AAU Institutional Repository

Land Governance in Urban Renewal-Induced Eviction and Relocation in Inner City Areas of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisor Gebre Egziabeher, Tegegne (PhD)
dc.contributor.author Siraje, Mohammed
dc.date.accessioned 2018-07-03T07:23:19Z
dc.date.available 2018-07-03T07:23:19Z
dc.date.issued 2016-06
dc.identifier.uri http://etd.aau.edu.et/handle/123456789/5700
dc.description.abstract The thesis deals with land governance in urban renewal induced eviction and relocation (URIER) in inner city areas of Addis Ababa. It examines the interplay of contexts, legal framework, decision making process, winners and losers of URP, relocation options and actual practices of eviction and relocation to respect or deny the human rights of the affected people. Political economy approach, right based model and land governance norms have been adopted to holistically understand URIER and to look at how their interactions explain contexts, the focus of the government, human rights and development goals. Both qualitative and quantitative data for the study were drawn from primary sources on the basis of intensive field work at two renewal sites (Lideta and Basha Wolde II) and four relocation case study sites. It involves interviews, case studies, FGDs and observation as the principal methods to elicit people’s knowledge and experiences for uncovering eviction and relocation and objectives achievement. In line with this, household survey and data from secondary sources have supplemented the analysis at all levels. The study findings show that from the Imperial period to the present day, governments controlled the economic and political power over land and housing allocations and decision making processes to use land in inner city areas as a tool in serving its interests or the interests of the few. It rather did not serve as an essential asset to improve the living conditions of the affected people and social equity. The informal tenure in Addis has been regarded as unlawful or illegal. As a means to access land, it has been coping mechanisms to their marginalization employed by the successive Ethiopian governments as expressions of political power relations. The decision making processes of policies, plans and legislations also marginalized the participation of the affected people, NGOs and other actors. The consultation meetings were marred by absence of prior and adequate information; meaningful consultation and residents’ lack of knowledge of legislations about their rights and power to make decisions. These facts were coupled with the provision of wrong information (absence of condos in the LDP) and intimidating visits. The processes therefore were top-down participatory approach, emphasizing outcome over the process. This is against politics is right conviction of political economy approach. Evictions took place without exploring alternatives to eviction although there were viable in-situ solutions and not in truly exceptional circumstances. URP thus relocated the original poor homeowners and all tenants, and was not mixed income development. Added to this, monetary compensation was unfair and far below the market value, hence unable to construct comparable houses. In most cases, affordable condos were not available, rehabilitation assistance was ignored and effective punishment mechanisms in case of violations of the residents' rights were missing. AACA improved the image of the city and generated large sum of money, enhancing the land lease value and housing markets counting these government interests. Nonetheless, the living conditions of the relocated households changed from bad to worse and their human rights were breached. The poor, tenants relocated to kebele houses, old poor women in the waiting list and those with informal tenures were negatively net losers of and treated unequally by URIER in accessing in-situ relocation and condo provision. Absence of appropriate, sustainable and affordable replacement housing strategies and ineffective measures taken by the AACA forced the poorest of the poor with little choices and opportunities to rely on informal actors and rules to access condos. Informal exchange of condos were therefore responsive to their needs (condos) and constraints (financial). Informal land and housing users were denied the right to compensation or replacement housing. The study reveals that URIER was constrained by very few organizational gaps and overlap of responsibilities; and absence of Wereda level renewal offices. Poor coordination and integration of LDBURPO with Road authority and Housing development office as well as URP with NGOs working on urban development and parallel programs were also evident. Some policy gaps and inconsistencies related to eviction and relocation, land use restrictions and housing strategies that focus on image building and land value enhancement for economic growth interact in different ways to explain the relocation of the poor, forced evictions, unequal treatment, decline in their living conditions, and avoid mixed income societies. These are also explained by the interplay of lack of financial resources, the provision of condo alone to restore livelihoods and we cannot satisfy all narratives. The above findings lead to the conclusion that evictions and relocations were corresponded to the government interests than to the genuine public interest and the wellbeing of the affected residents. URIER was not pro-poor although the government pretended to serve the poor. URP did not balance the public and private interests, focusingon economic or land market efficiency at the expense of social justice. The government thus saw eviction and relocation of poor homeowners and tenants as the only and viable option to achieve its interests. Further, evictions and relocations were forced or arbitrary that violated residents’ rights. The government therefore did not employ good land governance and right based model of URIER. The final conclusion is that URP were plagued not only by gaps, inadequacy, inconstancy and incompleteness in some of the policies, plans, regulations and strategies related to URIER and ineffective top-down decision making process, but also by implementation and organizational constraints. Last, but not least this research concluded that the major problem for enacting inadequate policy, disregarding the available rules, not owning policies, carrying out forced evictions and enjoying renewal benefits inequitably was lack of political will. This informs that maintaining the poor, preserving and strengthening mixed income societies, carrying out legitimate eviction in the genuine public interest, reversing unequal treatment and the subsequent living conditions improvement are possible and viable if the government displays political will. Toward this end, mainstreaming a right-based approach, land governance norms, inner city contexts and mixed income development would go a long way. It also requires pro-poor policies coupled with preferential treatment and affirmative action and a comprehensive city wide and integrated URP into all aspects of eviction policy, directives and plans related to URIER. The policy should also endorse balance and improvement principles; and acknowledge specialized livelihood support program and benefit sharing mechanisms. Finally, the donor agencies and NGOs should find ways to jointly involve in rights and policy advocacy, right sensitization program and community development to reverse relocation of the poor, forced eviction, inequalities in relocation process and impoverishment en_US
dc.language.iso en en_US
dc.publisher Addis Ababa University en_US
dc.subject Geography and Environmental Studies en_US
dc.title Land Governance in Urban Renewal-Induced Eviction and Relocation in Inner City Areas of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia en_US
dc.type Thesis en_US

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search AAU-ETD


My Account