Page 33 - World Heritage and Tourism Innovation

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

or even reflecting what is known as institutional rac- nities is possible, and the community can legitimately
ism. Therefore, the structure of governance of herit- wish to draw benefits from their heritage treasures ac-
ages can actively or inactively sabotage the free flow cording to their criteria and priorities; three, almost
of tourists. The tourism business sub-sector can be an all of these declarations assume there are no heritages
instrument and victim of these politics. This way, this without the heir or heritage bearers as there are no
may defy the national prestige (identity and political) folklores without the folks.
tourism could mean to nations and nationalities of The fourth conclusion made by the Delphi study
the federation, and a substantial scale of quarrel may panel of experts concerns the harmful effects of Ethi-
occur over how a specific heritage/attraction in the opian heritage laws on tourism economics. The panel,
Ethiopian multi-national coalition should be valued by a majority, concluded that the law harms heritage
(preserved, conserved, developed and promoted) for economics and fair remunerations from tourism.
all to get justifiable economic and non-economic re-
muneration from tourism. Recommendations
This study has critically examined how politics re-
Conclusions and Recommendation flects in heritage governance in Ethiopia and, as a re-
One conclusion reached by the Delphi study panel of sult, impacts the landscape of tourism remuneration
experts is that the overall substantive spirit and es- in the country through heritage laws.
sence of the Constitution of the FDRE indicates that The fact that the research design inhabits some
the power to preserve, protect, investigate, and pro- characters of exploratory nature, meaning such kinds
mote cultural heritages lies under the jurisdiction of of studies were not conducted in Ethiopia before
the state government rather than the federal govern- and rarely have been done elsewhere in the world,
ment. at least to the knowledge of the researcher, it would
The second conclusion is that the contents of FDRE not capture academic appropriateness to give fast and
Proclamation No 209/2000 fall under the jurisdiction challenging prescription to the public before further
of state powers. Therefore, the Proclamation is uncon- extended (with a longer spanning time) and exten-
stitutional and impermissible, intended to establish a sive (with a broader scope of the study) confirmatory
neo-imperialist structure at the federal level, and it is research (to confirm or dismiss) is conducted on the
illegal, void, and null. issue using explanatory design with the rule of ‘re-
The third conclusion reached by the panel is peatable materiality’.
about the validity of FDRE Heritage Proclamation So, before the prescription is implemented, the sci-
No. 209/2000 against international declarations on entific community is requested to augment this study
the rights of indigenous peoples regarding herit- through comprehensive, exhaustive, extensive, and
age self-determination. The panel of experts of this extended works of inquiry. Specifically, the recom-
Delphi study reached a plateau consensus that the mendation is that other countries corroborate current
Proclamation is not acceptable against international findings in their context; different types of research
declarations on the right of indigenous peoples re- with scopes covering the intuitional and industrial en-
garding heritage self-determination; this is because, vironments of the tourism sector are requested, and
one, almost all of the international declarations, place academicians should contribute to adequately estab-
the communities, along with their “free, prior and in- lishing or clarifying the theories by giving depth and
formed consent”, at the centre of its scheme for the scale in their epistemic form.
Safeguarding of cultural heritage worldwide, oppos-
ing international or domestic heritage colonisation; References:
and, two, almost all of these declarations stress that Al-Ansi, A., Han, H., & Loureiro, S. M. (2021). Interna-
World Heritage sites are, first and forever, local places tional border restrictions and rules toward the illicit
and no conservation without or against these commu- trafficking of cultural heritage in the tourism context: A

Proceedings of the 7th UNESCO UNITWIN Conference | 29