FSS Discussion Submission Form

Home

About Us

News

Publications

Research

Contact Us

Library

Links

Online Debate

Outreach

Collaboration

Overview

The settlement program is viewed by the government as a lasting solution to chronic hunger and food insecurity on the one hand, and a way to meet the problem of land scarcity on the other. According to the government’s document entitled Voluntary Resettlement Programme (Access to Improved Land) (New Coalition for Food Security in Ethiopia -NCFSE, 2003), the program will provide people in the vulnerable areas, who at present do not have sufficient land to grow enough to feed themselves, "access to improved land" in areas within their own Killil where there is "considerable amounts of land currently under-utilized" and "suitable for farm activities". In a press statement issued in early January 2004, the government claimed that the settlement program was already showing encouraging results, and that settlers have been successful in achieving food self-sufficiency in the first year of the program. The statement did not provide any evidence to support this remarkable claim.

This country has a resettlement experience going back to the 1960s under the Imperial regime when, through a combination of spontaneous and planned settlement programs, a relatively small number of northern peasants were settled in western Ethiopia and the Rift Valley areas. Planned settlement during the Derg began in the latter part of the 1970s but became a major undertaking in the 1980s especially after the disastrous famine that occurred in the middle of that decade. Resettlement under the Derg was meant to relieve the population pressure of the vulnerable areas and bring about the environmental rehabilitation of these areas on the one hand, and, on the other, to promote food security. But resettlement also formed part of the Derg's policy of agricultural socialisation. In the period 1984-86, the Derg resettled some 600,000 people mostly in the lowlands of western Ethiopia. In this same period, some 33,000 settlers lost their lives due to disease, hunger, and exhaustion, and thousands of families were broken up. It is estimated that close to half a billion Birr was spent on emergency resettlement, but the cost of the damage caused to the environment, of the loss of livestock and other property, or of the distress and suffering it caused to numerous people and communities will never be known.

Current Resettlement Program

The main "pillars" of the current resettlement program consist of the following: a) resettlement will be based on voluntary participation; b) it will involve moving people from their current homes to areas within the same Killil where there is sufficient "underutilized" land suitable for peasant agriculture; c) settlers are expected to be self-sufficient in food after the first harvest; d) settlers can return to their original homeland if they are unhappy about the conditions in the settlement sites; e) settlers will lose their rights to their land in their original homes if they do not return before three years; f) the settlement package offered by the government includes: 2 ha of "standard quality" land for each household (more if the quality is below standard), food rations for the first year, small farms tools, credit for the purchase of oxen, and basic services such as clean water, health and education.

One of the central arguments of government authorities justifying large-scale resettlement is based on the assumption that there is abundant unutilized land suitable for peasant agriculture to support a large settler population within each Killil. The document under discussion mentions a "current regional survey" according to which "the total hectarage available [for settlement] is about one million: in Amhara 500,000, Tigrai 130,000, Oromia 250,000, and SNNPR 100,000". No reference is cited to support this claim. It is interesting to note that when the Derg's resettlement program was launched a similar claim was made but not backed by any credible evidence. Common sense suggests that if either the Derg's or present government's claim was true, if indeed there was abundant unused land, hard-pressed peasants would have brought it under cultivation long before any of these governments had come to power. This was the tragedy of the Derg's program: it was planned on the erroneous assumption that there was abundant unused land suitable for highland settlers in many parts of the country.

Another overly optimistic vision of planned resettlement is the belief that such a program will and should enable settlers to be self-sufficient within a very short period of time. Settlers are expected to achieve not only food self-sufficiency in one harvest year but also produce a marketed surplus in a short time. Such unrealistic goals can only have been set by public authorities with little understanding of settlement programs, and with even less knowledge of the international experience. Settling people is a complex undertaking, and it takes careful planning, skilled personnel, many years of hard work and considerable resources to achieve success.

A third element stressed by the NCFSE document is the voluntary nature of the program. Settlers, the document insists, will decide to resettle voluntarily after being provided full and active information about the program. All “activities in the program … will be carried out in a transparent way”. What exactly is meant by voluntarism? If the program was indeed meant to be based on the voluntary consent of the would-be settlers why was it launched when over 20 percent of the rural population, and almost all of the potential settlers were suffering hunger and starvation?

Issues for Debate

Is large-scale resettlement a viable option and will it lead to food security or better “access to improved land” for millions of people as the government maintains? Will it contribute to tenure security in the long run? Is the program a wise choice and a sound investment? Have we learnt from our past experience? These and other fundamental questions have not been sufficiently debated in this country.

FSS is now launching an ONLINE public discussion and exchange of views on various aspects of development and public policy as part of its program of promoting public awareness. The debate will be interactive, i.e., each viewpoint will appear on this webpage for others to react to and pursue further.

We are therefore inviting you THE PUBLIC to give us your VIEWS and COMMENTS on the RESETTLEMENT PROGRAM through the following e-mail address: debate@fssethiopia.org.et

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR ONLINE DEBATE

We expect this online debate to be conducted maturely, and in a democratic and constructive manner.

No polemics or personal attacks will be tolerated, but constructive criticism is welcome

Those who wish to participate in the debate by offering views, comments, and criticisms must include their name and, where applicable, institutional affiliation. This is to ensure the debate will be conducted in a responsible and transparent manner.