, 2006.
47
Republic of Ethiopia
Oakland
Institute and the Housing and Land Rights Network
