I haven’t had the chance to visit all the resettlement camps but I can say from my experience that the government’s program lacks research and in some way it was not well planned. The government says its program is designed to resettle people in their own Regions, that might sound good but when we see the conflict in the area between Garakuricho and Dembidolo between the Harar and the Wello, it didn’t explore in depth the existence of earlier settlers from another Region. Besides, it illustrated the inadequate nature of basic services such as food, water, etc available in the resettlement camps.          

I am not sure where this western lowland areas are, wherever they are I doubt whether they have received much health care/prevention to warrant a population expansion of a significant proportion even though the studies regarding them might have been years ago. I expect some growth, but how much, I don't know.
 
Regarding the host people having conflict with the new resettling people, that could be a problem. If the host people are integrated to mainstream Ethiopia and if the government has an inclusive process in the decision making process, this could help preventing this conflict. If the local people have a say on how they are ruled and are included in power in the decision making body of the country, they would hopefully realize that the state is there to protect their interests and we are all Ethiopians and would identify with Ethiopia and Ethiopians and wouldn't resist any resettlement program. Otherwise it could be seen as a land grab by a foreign force.
 
This inclusiveness by the government would also help greatly the resettling people and would make it easier for them to resettle anywhere in Ethiopia psychologically. Rather than be attached only to one region in the country.

One of the fundamental questions raised on the online debate of recent resettlement campaign is the dubiousness of the “free (unoccupied) area” reported to exist in the western lowlands of Ethiopia both by the Derge and the current governments.

Of course, one might get blissfully tempted to settle the agonizingly food insecured people in the western lowlands of Ethiopia being obsessed by the following facts:
• the relatively adequate and dependable rainfall characteristics of western Ethiopia, which bestows great significance to the suitability of the area for rainfed agriculture, and allowing to promote double-cropping by means of sequential cropping;
• the relatively gentle/undulating topography allowing mechanized farming; endowing deeper solum; less vulnerability to soil erosion by water; possibility of growing both annual and perennial crops;
• little or no land fragmentation problem and allowing an economically sound soil conservation measures;
• the throughout high temperature allowing diverse tropical crops to grow;

On the contrary, there are also factors which might deter the suitability of those areas for ideal settlement of highlanders in the area:
• settlement programs are “capital intensive” and are pricey to carry out;
• preponderance of tropical diseases: like malaria, tse-tse fly and others;
• physical and psychological detachment of settlers from the land of birthplace;
• the probable outbreak of conflict and clash with host inhabitants;
• higher susceptibility of the area for pest, army worm and crop diseases.

In line with the available settlement area, two important issues could be raised. The first is related to the settlement pattern of the host people in the lowland Ethiopia. The second factor is related to the quality, timeliness, accuracy, reliability of the available land use / land cover data in the country.

I. The Settlement Pattern of Western Lowlands

It is not easy to characterize the settlement pattern of mobile/semi-nomad people. Of course land is larger in size, people are lower in number, and are sparsely settled. But it should be borne in mind that these people occupy small part of their land at a specific space-time continuum. An area which is identified as “unoccupied” at one time spot might be occupied at other time.

To identify and quantify the actual size of “unoccupied land”, one has to monitor the mobility pattern of these people residing in the area. This stipulates either ground-based or satellite-based resource survey across different seasons for a number of years. The ground-based survey of such resource is often limited from challenges like inaccessibility of some areas, requirement of big workforce (along with the budget), and the subjectivity of data during the observation. While the satellite-based survey solve most of the above mentioned problems of the ground-based survey, it also has its own challenge. First of all, it requires highly trained specialists to analyze the digital information obtainable from satellites. Besides, it requires sizeable fund to acquire those digital data on a regular bases, along with the necessary hardware and image processing software.

II. The quality of available land use / land cover data

The most comprehensive and “recent” land use survey conducted in Ethiopia was generated some three decades ago, in 1984. Since then, there hadn’t been made such comprehensive surveys, except in patchy/pocket areas. An excellent testimony to this account is that the recent publication of “the State of Ethiopian Environment” had overwhelmingly depended on this data. This implies that the currently reported estimate of “unutilized land” might have been obtained from this resource. If that is so, the data serves very little to the intended purpose, because of the succeeding factors.

1. When the 1984 survey was undertaken, the Ethiopian population was about 42 million (including Eritrea). Currently, the population has risen to ~ 71 million, which is close to double. Hence, the unutilized land which was reported to exist some 20 years ago should be reduced, at least by half. In such circumstances, it is easy to estimate the proportional increase in population in the western lowlands. Increase in population is accompanied by enhanced demand for land, where pastoralists/lowlanders are known to be greedy of space. Considering the dynamic behavior of demography and the accompanying demand for land, it would be very unrealistic to base the current estimate of “unoccupied land” from the outdated info.

2. The methodology employed for land use/land cover survey in 1984 is questionable itself. The survey used aerial photograph and satellite imageries as a major source of information. Firstly, nomads have a wider sphere of influence in the area, but could be detected (spotted) by a satellite at a definite spot at a time. Satellites capture information like 1/365th of nomad’s mobility in a year; other wise, there must be multi-temporal satellite detection, which was not the case during the then survey period. Secondly, digital processing of the satellite data requires field-based (in situ) assessment on a “training site”, where the spectral signature of the target phenomena could be identified, calibrated and assessed for its accuracy in a filed condition. However, the 1984 survey witnessed that it had attempted to make such an in situ observation only at the sides of major roads of the country. Knowing the very small density of road network in Ethiopia, and the mass of the countryside being located at faraway distances from the highway, the validity of such study remains very dubious if not erroneous.

From the forgoing justifications, it would be safe to conclude that the government’s campaign to settle peoples on one million hectares of “un-utilized land” is not based on trustworthy information. Unless the land cover is assessed objectively and meticulously, it might have severe repercussions on the wellbeing of the host and settler populations.

Daniel

Dear Mr Serkadis,

Thank you for your response. What I could say to what you are advocating is this:

Yes, the farmer should be given the choice whether to stay where he is or to move to a new place. 

The government should locate a suitable alternative settlement, make an estimation how many 

farmers would voluntarily resettle and prepare that area for settlement. 

Other than that, the government should only give advice/alternatives to the farmer and it’s up to

 the farmer to decide what's best for him. 

Even if he makes a bad choice,  it is his own mistake and will live by it and he will take 

responsibility for it. His destiny would be in his own hands.

The government won't take responsibility if it makes a wrong decision. 

It is unheard of a government official resigning in Ethiopia because of bad decision. 

What counts in Ethiopia is locality rather than merit.

 To go back to our topic, the government started this resettlement program as a reaction 

to criticisms from opposition parties and the international community because its competitiveness

 to govern will come into question if it doesn't do anything about it. 

It needs to be seen doing something. And I have heard that the resettlement areas aren't good in 

some places and the government uses coercive methods to force farmers to resettle. 

This is wrong by any standards.

I am not familiar with Kenyan farmers’ practices. If farmers rent their plots to foreign investors like 

you said would be a good idea. Let me state the obvious: they would gain financially and at the same

 time would get a good paying job. But if they own the land and sell it to foreign nationals, that would be

 a different matter. 

When the farmers are offered attractive prices for their lands by foreigners, they all would sell it. 

After a few years, they would turn around and say that they have been disfranchised from their lands 

and all lands are in foreign hands and this would create a destabilizing force in society where 

85% percent of the population resides in rural areas. And it would also be bad for foreign investors 

and there won't be confidence by foreigners to invest in the country. So I say it's better if the farmers 

don't own the land but instead have a lease over it. And they could rent it as you said.

This is my view about such things.

Best regards,

W. Assefa

P.S. I am male by the way, as you might have known by now.

As Gigi says Abay Wenza Wenzoo Bizoo New Mezezoo!

I would like to give my opinions with the kind permission of the web master to the questions Serkaddis Motbaynor put to me.
  
Although I am not aware what ADLI in detail stands for, from little I know is that it is a paper that advocates how to bring the development of the country through improving agriculture methods or using agriculture as a launching pad to bring development to the country.
From the recent crisis that happened when farmers produced a record amount of produce it has shown that there weren't enough buyers for their agricultural produce. As a result the prices of their produce became so low that any gain they achieved through efficient farming methods the government is advocating was wiped out by the reduction of price for their produce. So in the end the farmer gained nothing financially from his new method of farming. If demand and supply is going to decide the price of the produce, because there are too many farmers supplying a few consumers, the price of the farmers produces are inevitably to fall down to the point that there won't be any economical gains. The only probable gain would be each farmer would be self sufficient in meeting his food requirements. But he will still be in subsistence level of economy and the farmer won't be connected to the monetary economy. Unless the government finds an outlet for the surplus produce, like export, the endeavor won't be rewarding. There is a possibility that they might find a foreign market for the produce, but generally it is difficult to compete with farmers in developed countries because their farmers are highly subsidized by their states.
Other than making farmers self sufficient I don't see any economical gain by ADSL, and their descendants would still be farmers generation after generations for many years to come.
If you see the historical developments of the developed countries there was a shift in population from rural agricultural areas to urban areas. People migrated to urban areas in search of jobs that maybe were better paying. If we want to improve the farmers conditions they have to be connected to the cash/ monetary economy and this could be achieved only if each farmer owns a great plot of land. This means the surplus farmers have to leave their lands and move to urban areas which should absorb and give them employment.
Regarding the resettlement program of the government is undertaking, I see it as a reaction (knee-jerk reaction) to criticisms rather than a well thought out solution. The government needs to be seen as doing something to quell opposition for its inaction.
Regarding farmers renting their plots to others, the only people who could so far compensate them in a fair/valuable way are exporters like the flower business whose products' prices are connected to world market. They could afford to pay and hire the farmers highly because they could get back their costs from a relatively high paying foreign market. But for a domestic investors because the produce to the local market won't fetch him high reward, they wouldn't be able to compensate the farmer adequately. So unless the investor cheats him, the farmer wouldn't get a fair price.
 
So I am of the opinion that development should be led from villages, towns and cities through out Ethiopia. They must attract the surrounding area populations and there must be a shift of population substantially from rural to urban areas as I said earlier. If farmers are efficient they could supply the urban populations who could be 95% of the country's populations. If they have large plots of lands they could also farm cash crops which could be financially more rewarding and foreign currency earner.
 
I am of the opinion that these urban centered/led developments should not be restricted and centrally controlled by a central authority like a Federal Government. It is a development that requires the participants of a large scale of people. Because the government by its nature consists a very few people, the result of their work would be as narrow as the number of people in planning it in the government unless they have an inexhaustible source of capital which is not the case with Ethiopia. Even if that was the case, it could be a waste wealth into many economically unviable business entities and it would be a bottomless bucket and no amount of capital could cover that. Anyway because this scenario doesn't apply to Ethiopia, we don't have to bother with it.
Because the scale of the problem is very large, a very large number of people must be mobilized. It is through the work of many people that could get us out of poverty. The government should only set parameters in which business people could participate. The government should encourage the creation of capable entrepreneurs who would led the economy. The government, if it says is following a capitalist system, must create a business conducive atmosphere/culture where financial success is rewarded and not nationalized or heavily taxed like the previous government used to do. The economy should be led by capable entrepreneurs who understands the logistics of business and are able to lead a viable economic unit. A million such unit would definitely get the country out of poverty. I know that in Briton are a million women entrepreneurs.
The governments job would be creating and supplying skilled labour force for the businesses the entrepreneurs would be leading. And if possible help them get export market for their products. Of course the government also should lead businesses of a larger scale and participate in other aspects of development. But because the entrepreneurs would be nearer to the population, they would be able to identify needs and wants of the local people and come up with solutions to meet these needs and wants. In their self interest the entrepreneurs would keep the businesses viable. And hopefully thousands of flourishing businesses would emerge.
After setting up the parameters the government would be encouraging by this parameter the emergence of all kinds of possible businesses. The government should open the gate wide open for business possibilities with "Anything goes can/allowed as far as profit is concerned" philosophy short of slavery and sweatshops and the businesses themselves would come with many types of businesses.
Some businesses would fall by the side and some would flourish. And the government should observe the business that come on top (the flourishing ones) and should help them through legislations and policies to protect and grow them even further.
 
Before all these can happen a cash injection into the economy is necessary. This could be achieved by encouraging foreign direct investment into in the economy. To attract foreign investments, investors must have amongst other things, confidence in the legal structures where they could be assured their investments would be protected and rule of laws are always applied in settling disputes. The government should know the difference between rule of laws and rule by law. And should apply the former and should be applied for every legal case, be it for individuals or for businesses. And no vendetta reprisals in no way be taken such as those taken against Ethiopian Amalgamated Ltd. Such practices would scare of foreign businesses.
 
If my response is not getting too long, I will like to say a short thing about the Nile. I am of the opinion that the Nile should not be diverted for any purposes. The Nile is used and utilized a lot by Egypt. It is very vital for the existence of the Egyptian population and economy. The Egyptians should tax every family and business that use the Nile waters in their country and give the raised money as a gesture to Ethiopia to show their appreciation for utilizing the water. This would be a win -win situation for both of us. We can't deny them the water because they need it very much. And we should be paid for it. Egypt could easily raise US 1 billion dollars through such tax without meeting much résistance from their people. The reason why the British liberated Ethiopia from Italian occupation was because the British was afraid Italy would make them pay for every liter of water Egypt uses which then was under British rule. We could do the same. Any rational and reasonable person would easily accept this as a solution for both countries. And Ethiopia could use the US$ 1 billion dollars for development purposes.
All these would be possible if there is a lasting stable government in Ethiopia. And this could be assured if there is an inclusive government that takes the oppositions on board.

Our problem is the Government, its correct legislation, execution and enforcement of human rights, its transparent organization of human and other resources into a meaningful economic structure that allows unhindered commerce and growth and its effort to consult widely and in a participatory way for researching and developing of national policy. This is what governments do, they DO not own land and cement factories!!!  The days of putting the nettella on the floor and thanking the government are gone. So are the days of forced clapping and raised fists in salutes. People do not have to thank governments. They should just be free to vote them back into power or OUT! 

If I am allowed to respond to Ms Alems posting, I would like to say the following:
 
I don't support her idea of if necessary, forced resettlement. And adult can decide what is best for himself and his dependants. The government's job is to inform the farmer the best possible options or solutions to solve the farmers problems. The government can only and should give advice only and prepare in advance the solution they recommend. It's up to the farmer, to weigh up using the information he got from the government with his own experiences and judgments and decide for himself what's best for himself. What is democracy after all, if an individual can't decide his own destiny? No one understands his situation and the meaning of identity and locality better than the farmer himself and the people who live a similar life like him and who are experiencing the same hardships or joy and it's not a beareucrate from the city from a distance who knows best for him and his likes. The government could only help.
The solutions are not clear cut. As you say, let's say the government forces the farmers to resettle and something goes wrong, who takes responsibility. Let's say for example, they settle in malaria infested area and the farmer's son die of malaria or even if the farmer himself succumbs to malaria as is happening in some resettlement places, who will take responsibility for their death? As it is his own life, the farmer himself should take the responsibility and make the decisions himself.
In another scenario, what if the farmers refuse to resettle, how is the government going to force them to resettle, by using force of arms ?The government in its eagerness to enforce its policies, might use military force and if the farmers resist a lot of bloodshed might occur. Then you can't say you created a better solution for the farmers. In your eagerness to help the farmers you will be ending up killing them. And you can't say that you created a better solution than the original problem. In fact you will be worsening the problem.
Forcing people to do things because of your policy, which can be and usually is wrong in Ethiopia, isn't a good democratic practice as the government wouldn't acknowledge or take responsibility for its actions if things go wrong. When is it in the last 13 years has you ever seen the Ethiopian government admitting past mistakes or taking responsibilities for its faulty decisions and its consequences except once by the prime minister for admitting he was wrong for signing the Algiers agreement ?What about the governments reversal of its Eritrean policy after more than 100 000 people have died for it and now advocating Pan Africanism to re-unite Eritrea with Ethiopia while they were opposing it staunchly for the last 13 years? Do you see them apologizing, even if they did, it won't be enough after all these people died and wealth destroyed. You don't see any government apologizing, so I don't see the wisdom of forcing people to implement government policies which maybe wrong. The people should have their destiny in their own hands.
On the question of resettling people outside EPRDF designated Killils (regions), I am doubtful as the present boundaries are formed by the content of the ethnic group settling or occupying any given area. So let's say if a group of 250 000 Tigrayan farmers are resettled in an unsettled fertile land in Oromia's Killil, that area in which the Tigrayan farmers settled would automatically become another or a second Tigrayan Killil. Because the present Killils of Ethiopia are made up by the language or ethnicity occupying that area. Your idea would have been accepted if Ethiopia hadn't been divided along ethnic or language lines. Then every Ethiopian would have been free to resettle in any area in Ethiopia.

Hellow here is my opinion about the resettlement programme.

The other thing in my opinion Ethiopian government should just 

discard this idea of voluntarily settlement and should take a tough 

love action. You should just settle people, if necessary by force, to 

the lowland areas or to the south of the country wherever there is no 

drought and where there is fertile land. People may complain for 

sometime until they get used to the new environment because of 

separation anxiety and cultural shock but soon when they realize that 

the new land can give them more proud than the older one or when they 

realize that they can feed themselves properly and even can sell the 

surplus to the people they will be overwhelmed by the new feeling and 

stay there without any problem. The government should provide 

incentives for those who settle there and should also take serious 

action so that people work hard at the new place and so that they do 

not return back to their original place. In the long run people will 

thank the government.

The south and the low land areas of Ethiopia are scarcely populated 

and mostly fertile with regular rainy seasons. Even Ethiopia can 

settle people at the riverbanks that she has. Ethiopia has thousands 

of rivers and, if we settle our people near our rivers just like 

SUDAN and EGYPT do we do not even have to wait  the rainy season we 

can just harvest several times in a year. Remember Egypt and SUDAN 

only rely on one river that is NILE but by carefully placing their 

farmers around NILE without having any rainy seasons they have 

managed to feed themselves and even export despite having semi desert 

lands.

Thank you for giving this opportunity.

ALENGA