Born during the ‘Great Famine’ of the mid-1970s, the Ethiopian Disaster Risk Management Commission has transitioned through four administrative frameworks, with its mandates and operational scope, as well as its name, shifting frequently.
In recent years, the Commission has been plagued by controversy, particularly concerning the stewardship of funds, as evidenced by reports from the Auditor General. Its last Commissioner, Mitiku Kassa, was arrested on suspicion of corruption in July 2022.
Developments of the past few weeks have placed the Commission and its new chief in the spotlight once again. A contentious bill proposes to expand the Commission’s powers by granting it the privilege to foray into investment and calls for the creation of a ‘Disaster Risk Response Fund’ financed by a new tax on citizens.
RELATED POSTS
Perhaps more contentious is a recent statement from Ambassador Shiferaw Teklemariam (PhD) asserting an 86 percent decrease in caseload (the population requiring humanitarian assistance) to Parliament—a figure many find dubious.
Prior to this appointment, Shiferaw held key positions, including Minister of Federal Affairs (during the EPRDF era) and Ambassador to South Africa.
The Reporter Magazine’s Bewket Abebe sat down with the Commissioner for a better glean at the recent developments. EXCERPTS:
The Reporter Magazine: You recently came up with an ambitious initiative that has to do with self-sufficiency, i.e. Ethio-Aid. Tell us about it. Have specific strategies been put in place, practical moves made, or is it still an aspirational concept at this point?
Shiferaw Teklemariam: The whole movement of humanitarian self-sufficiency falls within the bigger vision of economic sovereignty. It has five key components: strategic food and nonfood reserves, the Disaster Risk Response Fund, warehouses, emergency services, as well as household accountability and community solidarity. Self-sufficiency as envisaged comes with additional objectives—price stabilization, market stabilization, and exports.
From our practical experience, I think it is not a new phenomenon in Ethiopia to have what you call ‘Ethio-Aid.’ We may not have called it by this name, but support for countries, including those in Europe, existed, especially right after World War II. That history has fostered a good partnership between the governments of Ethiopia and those countries. Even very recently, when that devastating earthquake occurred in Turkey, we sent our team to assist, managing to mobilize logistics from our office. We provided similar support during the Ebola epidemic. Peacekeeping missions are another aspect. Support is support. Ethiopia aiming for Ethio-Aid is not a new phenomenon. I don’t want to mention specific details, but we provide different forms of support to neighbors and others on a daily basis. Trust me, once this law is ratified by Parliament, it will become evident that we will not consume all the reserves we accumulate.
We are not expecting humanitarian relief to prevail throughout the country. Humanitarian relief is the last resort in economic sovereignty. If you keep economic sovereignty to a higher level through comprehensive approaches, the likelihood for the case to drop is indeed there. We are now identifying who the actual beneficiaries are. We have started to address the errors of inclusion and exclusion. That way, we target those who really deserve it. By doing that alone, our caseload drops substantially. We went to have consultations with 20 million people throughout the regional states through the regions’ mechanisms.
But at the same time, we equip ourselves with the necessary reserves to be able to respond without waiting for anyone. The whole purpose of food self-sufficiency is about protecting your dignity, your own freedom, and your sovereignty as a whole.
Once the proclamation is ratified, the Commission, within its mandate, will have several functions. The primary one is to make sure food self-sufficiency in terms of humanitarian aid is secured. Once that is secured, the subsequent objective is serving other purposes such as price stabilization, market stabilization, and export.
Could you elaborate on how the Commission could provide services beyond its primary functions, such as exports?
This is an institution that maintains reserves. So, whoever is coming with a plan—let’s say market stabilization—they can take and replace what they need. For export purposes, the government may do it. These are government reserves, so it can export as long as it can replace it within the proper time given. Even the aid. The important point here is that you have it in storage but aren’t using it right now so you can allow them to work with it.
Has there been such a case before? Has there been a situation where the government exported aid items?
No, not yet. That has to do with the proclamation which we are expecting to be ratified. Then, that is what will be happening. These are the capabilities you need to build. There are what we call ‘designated strategic reserve commodities’ that have shelf lives. You cannot keep these commodities beyond the expected shelf life. Their shelf lives range from a few months to two years, let’s say. So, you take such measures when either when the shelf lives are about to expire or intentionally to renew the commodities. This is a scientific approach in reserve management.
Considering the numerous humanitarian crises occurring across the country, what is the likelihood that you might experience a similar situation? Have you ever faced a scenario where the shelf life of your reserves was expiring, necessitating specific procedures?
The Commission mobilizes resources to be sent out as humanitarian relief. For sure, for any commodity or whatever scheme, there is the likelihood. Here, you have to balance two things; disaster prediction capability and reserve management.
What has been the Commission’s average annual distribution of humanitarian assistance, in terms of both volume and monetary value? Could you please provide the figures for the most recent fiscal year and the seven months prior?
We are getting treasury support of close to 14 billion birr. This is in addition to what the regions and their respective structures to the woreda levels allocate. And there is what the communities shoulder. The investment is really big.
How about the portion coming from international partners?
They contribute. But their contributions have been declining. This is not even because of the change in administration in Washington. By the time I began working at this office, two years ago, it accounted for 33 percent of the total requirement and last year, it declined to 22 percent. The government’s intervention accounts for more than 60 percent. Communities play key roles in filling the gaps. This year, we don’t even know whether their contributions [international partners] will reach that percentage [22 percent]. We cannot speak for sure about figures due to a number of political changes in the headquarters.
How much do you expect?
We don’t expect anything. As I told you, we are working for self-sufficiency.
Is that not a long-term aim?
No, it is happening as we speak. About nine regional states (with the exception of those affected by conflict such as Tigray, part of Amhara, and part of Afar) have already graduated to self-sufficiency. They are doing it on their own. We also handle the case of IDPs. In those nine regional states, they even manage by themselves. They are building their own reserves. During the last rainy season alone, the regions managed to collect one million quintals of grain in their own stores. The design is that we may require 20 million quintals annually, out of which 500,000 is for reserve.
Haven’t your operational capacities and ongoing projects been affected by the recent funding reductions or suspensions from key international partners?
The whole initiative of humanitarian self-sufficiency and sovereignty is to be on your own in terms of humanitarian relief. We don’t want anyone to help. The other aspect is resilience building. In this aspect, anyone can collaborate.
What I am saying is that when it comes to feeding our people, no one in this country should be fed by someone from somewhere outside this country. That is the initiative. Is it possible? For me, yes, it is. Do you think it is a free lunch when those countries mobilize resources? No! People call it ‘humanitarian’. Theoretically, yes, it is what you would call ‘humanitarian’. But practically, I do not agree. Anyone sending a coin has an interest attached to it. Let me give you a bold example. During the conflict in Tigray, before the Pretoria Agreement, we were supporting some 8.3 to 8.5 million people. We, people in this office, were the ones who were providing waivers to go there. After the Pretoria Agreement was signed, people came up with the idea of food diversion. And they suspended operations for eight months, accusing the government of aid diversion. Do you think this is humanitarian? Intuitions are used for political ends.
In your assessment, what is the current figure for the number of people across the nation requiring humanitarian assistance?
It is a bit tricky to report such numbers. They need to be worked out internally. We have what we call a ‘household economic analysis’. It is done twice annually. The most recent one regarding household economic analysis for instance was 2.6 million. The number may vary frequently. The other is the number of IDPs. We have about one million. Any kind of rapid onset situation may be considered as well. If it is quite temporary, we don’t add it to the total number.
So, according to your estimation, the total number of people in the entire country who are in need of humanitarian assistance is not more than 3.6 million?
That is right, according to our data.
Different reports from international organizations, including UN agencies, indicate a figure as high as 20 million. Furthermore, just two days ago, the WFP issued an alarming report warning that over 10.2 million people are on the brink of hunger and malnutrition. How do you reconcile these figures? Do you believe they are fabrications?
I don’t want to use your word [fabrications]. But every number that is coming should have a scientific source. Maybe they [the agencies] have this ambition of resource mobilization. In those reports, they are trying to address their own resource demands. So, I strongly object.
The bottom line is, the humanitarian sector is led by the government. No other institution leads it, at least not in our country. Some of them are mentioning numbers they were instructed to mention.
By whom?
Someone else, somewhere. The point is everyone presenting those numbers must be subject to questions; where the numbers they mention come from, their sources and the methodologies they used. How on earth they are communicating numbers that have not been jointly agreed upon. It is an issue of accountability.
The same questions have been raised about the numbers in your reports. Despite ongoing crises such as conflict, drought, and other natural disasters, you recently claimed to Parliament an 86 percent reduction in the number of people requiring humanitarian assistance. Could you point to any data that supports this claim?
The government’s overarching initiative for economic sovereignty involves various strategies aimed at ensuring that people are not only food self-sufficient but also capable of producing surpluses. If there is a surplus produce in some part of the country, the ripple effects would be seen in its neighbors and in the market in general. This year, for instance, more than 30 million hectares of land have been cultivated, yielding more than 600 million quintals of produce, as reported by our Ministry of Agriculture. More production means less demand for humanitarian assistance. Last year’s rain pattern was perfect. The caseload has been declining.
The way we generate numbers comes from scientifically studied methodologies. The household economic anlysis is done using satellite imagery and ground studies. The other method we use is the displacement tracking matrices.
We have what we call a humanitarian requirement plan that partners and people at the Commission prepare jointly. No institution has a different data source as far as we know.
How can it be sensible to report an 86 percent decline in caseload when factors that could escalate it—such as conflicts and drought—persist? This doesn’t seem sensible to many.
I am not surprised. There are people who are not in favor of good news. No matter what, we are presenting facts, scientifically generated figures. What we have is the only reliable source of data that we are supposed to share with our partners. In this country, the mechanism for reporting any numbers must be a government-led process. This is an independent country. We are not a country run by NGOs. So, when people question my report, they have to question theirs too.
The Commission’s past is marked by both commendable humanitarian leadership, such as that of Ambassador Shimelis Adugna, and allegations of corruption, including your predecessor’s tenure. What do you envision your legacy to be?
The Ethiopian humanitarian relief ecosystem has been hijacked for a number of reasons. When it started during the great famine, the intervention to save lives was perfect. No question about it. But that humanitarian relief support, instead of developing itself towards a positive trajectory, went otherwise. No development efforts to curb it and no strategic way of handling it. It simply created a huge aid dependency. It became a structural dependency. That has led the government to plead on all humanitarian platforms to get non-food items. That has become the fashion and tradition instead of addressing the root causes. What it means is that you are managing the crisis but not the risks. That has become a three-generation history.
Historically, this Commission has long been structurally promoting aid dependency. Leaders may have different ideas about this. They likely fed people and saved lives. That is not the end of the equation. The end of the equation should have been creating a system that ensures self-sufficiency. The legacy that should be left behind is the country’s capacity to support its own people. And I believe that is achievable.
