Page 32 - World Heritage and Tourism Innovation

Hiyab Gebretsadik Weldearegay Critics on Heritage Laws and Tourism Politics in Ethiopia

of their heritages through indirect diffusion of own- conservation, the development and the diffusion of
ership to any citizen at any corner of the federation, culture(Article 15). The same article is not consistent
diffusing collective power of ownership from nations with the 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguard-
and nationalities, thereby destroying their collective ing of intangible cultural heritage, which stipulates
bargaining capacity and group rights. Besides, it is un- that communities (UNESCO 2003: passim) are the
constitutional because the rights to protect and pre- principal actors in decisions about what is essential,
serve cultural and historical legacies are the mandates endangered, and worth safeguarding in the area of
and responsibilities of the Nation and Nationalities of ICH through “bottom-up” approach and, again, not
the country, Article 39(2) of the Constitution. consistent with the 2003 Operational Directives for
the Implementation of the Convention for the Safe-
Result and Discussion on Specific Objective 3 guarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (ODs)
The third objective was to evaluate the validity of which gives the indigenous people the right to iden-
FDRE Heritage Proclamation No. 209/2000 against tify, define, and draw up inventories of ICH (Article
international declarations on the rights of indigenous 80). It is also essentially at odds with the 1972 UNESCO
peoples regarding heritage self-determination. The World Heritage Convention, which emphasises that
panel found eight international declarations on mat- the aim should be to give heritage a function in the
ters related to heritage self-determination. Accord- life of the community (Article 5.1) and with the 2007
ingly, eight international declarations have stipulated United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indige-
the rights of indigenous peoples regarding heritage nous Peoples (UNDRIP) which stipulates that Indig-
self-determination. These rights have been explicitly enous Peoples have the right to self-determination;
stated or interpreted from these declarations’ general the right to cultural integrity; the right to self-govern-
substantive spirit and essence. The following are arti- ment and autonomy; the right to heritage self-deter-
cles of the Proclamation that contravene these declara- mination and to freely pursue their economic, social
tions: Article 23 (2) declares that transfer of ownership and cultural development (Article 3).
of cultural heritage is possible and gives the federal
Authority the right of preemption over the sale of Result and Discussion on Specific Objective 4
cultural heritage. This is not consistent with the 1970 The fourth specific objective of the research was to ar-
UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and ticulate the potential adverse effects of FDRE Heritage
Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Proclamation No. 209/2000 in the Ethiopian heritage
Ownership of Cultural Property (Articles 3& 6) that economics and Tourism remuneration landscape. The
outlaw import, export or transfer of ownership of panel found out, with a majority, that the law impacts
cultural property; two, Article 30 (1) which says “No storylining worldviews about the existence of heritage
person may conduct exploration, discovery and study and tactically loads this one-sided worldview over the
of cultural heritage without obtaining a prior written preferences of tourists that come to the federal coun-
permit from the federal Authority” is not consistent try. Such laws can potentially constrain access to pro-
with the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and moting the historical heritages of competitors within
Political Rights (ICCPR) which stipulates that indige- the country. It can be a storyline in which the destina-
nous peoples have the right to self-determination and tion should be famous, a script for the country’s tour-
to freely pursue their cultural development (article 1); ism product presentation, and affect promotion and
three, Article 19(1) which says “Any conservation and mould public opinion on how much tourists should
restoration work on Cultural Heritage shall be carried stay and where; this is because such legal-structural
out with the prior approval of the federal Authority” problems can get the institutional and industrial shape
is not consistent with 1966 International Covenant as institutions can act as fertile farms for certain polit-
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) ical ideologies by giving or denying institutional and
which declares the right of indigenous people for the administrative support to certain political discourses

28 | Proceedings of the 7th UNESCO UNITWIN Conference