sustainability

Article
The Role of Public Interest Litigation in the
Achievement of Sustainable Waste Management
in Ethiopia †
Merhatbeb Teklemedhn Gebregiorgs 1,2
1 Tilburg Law School, Tilburg University, P.O Box 90153 5000 Tilburg, The Netherlands;
[Link]@[Link]
2 School of Law, Mekelle University, P.O. Box-231 Mekelle, Ethiopia
† This research is conducted under the affiliation of Tilburg Law School, Tilburg University, Tilburg,
The Netherlands; and Mekelle University School of Law, Mekelle, Ethiopia; under the supervision of
Professor Dr Jonathan Verschuuren.




Received: 7 October 2018; Accepted: 10 December 2018; Published: 12 December 2018


Abstract: This research assessed the role of public interest litigation in the achievement of sustainable
waste management in the Addis Ababa Administration (AAA) of Ethiopia. It employed a single
country case-oriented comparative research design, and data triangulation was used to establish
the validity of the findings. The research first shows Ethiopia’s commitment to sustainable waste
management, implementing environmental tax and the command-and-control instruments of the
polluter-pays principle and public interest litigation within the context of environmental justice.
Secondly, it shows that public interest litigation is one of the innovative techniques in the struggle
against waste mismanagement across all legal systems. Thirdly, it demonstrates the potential role of
public interest litigation in Ethiopia in encouraging the federal and regional environmental protection
and management organs to implement environmental tax and command-and-control instruments.
Fourthly, it uncovers that public interest litigation is not fully compatible with the Civil Procedure
Code of Ethiopia. Fifthly, it shows the failure of the judiciary system of Ethiopia to accommodate
environmental courts and tribunals that flexibly and innovatively adopt public interest litigation.
Sixthly, it reveals that, in Ethiopia, the scope of public interest standing is highly restrictive for Civil
Society Organizations (CSO). Finally, it implies that the legal viability and administrative feasibility
of environmental public interest litigation in Ethiopia is in its infancy, and its crystallization is partly
contingent on the cautious review of the Civil Procedure Code and CSO laws and on greening the
judiciary system.

Keywords: sustainable waste management; the polluter-pays principle; environmental justice;

environmental public interest litigation

1. Introduction
(a) Background of the Research

Environmental justice is one of the goals of sustainable development, and public interest litigation
is one of the innovative techniques for its implementation [1,2].
Public interest litigation is described as legal tools that allow individuals, groups and communities
to challenge government decisions and activities in a court of law or any other competent body with
judicial power for the enforcement of public interest [3].
When there is market failure, states are expected to protect the environment through the use
of taxation and the command-and-control instruments of the polluter-pays principle (see details in

Sustainability 2018, 10, 4735; doi:10.3390/su10124735 [Link]/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2018, 10, 4735 2 of 20

Section 2.2). Simultaneously, in seeking to hold states responsible for environmental pollution, public
interest litigation could follow either a fundamental rights approach or a duty of care method [4].
Correspondingly, the historical use of public interest litigation within the context of environmental
justice shows its potential role in the struggle against waste mismanagement in both common and
civil law jurisdictions of developed and developing countries (see details in Section 2.4.2). Thus,
the application of public interest litigation in combating unsustainable waste management is not
context-specific, and it can be stretched across all legal systems.
As a corollary, it is safe to conclude that the potential role of public interest litigation in the
struggle against waste mismanagement is applicable in Ethiopia [5,6].

(b) Statement of the problem

Ethiopia is committed to sustainable waste management (see details in Section 2.1), the
polluter-pays principle [7] and public interest litigation within the context of environmental
justice [8–10].
Nevertheless, at the moment, Ethiopia in general, and the Addis Ababa Administration (AAA) in
particular, has failed to implement the environmental tax and command-and-control instruments of
the polluter-pays principle [7,11,12], and they are exposed to:

1. Solid waste [13,14], sewage [15–17] and effluent mismanagement [18–23]; and
2. Public budget allocation for the social costs borne by their public authorities for pollution
prevention and control [24–27].

Thus, this research assessed the role of public interest litigation in the struggle against waste
mismanagement in the AAA of Ethiopia (see details in Section 3.3).

(c) Research Question

The aim of this research was to investigate public interest litigation as a potential tool in the
struggle against waste mismanagement in Ethiopia. Correspondingly, the following research questions
were addressed: Considering past and present cases as well as the potential future prospects of
this technique, can public interest litigation play an effective role in combating unsustainable waste
management? What are the main obstacles to environmental public interest litigation? In this context,
the effectiveness of this technique refers to the potential for encouraging environmental protection and
management organs to implement the environmental tax and command-and-control instruments of
the polluter-pays principle.

(d) Methodology

The research was delimited to the self-governing AAA, which is the capital city of Ethiopia,
an integral part of the federal jurisdiction and accountable to the federal government [7,28].
The research assessed the role of public interest litigation in the achievement of sustainable waste
management in the AAA of Ethiopia. A qualitative method and a single country case-oriented
comparative research design that uses concepts that are applicable to other countries were employed.
The qualitative analysis was iterative. Inferences were drawn through interpretation, and their validity
was assured through primary and secondary data source triangulation. The operationalization of the
key words is presented in Section 2, through the development of a literature review-based conceptual
framework of public interest litigation in the context of sustainable waste management. Parallel
to this, the research used federal and AAA environmental and tax laws, and official documents as
the major sources of data on the role of public interest litigation in the achievement of sustainable
waste management in the AAA of Ethiopia. The primary and secondary data of the research were
triangulated and interpreted within the context of the conceptual framework of the research, and then
concluding remarks and implications were drawn.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4735 3 of 20

(e) Organization of the Article

The article is organized into four sections. After the Introduction, Section 2 deals with the
conceptual framework of public interest litigation in the context of sustainable waste management.
Section 3 assesses the role of public interest litigation in the achievement of sustainable waste
management in the Addis Ababa Administration of Ethiopia. Finally, Section 4 presents the conclusion
and implications of the research.

2. Conceptual Framework of Public Interest Litigation in the Context of Sustainable

Waste Management

2.1. Sustainable Waste Management and Environmental Justice

Sustainable development goals (SDGs) are global in nature and universally applicable. They are
integrated and indivisible [1], and the achievement of a particular SDG mutually contributes to the
progress of other SDGs [29,30]. Accordingly, the proper implementation of public interest litigation within
the context of environmental justice mutually enhances the progress of sustainable waste management
which is defined as “using material resources efficiently to cut down on the amount of waste produced,
and, where waste is generated, dealing with it in a way that actively contributes to SDGs ” [31].
Correspondingly, Ethiopia has embraced the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Agenda
2063 of Africa and the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, and by 2030 it is aspiring to the achievement of
sustainable waste management and environmental justice [1,32,33].

2.2. The Roles of Environmental Tax and Command-and-Control Instruments in the Achievement of
Sustainable Waste Management
Market failures result from the failure of the market demand and supply schedules to reflect the
full prices of externalities [34,35]. Pollution/depletion, where private benefits and costs diverge from
social benefits and costs [35–37], is one of the classic cases of negative externality [35,37–41].
As a result, an unregulated market has room for unabated externalities [36,37,42,43] and grants
an implicit subsidy to polluters [44,45]. Thus, when a market fails to appreciate the opportunity
costs of environmental use, it causes overuse of the environment and overproduction of ecologically
harmful products.
Meanwhile, while command-and-control instruments limit the quantity of residuals that each
actor may generate, environmental taxes provide an ideal means of injecting appropriate price signals
and creating markets for unpriced resources and environmental services [37,39,41,43,45–47].
As a result, when there is market failure, taxation and command-and-control instruments are the two
supplementary/complementary policy mix instruments of the polluter-pays principle [38,39,41,43,48].
Mutatis mutandis, taxation and command-and-control have instrumental roles in the in the
achievement of sustainable waste management in Ethiopia (see details in Section 3.3.1).

2.3. The Notion of Legal Capacity, Legal Standing and Justiciability

2.3.1. Legal Capacity to Sue or be Sued

Capacity is the power or ability to perform juridical acts. Being a party to a suit is one of the
juridical acts. Hence, capacity to sue or be sued refers to a person’s ability to represent his interest in a
suit before a court of law without the assistance of another [49].
Accordingly, one could consider capacity as the most fundamental one as it provides for the
definition of those beings or things, either natural or artificial, which will be bound by the law. One
could generally say that the latter regulates the conduct of persons existing within a community [50].
Thus, we can observe beings or things having rights and duties under the law, and others having
no full rights and duties. If someone or something falls within the first category, the whole field of the
law will become applicable to him or it; if not, he or it will not be fully bound by the law [50].
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4735 4 of 20

Under the Ethiopian legal system, the civil procedure code provides that any person capable
under the law may be a party to a suit [51]. This means that any person capable under the law can file
a suit in his own name. In such circumstances, he is referred to as the named plaintiff or the named
defendant. Hence, for a person to sue as a plaintiff or be sued as a defendant in his name, the issue of
capacity has to be certain.
The reading between the lines of the above propositions does not mean that an incapable person
cannot sue. That is, the fact that only capable persons can sue or be sued in their name does not imply
that incapable persons under the law cannot sue in their own names, but that they must institute what
are called representative suits [51].
Legal personality is bestowed to physical persons and legal persons. The first category consists of
human beings and the second consists of entities all kinds which are recognized as holding rights and
duties in the same way as human beings [52].
To be a holder of legal rights, there are four criteria that must be satisfied. All these criteria count
towards making a thing count jurally—to have legally recognized worth and dignity in its own right.
They are [52]:
1. The establishment of public authoritative bodies which are capable of giving some amount of
review to actions that are inconsistent with rights bestowed to physical or legal persons.
2. The right of a thing to institute legal actions at its behest.
3. In determining the granting of legal relief, the court must take injury to it into account.
4. The relief must run to the benefit of it.
Concurrently, the characteristic of personality is the capacity to have or to enjoy rights and duties
under the law that are enforceable by legal mechanisms as they exist in the society [53].

2.3.2. Legal Standing and Justiciability

The word “standing” emerged gradually during the twentieth century, coming into common use
only from about the 1950s. Legal standing is in many ways a reflection of social conscience, expanding
with socially recognized issues over time and slowly embracing environmental issues.
The concept of standing has also expanded from the individual to the group, and now it embraces
also government actions [54].
Standing focuses on the question of whether the litigant is the legitimate party to fight the lawsuit,
not whether the issue itself is justiciable [54].
The line between the requirement of standing and justiciability of the matter is by no means sharply
and clearly drawn. However, it can be clarified by saying that standing refers to whether a particular
applicant should be entitled to apply to a court for relief, while justiciability relates to the question of
whether any applicants should be so entitled [55]. In other words, while standing is determined from
the particular applicant’s perspective, justiciability is determined from the matter per se.
As a corollary, while standing is needed to get an entry for hearing by a court of law or any other
competent body with judicial power, justiciability is required in order for the petition to not be thrown
out as unsuitable for adjudication by a court of law or any other competent body with judicial power [56].

2.4. Nature and Historical Use of Environmental Public Interest Litigation

2.4.1. Nature of Traditional and Public Interest Litigations

a. Nature of Traditional Litigation

Traditional litigation is a rule of ancient vintage and it arose during an era when private law
dominated the legal scene and public law had not yet been born [56]. Until the arrival of public interest
litigation, civil litigation was patterned exclusively on the traditional model [56].
The traditional concept of adjudication has several characteristics [57]. First, the case has a
retrospective orientation; the court must decide questions of fact and law pertaining to past events.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4735 5 of 20

Second, right and remedy are closely inter-related. Third, the lawsuit is bounded in time and effect;
that is, judicial enrollment ends with the determination of the disputed issues, and the impact is limited
to the parties before the court.
The traditional rule in regard to locus standi was that judicial redress was available only to a
person who had suffered a legal injury by reason of violation of his legal right [58]. That is, the basis of
entitlement to judicial redress is personal injury to property, body, mind or reputation arising from the
violation of legally protected interests of the person.
If a person suffered injury along with the other members of the public, he had no access to
the court, unless he suffered additional injury over others. That is, a person could have standing to
vindicate a public right or interest if he could show that he had been specially and differently aggrieved
by injuries to the public [57].
There are two justifications set by the proponents of traditional standing [57]. The first one is that
because it is a civil suit, it concerns individual interest/right. It is up to a concerned party only to
either litigate or abandon a claim. Hence, no other person could decide to bring action for a real party
with interest in a suit. The second reason is that it enables defendants to avoid facing multiple suits
over a single cause of action.
Despite the above justifications, several defects and limitations are inherently present within the
very nature of the traditional procedure. A few glaring and flagrant defects are the following [56]:

1. The purpose of the traditional procedure is to enforce the rights of one individual against another,
and not to enforce basic human rights of the public.
2. The narrow ambit of locus stand in traditional litigation permits entry only to aggrieved persons
and not to any member of the public at large, acting bonafidely.
3. It does not provide any legal assistance to public interest groups, as it is less concerned with the
legal aid movement.
4. Relief is provided only to the individuals who are personally and differently aggravated, and not
to the diffused interest of the society.
5. It is an isolated individual effort of the aggrieved person to seize justice into his hand. Thus,
traditional standing is certainly not a welcome opportunity for the government and its officers to
examine the reality of the rights of the society.

For the very reasons above, the conventional method of justice administration is not adequate per
se. It may be good for the protection of property rights, but it is not effective at administering social
justice and enforcing the human rights and constitutional freedom of the millions who do not have
access to courts [56].
Therefore, ensuring access to the court for those who demand social justice and enforcing the
rights of the society require alternation and modification in the procedural techniques and methods of
legal remedies.
Correspondingly, damage to publicly owned and publicly possessed natural resources, and to
publicly owned but privately possessed natural resources that have a particular value to the public, is
damage of a collective nature; and because no concrete individual interests are harmed, damages for
this type of injury are in principle not recoverable under the traditional tort law [59].

b. Nature of Public Interest Litigation

The use of the term public interest litigation to cover the efforts to provide legal representation
began in the 1960s. However, the various programs that contributed to the shaping of the ideology
underlying the public interest law can be traced back to 1876 when the first legal aid office was
established in New York City. The funding by private foundations led to the rapid development of
public interest litigation and the activities associated with it [60].
The emergence of public interest litigation over the last forty years has been a salutary
development towards providing the vast majority of citizens with access to just and effective protection
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4735 6 of 20

of their fundamental rights. Therefore, public interest litigation is a new paradigm for citizens to
express their concerns for events occurring at the national and international level [61].
Initially, the major public interest litigation centers handled issues relating to civil rights, civil
liberties, problems of the poor and social and political dissidents. Their chief clients and law suits were
their principal political tools. By the end of 1975, however, the universe of public interest litigation had
expanded and as a result its spectrum of issues came to include consumer protection, environmental
protection, educational reform and the like [62].
Public interest litigation as it has developed in recent years marked a significant departure
from traditional judicial proceedings. The guarantee of fundamental rights and the assurance of
directive principles, described as the conscience of different constitutions, would have remained empty
promises for the majority of illiterate and indigent citizens under adversarial proceedings. Public
interest litigation has been a conscious attempt to transform the promises enshrined in different legal
instruments into reality [63].
Public interest litigation is part of the struggle by, and on behalf of, the disadvantaged to use
law to solve social and economic problems arising from a differential and unequal distribution of
opportunities and entitlements in society. In an effort to procure justice between generations it is
also concerned with preventing the present and future needless exploitation of human, natural and
technological resources [62].
For the above reasons, the battle over expanded standing to sue is, in short, about whether
everyone should have access to justice. Those with money and power already have access to justice.
The battle over standing to sue is, therefore, about whether other citizens have access as well. In this
respect, if democracy is for all, if the rule of law is for all, and if justice is for all, then standing should
be for all as well [63].
This implies that the directions and commands issued by courts of law in public interest litigation
are for the attainment of justice for the society at large, and not for benefiting only personally aggrieved
individuals. Thus, any public-spirited person dedicated to a public cause has standing to bring a
common cause before court. In this case, the center of gravity of justice is shifted from the traditional
individualism of locus standi to the community orientation of public interest litigation [61].
Therefore, public interest litigation envisages [60]: (a) a court action by an individual or a group
of individuals belonging to a community or an indeterminate class against any person who violates
the law or an administrative wrong that remotely or equally affects the members of that community
or class; and (b) a court action by a public-spirited citizen or a body devoted to the public cause to
vindicate the rights of individuals, groups or even the public at large against a person who violates
the law or an administrative wrong, though the person or body undertaking the court action may not
have suffered any injury personally.
In public interest litigation, the petitioner seeks to champion a public cause for the benefit of the
society. Again, the focus dictates the principal features of the litigation [57]. First, since the litigation
is not strictly adversarial, the scope of the controversy is flexible. Parties and official agencies may
be joined as the litigation unfolds, and new and unexpected issues may emerge to dominate the case.
Second, the orientation of the case is prospective. The petitioner seeks to prevent illegitimate affairs
from continuing into the future. Third, because the relief sought is corrective rather than compensatory,
this type of litigation does not only depend on the right asserted. Fourth, it is difficult to delimit the
duration and effect of this new kind of litigation. Prospective judicial relief implies continuing judicial
involvement. The parties often return to the court for fresh directions and orders. Finally, because the
relief is sometimes directed against government policies, it may have impacts that extend far beyond
the parties in the case. In view of these features, it is a pressing need to establish Environmental Courts
and Tribunals that flexibly and innovatively adopt public interest litigation [2].
The development of public interest litigation with the above stated features emanates from the fact
that it provides a means to redress public wrongs which remained un-remedied under the traditional
rules of locus standi. Traditionally, even when an individual had the will and capacity to approach the
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4735 7 of 20

court, the individual or groups suffering from adverse administrative action or from acts of persons
who violate the law may not themselves be in a position to undertake litigation to vindicate their
interests because of poverty, ignorance, and/or fear. Moreover, the interests affected may be so
minute that there may not be any incentive to one individual to undertake court action to vindicate
his grievance.
In a nutshell, public interest litigation has created a ray of hope in the dark abyss of civil litigation
and injustice [56]. It is an effort made to wipe tears from every eye. As such, governments and their
officers in any corner of the world must welcome public interest litigation, because it would provide
them with an occasion to examine whether the society is attaining its rights under the legal system [56].

2.4.2. Historical Use of Public Interest Litigation in the Protection of the Environment
When there is market failure, states are expected to protect the environment through the use
taxation and the command-and-control instruments of the polluter-pays principle [38,39,41,43,48].
Simultaneously, in seeking to hold states responsible for environmental pollution, public interest
litigation could follow either a fundamental right approach or a duty of care method [4].
Certainly, the environmental rights-based litigation has a number of advantages. Significantly,
rights rhetoric has tremendous potential for the mobilization of citizens for a cause [64]. Additionally,
human rights are universal in scope, and therefore this argument is applicable beyond the national
boundaries of a single state. Hence, it could be employed in cases before regional and international
courts [4].
In addition, the historical use of public interest litigation within the context of environmental
justice shows its potential role in the struggle against waste mismanagement in both common and civil
law jurisdictions of developed and developing counties [4]. Thus, the application of public interest
litigation in combating unsustainable waste management is not context-specific, and it can be stretched
across all legal systems [4].
As a corollary, it is safe to conclude that the potential role of public interest litigation in the
struggle against waste mismanagement is applicable in Ethiopia [5,6].

3. The Role of Public Interest Litigation in the Achievement of Sustainable Waste Management in
Ethiopia
Subject to the conceptual framework of the research under Section 2, this section appraises the
legal framework, role and obstacles of public interest litigation in the achievement of sustainable waste
management in Ethiopia.

3.1. Legal Framework of Environmental Public Interest Litigation in Ethiopia

3.1.1. Liberalization of Standing that Led to Environmental Public Interest Litigation

Under the Ethiopian legal system, all persons have the right to live in a clean and healthy
environment [8]. Since the right to live in a clean and healthy environment is part of the fundamental
rights and freedoms of the Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE),
the federal and state legislative, executive and judicial organs at all levels and all citizens have the
responsibility and duty to respect and enforce it [8,9].
Along with bringing about the legal penetration of environmental rights and duties,
the Environmental Policy of Ethiopia [65] and the Rio Declaration [66] call for effective access to judicial
and administrative proceedings. Concomitantly, the FDRE Constitution stipulates the following [8]:

1. Everyone has the right to bring a justiciable matter to, and to obtain a decision or judgment by,
a court of law or any other competent body with judicial power
2. The decision or judgment referred to under sub-article 1 of this article may also be sought by any
group or person who is a member of or represents a group with similar interests.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4735 8 of 20

According to Fasil Nahom, Article 37 (2) (b) is designed to ensure that the door is wide open for
the public to satisfy its needs of access to justice. What this means is that the constitution is in favor of
broad, social issue-oriented employment of the law and its institutions, rather than a narrow legalistic
approach that makes the law distant from everyday concerns of the society and difficult to access [67].
In this way, the constitution would work for making the law and the court truly serve the people
rather than merely serving the lawyers. Beyond the traditional issues, the law and the courts would
interest themselves and actively engage in broad social issues, such as ensuring a clean and healthy
environment [67].
Accordingly, by stressing the importance of compliance with duties and not only rights, this
expansion of the ability to sue will paradoxically build a stronger framework for the protection of
diffused rights, such as the right to live in a clean and healthy environment.
Thus, consonant with the FDRE Constitution and the Environmental Policy of Ethiopia, the House
of Peoples’ Representatives has promulgated the Environmental Pollution Control Proclamation,
which stipulates [9]:

Any person shall have, without the need to show any vested interest, the right to lodge a
complaint at the authority or the relevant regional environmental agency against any person
allegedly causing actual or potential damage to the environment.

Based on this provision, the central question for public interest standing is whether a sufficient
public injury had taken place as has been alleged to support the claim that the petition was brought in
the public interest. Thus, the public interest standing provision should be read as doing away with the
necessity of the plaintiff’s vested interest.
Consequently, we can infer that a restrictive view of locus standi and person aggrieved has been
supplemented by public interest standing. Thus, any public-spirited person dedicated to the public
cause has standing to bring a common cause before a court of law.
Finally, with respect to the format, the public interest litigation form of pleading should be on the
basis of Article 80 (2) and the statement of claim Form No. 36 (first schedule) of the Civil Procedure
Code of Ethiopia [51].

3.1.2. Public Interest Standing in Administrative and Judicial Action

In environmental governance, one of the forces that impelled the liberalization of
standing stemmed from the need to check substantive and/or procedural ultra vires of
environmental authorities.
In Ethiopia, the objective of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change is to
formulate policies, strategies, laws and stakeholders that foster social and economic development in a
manner that enhances the welfare of humans and the safety and sustainability of the environment. It is
also to spearhead efforts to ensure the effectiveness of their implementation [68]. In line with this, it
has also the duty to coordinate measures and to ensure that the environmental objectives provided
under the constitution and the basic principles set out in the Environmental Policy of Ethiopia are
realized [68]. On the basis of the above objectives and duties of the Ministry, we can infer that it is
vested with enormous regulatory powers.
Despite the above regulatory powers vested in the Ministry, however, it could delay, miss
deadlines, convert mandatory standards to discretionary ones, create loopholes, water down strict
statutes in the regulatory process, or simply refuse to use its enforcement powers when faced with
blatant violations [69]. In such cases, if it causes damage to any person who has vested interest, it will
be legally liable. Nonetheless, when its acts and/or omissions cause damage to the public interest,
the scheme of traditional litigation precludes relief and renders its failure immune from judicial
scrutiny [69]. At the same time, Ethiopia’s unpreparedness to have a comprehensive administrative
law reinforces the substantive and/or procedural violations of public officials.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4735 9 of 20

To curb instances of such environmental organs’ lawlessness with diffused impacts, therefore, the
House of Peoples’ Representatives of Ethiopia expanded the standing in environmental proceedings to
enable every citizen to challenge their inaction or abuse in the interest of the public, even when the
citizen has not yet sustained personal injury [9].
In this case, though public interest standing provisions are drawn cautiously, they represent a
substantial qualification of two of the more durable dogmas of public law. The first is that prosecution
and enforcement is solely the business of public officials and perpetrators. The second, the corollary
of the first, is that regulatory and enforcement priorities are left to the authorities with little or no
interference from outsiders, particularly the courts [70]. In this respect, while the Environmental
Pollution Control Proclamation by no means has discarded the notion of public control of public
prosecution, the novel fashioning of the public interest standing provision recognizes that compliance
with environmental laws is the business of an alert community as well as of trained specialists.
As a result, the Environmental Pollution Control Proclamation, which is the first of its kind and
thus a prototype for public interest standing, provides that [9]:

[w]here the authority or regional environmental agency fails to give a decision within thirty
days or when the person who has lodged the complaint is dissatisfied with the decision,
he may institute a court case within sixty days from the date the decision was given or the
deadline for decision has elapsed.

The article proposes to grant public interest groups a secondary right of standing. Only in cases
where the public authorities do not act at all, or not properly, do alert citizens or public interest groups
have the right to take legal action. Alert citizens or public interest groups thus must respect the waiting
period of thirty days, during which the environmental authorities have the exclusive right to take
action and decide on the necessity and extent of restoration measures. In other words, the notice
provisions are intended to afford the authority an opportunity to do its job. They are not to frustrate
the citizens’ actions with procedural trickery, and they should be construed flexibly and realistically to
advance the essential purpose. In cases of urgent situations, however, there is legal ground to grant
such public-spirited individuals the right to directly ask a court for an injunction in order to prevent
significant damage or avoid further damage to the environment [51].
In the case of judicial review, when the person who has lodged the complaint is dissatisfied with
the decision, it seems that public interest groups are not only granted the right to challenge the decision
of the public authorities not to recover damage, but they may also challenge any relevant decision,
including the one regarding the selection of the most appropriate restoration alternative if they can
make a plausible case that the selected alternative is inappropriate. The latter might be the case if the
selected restoration alternative is inadequate to fully restore at a reasonable price the damaged natural
resources, or if a full restoration would take too long [59].
In line with the above points, a vital issue that needs to be understood by any individual or group
considering bringing a judicial review is timeliness. The rule is that an application for judicial review
in an environmental proceeding must be brought promptly and in any event within sixty days from
the date the decision was given or the deadline for decision has elapsed [9]. The justification behind
this period of limitation could be the fact that judicial review is usually aimed at stopping decisions
before they are put into effect rather than when it is too late and the harm has already been done [49].
Since the right to a clean and healthy environment is one of the fundamental rights [8], the court
should have discretion to extend the period of limitation when there is a good reason for delay. Even if
this is the case, however, since the discretion is with the court, it may be difficult for the plaintiff to
persuade the court to agree to extend the time in cases where a third party has been prejudiced by the
delay. For this very reason, the plaintiff is advised to conform to the primary duty that the application
must be made promptly.
In legal standing in relation to environmental proceedings, the next issue that requires due
consideration is identifying the plaintiff(s) who could initiate legal action when damage is caused to
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4735 10 of 20

the environment. When damage is done to the environment under the FDRE’s legal system, several
persons have legal standing, so that it is pertinent to scrutinize whether there could be a joinder of
plaintiffs in the legal action. In legal action, “joint plaintiffs” simply means plaintiffs consisting of
more than one person or party who seeks to file suit against the same defendant or defendants. On
the basis of the Civil Procedure Code of the FDRE, persons are entitled to join as plaintiffs if two
conditions are satisfied [51]: (1) the right to relief must arise from the same transaction or series of
transactions, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative; and (2) if such persons brought separate
actions, a common question of law or fact would arise. In environmental proceedings, the right to a
clean and healthy environment is a collective as well as a personal right, and the right to bring legal
action does not require the demonstration of any vested interest. Furthermore, legal personality in an
environmental proceeding is multifaceted in that such a proceeding may bestow legal personality to
the future generations and to the environment itself as a separate legal entity. Thus, at times when the
two conditions set in the civil procedure are fulfilled, the joinder of plaintiffs should be allowed when
bringing legal action against the same defendant(s).
The corollary to the identification of the plaintiff(s) is the identification of the responsible
party—that is, the defendant(s). As has already been stated, in a judicial review in relation to an
environmental proceeding, the complaint is that the environmental authority either allows a harmful
or polluting activity to be carried out or does not prevent the polluter(s) from continuing. In this
respect, we can see at least two parties for the pollution of the environment; these are the polluter(s)
and the environmental authority. As a corollary, it is important to scrutinize whether there is ground
for the joinder of defendants. Under the Ethiopian legal system:

All persons against whom the right to any relief is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally
or in the alternative, may be joined as defendants where, if separate suits were brought
against such persons, any common question of law or fact would arise [51].

In this provision, there is only one condition for joinder of defendants, namely a common question
of law or fact. In line with this requirement for the joinder of defendants, in public interest litigation in
relation to environmental proceedings, it is fairly easy to pinpoint the existence of a common question
of law or fact that would make the environmental authority and the polluter(s) joinder defendants.
Consequently, we can bring legal action against them jointly. At this juncture, however, it is important
to take notice that it is not necessary that every defendant be interested as to all the relief claimed in
any suit against him [51].
That is, the plaintiff(s) could seek some relief against one defendant and different or alternative
relief against others. The point is, therefore, that the plaintiff may join all defendants if there is any
common question of law or fact irrespective of the difference in the type of relief claimed from each
defendant. In other words, the plaintiff does not have to claim the same relief against all defendants,
and the court will enter a judgment against each defendant to the extent that the defendant may
be found liable to the plaintiff(s). Accordingly, the relief claimed against one defendant may be
inconsistent with that claimed against the other defendants. Hence, the environmental authority or the
polluter/s have no ground for objection from being joinder defendants on the basis of the fact that
they may not be liable for all or the same relief the plaintiff claims.
Following the identification of the parties to a suit, the next issue that should be addressed is the
question of material jurisdiction in an environmental proceeding. Under the Ethiopian legal system,
the Civil Procedure Code [51] and the Federal Courts Proclamation [71] provides that a suit the subject
matter of which cannot be expressed in terms of money shall be entertained by the Federal First
Instance Court having local jurisdiction.
The same procedure applies in environmental proceedings since the subject matter of the suit in
environmental proceedings may not be expressed in terms of money.
Before concluding the discussion, to have a full-fledged understanding of this topic, it is also
important to look briefly at the principle of res judicata. According to this principle, if a state acts
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4735 11 of 20

properly in its capacity to address the damage to the environment, the private parties do not have an
interest that is distinct from the interest on behalf of whom the state is acting, and they will in turn be
bound by res judicata. Nonetheless, when there are damages that have not yet been entertained by the
government, they are recoverable without being hampered by the principle of res judicata.
In cases where the claim to damage to the environment is initiated by public interest groups, the
law provides the following.

Where persons litigate in good faith in respect of public or private rights claimed in common
for themselves and others, all persons interested in such rights shall be deemed to claim
under the person so litigating [51].

An a contrario reading of the provision implies that, if the previous proceeding was not bona fide
public interest litigation, the rule of res judicata will not operate and the subsequent proceeding would
not be barred by res judicata.

3.2. Obstacles to Environmental Public Interest Litigation in Ethiopia

3.2.1. The Judiciary System of Ethiopia and Environmental Public Interest Litigation
In the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, judicial power is vested in both the federal
government and the regions [8,71]. Correspondingly, this section appraises the federal and AAA
judiciary system in the context of public interest litigation.

(1) Federal Government Judiciary System

Based on the FDRE Constitution, in Ethiopia “Supreme Federal judicial authority is vested in
the Federal Supreme Court. The House of Peoples’ Representatives may, by two-thirds majority vote,
establish nationwide or in some parts of the country only, the Federal High Court and First-Instance
Courts it deems necessary” [8].
Accordingly, the federal government has established the Federal Supreme Court, the Federal High
Court and the Federal First Instance Court with civil, criminal and labor divisions [71]. They shall
have civil jurisdiction over, among other things, cases to which a federal government organ is a party;
cases regarding the liability of employees of the federal government in connection with their official
responsibilities; and suits relating to business organizations registered or formed under the jurisdiction
of the federal government organs [71].
Accordingly, civil cases relating to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change of
Ethiopia and the Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Electricity and their officials, and the federally
licensed industries are subject to jurisdiction of the federal courts.
Correspondingly, the federal courts shall settle cases or disputes submitted to them within their
jurisdiction on the basis of federal laws, international treaties and regional states’ laws where the cases
relate to the same [71].
In parallel, the Civil Procedure Code of Ethiopia shall apply with respect to matters not provided
for under this Proclamation in so far as they are not inconsistent therewith [71].

(2) Addis Ababa Administration (AAA) Judiciary System

On the basis of the FDRE Constitution in Ethiopia, “states shall establish State Supreme, High
and First-instance Courts. Particulars shall be determined by law” [8]. Accordingly, the AAA has
established the Addis Ababa City Courts and Qebele Social Courts; and Labour Relations Board, Civil
Service Tribunal, Tax Appeals Commission and Urban Land Clearance Matters Appeals Commission,
which are entrusted with judicial power [72].
Correspondingly, the Addis Ababa Administration Courts shall have, among other things, civil
jurisdiction over suits arising in connection with the regulatory powers and functions of the executive
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4735 12 of 20

and municipal service bodies of the administration [72]. Accordingly, civil cases relating to the Addis
Ababa Environmental Protection Authority, Addis Ababa Cleanliness Administration Agency, Addis
Ababa Solid Waste Re-use and Disposal Project Office and Addis Ababa Water and Sewerage Authority
are subject to the jurisdiction of the Addis Ababa Administration Courts.
Nevertheless, at this juncture, it is important to note that neither the federal government nor the
AAA is in position to establish environmental divisions that flexibly and innovatively adopt public
interest litigation in the context of environmental justice [23,73,74].

3.2.2. Civil Procedure Code of Ethiopia and Environmental Public Interest Litigation
Subject to traditional litigation (see details in Section 2.4.1 (a)), the Civil Procedure Code of
Ethiopia was drafted by the Codification Department of the Ministry of Justice. The Code was
promulgated as a Decree [51] by the Emperor [75], and it became effective on 8 October 1965.
The Civil Procedure Code has stipulated that no party may be a plaintiff in a suit unless he (she)
has a vested interest in the suit [51]. Besides, save suits by paupers [51], no statement of claim shall be
admitted under Art. 230 of the Code except after payment of the prescribed court fee [51]. This implies
that the Code is literally designed to translate traditional litigation into action.
Recently, Ethiopia has given a green light to environmental public interest litigation [9]. However,
the prototype case APAP vs. the Federal Environmental Protection Authority of Ethiopia has
demonstrated that the case was entertained in a landscape equipped for traditional litigation [23].
An issue of considerable practical importance in public interest litigation is who pays the bill for
environmental litigation. It is an unfortunate but inescapable fact of life that the energy of the legal
system is responsive largely to financial incentives.
It is important to note that litigation costs may be awarded to any party. This means that plaintiffs
may be assessed with litigation costs. Accordingly, high costs of civil procedure and especially the risk
of losing the case and, as a result, having to pay the costs incurred by the other party may deter public
interest groups. In other words, unless public interest groups are protected from awards of litigation
costs for all but extreme instances of bad faith and frivolous assertion, the ends of the public interest
standing measures will be served poorly.
Thus, to have actual public interest litigation, the government should improve public participation
in the legal process by changing the cost rules for cases brought forward by private litigants that are
demonstrably in the public interest.
Thus, there is a pressing need for Ethiopia to cautiously revise its Civil Procedure Code in a way
that accommodates the peculiar features of public interest litigation.

3.2.3. Civil Society Organizations and Environmental Public Interest Litigation in Ethiopia
Environmental organizations play a critical role in shaping the implementation of our
environmental laws. One of the primary methods these groups use is judicial challenges to agency
regulations or actions that these groups believe will harm the environment [76].
In Ethiopia, there are Ethiopian Charities [77], Ethiopian Resident Charities [77 and Foreign
Charities [77]. On the basis of the Charities and Societies Proclamation of Ethiopia, a charity refers
to an institution that is established exclusively for charitable purposes and gives benefit to public,
charitable purposes, including both rights and development-based activism [77].
Nevertheless, at the moment, the advancement of human and democratic rights and the promotion
of the efficiency of the justice and law enforcement services can be exercised only by Ethiopian
Charities [77]. As a result, Ethiopian Resident Charities/Societies, and Foreign Charities cannot
exercise environmental justice-based human rights activism.
Thus, at the moment, it is safe to conclude that the scope of public interest standing in Ethiopia is
highly restrictive for Civil Society Organizations.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4735 13 of 20

3.3. The Role of Public Interest Litigation in the Achievement of Sustainable Waste Management in the Addis
Ababa Administration of Ethiopia
In Ethiopia, the federal and state legislative, executive and judicial organs at all levels have a duty
to respect and enforce the right to a clean and healthy environment [8,9].
In addition, Ethiopia is committed to fostering common but differentiated responsibilities
that avoid conflicts of interest and duplication of efforts by assigning responsibilities to separate
organizations for environmental and natural resource development and management activities on the
one hand and environmental protection, regulation and monitoring on the other [65,68,78,79].
Correspondingly, this research assesses the role of public interest litigation in encouraging the
federal and regional environmental protection and management organs of Ethiopia to implement
environmental tax and the command-and-control instruments of the polluter-pays principle as means
of achieving sustainable waste management in Ethiopia.

3.3.1. Municipal Waste and Effluent Management

Municipal Waste Management

In the Addis Ababa Administration, the Addis Ababa Cleanliness Administration Agency
(AACAA) [80–82], Addis Ababa Solid Waste Re-use and Disposal Project Office (AASWRDPO) [80–82]
and Addis Ababa Water and Sewerage Authority (AAWSA) [80–84] are, respectively, bound to ensure
environmental tax-based sustainable solid waste collection, landfill and sewerage services in the
AAA [80]. Correspondingly, this section is allocated to appraise the law and the practice of their
respective sanitary service provision.

a. Solid Waste Management

In the AAA, the Addis Ababa Cleanliness Administration Agency (AACAA) is bound to
internalize the social cost of its solid waste collection service [81] and to incentivize sustainable
solid waste management through the implementation of a solid waste charge [7,9,80–82,85].
However, since the rate of the solid waste charge is so nominal [12], and there is only a partly
effective solid waste charge collection system [11], AACAA is slightly translating the distributive role
of the solid waste charge into action [12,86–88].
As a result, the lion’s share of the social cost of its solid waste collection service [86–88 is covered
by the subsidy it is allocated from the AAA [12,24–27].
At the same time, in the AAA, the Addis Ababa Solid Waste Re-use and Disposal Project Office
(AASWRDPO) is bound to internalize the social cost of its landfill service and to incentivize sustainable
solid waste management through the practical implementation of a landfill charge [7,9,80–82].
Nevertheless, since the rate of the landfill charge is so nominal [12] and there is only a partly
effective landfill charge collection system [11], AASWRDPO is slightly translating the distributive role
of the landfill charge into action [12]. Consequently, the lion’s share of the social cost of its landfill
service [89–91] is covered by the subsidy it is allocated from the AAA [12,24–27].
Simultaneously, since the rates of the solid waste and landfill charges are nominal, they are not
creating an incentive for the residents of the AAA to sustainably manage their solid waste [14,92].

b. Sewerage Service

In the AAA, the Addis Ababa Water and Sewerage Authority (AAWSA) is bound to internalize
the social cost of its sewerage service and to incentivize sustainable sewerage management through the
practical implementation of sewerage service charges, including sludge dislodging and sewer service
charges [7,9,80–84].
Nevertheless, since the rate of the sewerage service charge is so nominal [12], AAWSA is only
slightly translating the distributive role of sludge dislodging charge [12].
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4735 14 of 20

In addition, since the rate of the sewerage service charges is nominal, it is not creating an incentive
for the residents of the AAA to sustainably manage their sludge and sewage [93,94].
As a logical extension of the foregoing points, at the moment, one can safely conclude that
the sanitary service provision organs of the AAA, i.e., AACAA, AASWRDPO and AAWSA, are not
properly exercising their respective sanitary service provision.

3.3.2. Effluent Management

a. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change of Ethiopia (MEFCCE)

In line with environmental federalism, the MEFCCE has a duty to enforce the federal
environmental policies and laws and to spearhead the assurance of environmental protection [65,68,95].
In parallel, it is bound to avoid overlaps, wastage and gaps in their implementation [78], and where
necessary, delegate part of its mandates to other federal/regional organs [68,95]. Accordingly, this
section is allocated to appraise the law and the practice of its environmental impact assessment, permit
and regulation systems.

(1) Environmental Impact Assessment System

Being sector neutral [79], the MEFCCE has the mandate to establish a federal environmental
impact assessment (EIA) system for projects that are subject to licensing, execution and supervision by
a federal agency or that are likely to produce a trans-regional impact. As a corollary, it is responsible
for evaluating and monitoring the implementation of the EIA study and environmental management
plans of the projects, respectively [68,78,96].
In practice, the MEFCCE has, on the basis of the decision of the Council of Ministers of Ethiopia
(CME), delegated its power to review EIAR to sectoral institutions [97]. Subsequently, the MWIEE [97]
and Ministry of Industry of Ethiopia [97,98] are, inter alia, reviewing the EIA studies of the proponents
that fall in their sectoral jurisdiction.
Since the delegation of the power to review EIAR is bestowed on sectoral institutions that have a
conflict of interest in the review, and because it is performed on the basis of the decision of the CME,
it is vulnerable to substantive and procedural ultra-vires [98].
Thus, while the EIA mandate of the MEFCCE is consonant with environmental federalism, the
delegation of part of it to sectoral institutions is susceptible to sectoral conflict of interest.

(2) Environmental Permit and Regulation System

Where projects are subject to federal licensing, execution and supervision or when they are
likely to produce trans-regional impact, they are subject to the MEFCCE permit and regulation
system [10,68,96].
In practice, since it has delegated its industrial, manufacturing and service delivery
permit issuance and renewal mandate to the Addis Ababa Environmental Protection Authority
(AAEPA) [99,100], its effluent permit and renewal mandates on proponents that are likely to produce
a trans-regional/national impact in the AAA by default fall within the domain of AAEPA.
Thus, while the permit and regulation mandates of the MEFCCE are consonant with
environmental federalism, the delegation of its permit and regulation mandates to AAEPA is
susceptible to inter-state conflict of interest.

b. The Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Electricity of Ethiopia (MWIEE)

In Ethiopia, the Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Electricity (MWIEE) may issue permits for the
release of treated waste into rivers linking two or more states or crossing the territorial jurisdiction of
Ethiopia and may collect effluent charges from permit holders [101,102].
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4735 15 of 20

The inbuilt area of Addis Ababa is found in the Akaki River basin, and the absolute majority of
industries in it dispose their effluent into the Akaki River, which joins to the trans-regional Awash
River that crosses the Oromia and Somalia National Regional States of Ethiopia [103].
Concurrently, the MWIEE is bound to internalize the cost of restoration of authorized degradation
of the Akaki River and to incentivize sustainable effluent management through the practical
implementation of a federal effluent charge [7,101].
In practice, since the federal government has not yet developed the rate of its effluent charge [12],
it has no operating effluent permit system [11] and there is no effluent charge collection system [11],
the MWIEE is neither internalizing the social cost of authorized degradation of the Akaki River nor
creating an incentive for the industries to sustainably manage their effluent [12].
Hence, the absolute majority of the industries are hardly using the full range of effluent abatement
options, and they are directly disposing their untreated effluent into the Akaki River [12,20,21,23,73,74,
98,103–105].
As a logical extension of the foregoing points, at the moment, one can safely conclude that the
MEFCCE and MWIEE are not fully exercising their mandate in the protection and management of the
Akaki River.

3.3.3. Public Interest Litigation Opportunities in the Achievement of Sustainable Waste Management
a. Public Interest Litigation in the Addis Ababa Administration (AAA) of Ethiopia

As clearly indicated under Section 3.3.1, the Addis Ababa Cleanliness Administration Agency
(AACAA), Addis Ababa Solid Waste Re-use and Disposal Project Office (AASWRDPO) and
Addis Ababa Water and Sewerage Authority (AAWSA) are not properly exercising their mandate.
Consequently, the AAA is subject to prevalent municipal waste mismanagement.
Thus, any person, without the need to show vested interest, can lodge a complaint with the Addis
Ababa Environmental Protection Authority (AAEPA) against the sanitary service provision organs
that fail to provide sustainable solid waste and sewerage management [106].
When the AAEPA fails to give a decision within thirty days or when the person who has lodged
the complaint is dissatisfied with the decision, he may institute a case in the AAA first instance court
within sixty days from the date the decision was given or the deadline for decision has elapsed [106].
Ultimately, following exhaustion of local remedies or when there is undue prolongation,
the public interest groups can lodge their complaint against the government of Ethiopia at the African
Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights [107].
Thus, at the moment, it is safe to conclude that public interest litigation can play an effective role
in combating unsustainable solid waste and sewerage management in the AAA of Ethiopia.

b. Public Interest Litigation in the Federal Jurisdiction of Ethiopia

As clearly indicated under Section 3.3.2, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
of Ethiopia (MEFCCE) and the Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Electricity (MWIEE) are not properly
exercising their mandate. Consequently, the absolute majority of industries in the AAA dispose their
effluent into the Akaki River [103].
Thus, any person, without the need to show vested interest, can lodge a complaint with the
MEFCCE against itself and the MWIEE for their failure to realize sustainable effluent management [9].
When the MEFCCE fails to give a decision within thirty days or when the person who has lodged
the complaint is dissatisfied with the decision, he may institute a case in the federal first instance court
within sixty days from the date the decision was given or the deadline for decision has elapsed [9].
Ultimately, following exhaustion of local remedies or when there is undue prolongation,
the public interest groups can lodge their complaint against the government of Ethiopia at the African
Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights [107].
As a corollary, at the moment, it is safe to conclude that public interest litigation can play an
effective role in combating unsustainable effluent management in Ethiopia.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4735 16 of 20

4. Conclusions
This research assessed the role of public interest litigation in the achievement of sustainable
waste management in the AAA of Ethiopia. It has first shown Ethiopia’s commitment to sustainable
waste management, implement environmental tax and the command-and-control instruments of
the polluter-pays principle and public interest litigation within the context of environmental justice.
Secondly, it has shown that public interest litigation is one of the innovative techniques in a struggle
against waste mismanagement across all legal systems. Thirdly, it has demonstrated the potential
role of public interest litigation in Ethiopia for encouraging the federal and regional environmental
protection and management organs to implement environmental tax and command-and-control
instruments. Fourthly, it has uncovered that public interest litigation is not fully compatible with
the Civil Procedure Code of Ethiopia. Fifthly, it has shown the failure of the judiciary system of
Ethiopia to accommodate environmental courts and tribunals that flexibly and innovatively adopt
public interest litigation. Sixthly, it has revealed that, in Ethiopia, the scope of public interest standing
is highly restrictive for Civil Society Organizations (CSO). Finally, it implies that the legal viability and
administrative feasibility of environmental public interest litigation in Ethiopia is in its infancy, and its
crystallization is partly contingent on the cautious review of the Civil Procedure Code and CSO laws
and on greening the judiciary system.

Funding: This research was funded by The Netherlands Organisation for International Cooperation in Higher
Education (Nuffic) grant number NICHE/ETH/020.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References and Notes

1. 2030 Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2015). Goal 6, 16.
Available online: [Link] (accessed on 30 April 2018).
2. Pring, G.; Pring, C. Environmental Courts and Tribunals; UNON/Publishing Services Section: Nairobi, Kenya,
2016; pp. 13–14. ISBN 978-92-807-3608-3. Available online: [Link]
500.11822/10001/[Link]?sequence=1 (accessed on 11 June 2018).
3. Hussain, F. Public Interest Litigation in Pakistan. Working No. 5. Available online: [Link]
publications/files/W5-Public%20Interest%[Link] (accessed on 2 July 2018).
4. Van Geel, O. Urgenda and beyond: The past, present and future of climate change public interest litigation.
Maastricht Univ. J. Sustain. Stud. 2017, 64, 66. Available online: [Link]
SustainabilityStudies/article/view/508/370 (accessed on 2 July 2018).
5. United Nations Committee for Development Policy, List of Least Developed Countries (as of March
2018). Available online: [Link]
publication/ldc_list.pdf (accessed on 29 June 2018).
6. Tesfaye, A. Introduction to Law and the Ethiopian Legal System; Justice and Legal System Research Institute:
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2009; p. 58. Available online: [Link]
[Link] (accessed on 30 May 2018).
7. Gebregiorgs, M.T. What are the instrumental roles of the introduction of environmental tax in the realisation
of the polluter-pays principle in Ethiopia? SAJELP 2016, 22, 3–43.
8. The Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Proclamation (FDREC); No. 1/1995, No. 1,
1995, Article 13(1), 37, 44, 78, 92.
9. Federal Pollution Control Proclamation; No. 300/2002, No. 12, 2002, Article 5, 11.
10. Prevention of Industrial Pollution Council of Ministers Regulation; No. 159/2008, No. 14, 2008, Article 5,
10, 13.
11. Gebregiorgs, M.T. Introducing an administratively feasible environmental tax system in Ethiopia. JELL 2018,
33, 327–374.
12. Gebregiorgs, M.T. Towards sustainable waste management through cautious design of environmental taxes:
The case of Ethiopia. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3088. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4735 17 of 20

13. Addis Ababa Cleanliness Administration Agency (AACAA). Addis Ababa Cleanliness Administration Agency
Solid Waste Policy; AACAA: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 1995.
14. Bjerkli, C.L. Governance on the ground: A study of solid waste management in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
IJURR 2013, 37, 1273–1287. [CrossRef]
15. Addis Ababa Water and Sewerage Authority (AAWSA). Waste Water Treatment and Reuse Sub-Process 2015
Annual Report; AAWSA: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2015.
16. Addis Ababa Water and Sewerage Authority (AAWSA). Waste Water Treatment and Reuse Sub-Process 2016
Annual Report; AAWSA: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2016.
17. Addis Ababa Water and Sewerage Authority (AAWSA). Waste Water Treatment and Reuse Sub-Process 2017
Annual Report; AAWSA: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2017.
18. Environmental Protection Authority ‘National Report of Ethiopia: UN Conference on Sustainable
Development’ (Rio+20). 2012. Available online: [Link]
documents/[Link] (accessed on 30 April 2018).
19. Ministry of Water Resources. Ethiopian Water Resources Management Policy; The Federal Democratic Republic
of Ethiopia: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2001.
20. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change of Ethiopia (MEFCCE). Assessment on Industrial
Pollution and the Environmental, Economic and Social Impact; MEFCCE: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2014.
21. Ministry of Industry of Ethiopia. Summary of Review Works on Environmental Management Practices of Selected
Industries in Ethiopia; Ministry of Industry of Ethiopia: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2014.
22. Tsegai, B. Industrial Pollution Control and Management in Ethiopia: A Case Study on Almeda Factory and
Sheba Leather Industry in Tigrai National Regional State. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Warwick School of Law,
Warwick, UK, 2015. Available online: [Link]/67913/1/WRAP_THESIS_Ghebretekle_2015.pdf
(accessed on 29 April 2018).
23. Federal First Instance Court of Ethiopia. Action for Professionals’ Association for the People (APAP) vs. the Federal
Environmental Protection Authority of Ethiopia; Civil File No. 64902; Federal First Instance Court: Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia, 28 February 2007.
24. Addis Ababa City Government 2006 E.C. Fiscal Year Budget Proclamation; No. 31/2013, No. 39, 2013.
25. Addis Ababa City Government 2007 E.C. Fiscal Year Budget Proclamation; No. 41/2014, No. 41, 2014.
26. Addis Ababa City Government 2008 E.C. Fiscal Year Budget Proclamation; NO. 44/2015 E.C., NO. 44, 2015.
27. Addis Ababa City Government 2009 E.C. Fiscal Year Budget Proclamation; NO. 47/2016 G.C., NO. 47, 2016.
28. Addis Ababa City Government Revised Charter Proclamation; No. 361/2003, No. 86, 2003.
29. Addis Ababa Action Agenda of the Third International Conference on Financing for Development (2015).
pp. 5–6. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 23 May 2018).
30. World Health Organization, Chemicals and Waste Management: Essential to Achieving the Sustainable
Development Goals. Available online: [Link]
brochure_final_01Feb18.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2018).
31. Directive 2008/98/EC on Waste. Available online: [Link]
framework_directive.htm (accessed on 27 April 2018).
32. National Planning Commission of Ethiopia. Growth and Transformation Plan II of Ethiopia Volume I: Main Text
(2015/16-2020/21); The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2016; pp. 76, 77, 113.
33. Finance and Economic Development Bureau of Addis Ababa Administration. Growth and Transformation
Plan II (2015/16-2020/21); Addis Ababa Administration: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2016; p. 39.
34. Bhatia, H.L. Public Finance, 19th ed.; Vikas Publishing House PVT LTD: New Delhi, India, 1998; p. 5.
35. Markandya, A.; Perelet, R.; Mason, P.; Taylor, T. Dictionary of Environmental Economics; Earthscan Publications
Ltd.: London, UK, 2002; pp. 5, 94, 129, 172. ISBN 1-85383-529-3.
36. Alm, J.; Banzhaf, H.S. Designing economic instruments for the environment in a decentralized fiscal system.
J. Econ. Surv. 2012, 26, 178–179. Available online: [Link]
[Link] (accessed on 30 May 2018). [CrossRef]
37. Pigou, A.C. The Economics of Welfare, 1st ed.; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 1932; pp. 21, 134, 172.
ISBN 978-0230249318.
38. De Sadeleer, N. Environmental Principles from Political Slogan to Legal Rules; Oxford University Press: New York,
NY, USA, 2002; p. 21. ISBN 978-0-19-928092-6.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4735 18 of 20

39. Bell, S.; McGillivray, D. Environmental Law, 7th ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008;
pp. 18, 239, 240. ISBN 978-0-19-921102-9.
40. OECD. Environmentally Related Taxes in OECD Countries: Issues and Strategies; OECD Publications Service:
Paris, France, 2001; p. 19. ISBN 92-64-18731-6. Available online: [Link]
fiscalenviron/[Link] (accessed on 30 May 2018).
41. Kolstad, C.D. Environmental Economics; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2010; pp. 91, 151.
ISBN 9780199732647.
42. Ashford, N.A.; Caldart, C.C. Environmental Law, Policy, and Economics: Reclaiming the Environmental Agenda;
MIT Press: London, UK, 2008; p. 132. ISBN 978-0-262-01238-6.
43. Stewart, R.B. Economic incentives for environmental protection: Opportunities and obstacles.
In Environmental Law, the Economy, and Sustainable Development; Revesz, R.L., Sands, P., Stewart, R.B., Eds.;
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2008; pp. 172, 174, 176, 179. ISBN 0 521 64270 1.
44. Snape, J.; de Souza, J. Environmental Taxation Law: Policy, Contexts and Practice; Ashgate Publishing Limited:
Aldershot, UK, 2006; p. 119. ISBN 0 7546 2304 1.
45. Murty, M.N. Market-based instruments for pollution abatement in India. In Economics of Environment and
Development, 1st ed.; Kumar, P., Ed.; Ane Books: New Delhi, India, 2005; pp. 128, 130. ISBN 10:8180520838.
46. Barde, J.-P. Economic Instruments in Environmental Policy: Lessons from the OECD Experience and Their Relevance
to Developing Economies; Working paper No. 92; OECD: Paris, France, 1994; p. 10.
47. UNEP. The Use of Economic Instruments in Environmental Policy: Opportunities and Challenges. Available
online: [Link] (accessed on
31 May 2018).
48. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD); The World Bank (WB).
Environmental Fiscal Reform What Should Be Done and How to Achieve It; The International Bank
for Reconstruction and Development; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; pp. 12, 17,
20. Available online: [Link]
20712869/[Link] (accessed on 31 May 2018).
49. Day, M. Environmental Action: A Citizen Guide; Pluto Press: London, UK, 1988; pp. 185, 194.
ISBN 10: 0745311903.
50. Vanderline, J. The Law of Physical Persons; Addis Ababa: Faculty of Law, Haile Sellassie I University: Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia, Ethiopia, 1969; p. 3.
51. Civil Procedure Code of Ethiopia Decree (CPCED); No. 52, 1965, No. 3, 1965, Article 5, 18, 32(2), 33(1), 35,
36(1) and (2), 38, 154(1), 215(1), 467(2).
52. Stone, C.D. Should trees have standing: Toward legal rights for natural objects. Calif. Law Rev. 1972, 45, 455.
Available online: [Link]
[Link] (accessed on 4 July 2018).
53. Planiol, M. Treatise on the Civil Law (Vol. I); West Publishing Company: St. Paul, MN, USA, 1959; pp. 3–4.
54. Gilpin, A. Dictionary of Environmental Law; Edward Elgar Publishing Limited: Cheltenham, UK, 2000; pp. 19,
289. ISBN 1840641886.
55. American Jurisprudence, 2nd ed.; Lawyers Co-operative Pub. Co.: Rochester, NY, USA, 1962; p. 380.
56. Jaint, S. Public Interest Litigation; Deep and Deep Publications LTD: New Delhi, India, 2002; pp. 255, 257, 258,
281, 490, 495. ISBN 81-7629-415-2.
57. Diven, S.; Rosencranz, A. Environmental Law and Policy in India; Oxford University Press: New Delhi, India,
2001; pp. 132, 133, 134.
58. Sedler, R.A. Ethiopian Civil Procedure; Faculty of Law, Haileselassie I University, The Oxford University Press:
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 1968; p. 52.
59. Brans, E. Liability for Damage to Public Natural Resources: Standing, Damage and Damage Assessment; Kluwer
Law International: London, UK, 2001; p. 14, 49. ISBN 90-411-1724-5.
60. Hydervali, B. Public interest litigation introduction. Indian Law Inst.-Tamilnadv Unit J. Sect. Mon. Legal J. 1989,
37, 38.
61. Desai, A.; Muralidham, S. Public Interest Litigation: Potential and Problems; Oxford University Press: New Delhi,
India, 2000; Volume 3, p. 15.
62. Dhanan, H. Whose Law? Whose Interest? In Public Interest Law; 1986; p. 40. (In press)
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4735 19 of 20

63. Bonine, J. Standing to Sue: The First Step in Access to Justice. 1999. Available online: [Link]/asset/
pdf/[Link] (accessed on 23 January 2014).
64. Hilson, C. The visibility of environmental rights in the EU legal order: Eurolegalism in action? J. Eur.
Public Policy 2017. [CrossRef]
65. Environmental Protection Authority in Collaboration with the Ministry of Economic Development and
Cooperation of Ethiopia. Environmental Policy of Ethiopia (EPE); no. 2.2(h); The Federal Democratic Republic
of Ethiopia: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 1997.
66. UN ‘Rio Declaration on Environment and Development’ (1992). Principle 10. Available online: [Link].
org/documents/ga/conf151/[Link] (accessed on 30 April 2018).
67. Fasil, N. Constitution for A Nation of Nations: The Ethiopian Prospect; Red Sea Press: Asmera, Eritrea, 1997;
p. 150. ISBN 1-56902-050-7.
68. Federal Environmental Protection Organs Establishment Proclamation; No. 295/2002, No. 7, 2002,
Article 5, 6.
69. Campbell-Mohn, C.; Breen, B.; Futrell, J.W. Environmental Law from Resource to Recovery; West Group: Eagan,
MN, USA, 1993; p. 34, ISBN-13: 978-0314022295.
70. Rodgers, W.H. Handbook on Environmental Law; West Publishing Co.: Eagan, MN, USA, 1977; p. 75.
71. Federal Courts Proclamation; No. 25/1996, No. 13, 1996, Article 5, 6, 7, 14, 20, 23.
72. Addis Ababa City Government Revised Charter Proclamation; No. 39/2011, No. 24, 2011, Article 39, 40,
41(1) (b).
73. Federal High Court of Ethiopia. Action for Professionals’ Association for the People (APAP) vs. the Federal
Environmental Protection Authority of Ethiopia; Civil File No. 62904; Federal High Court: Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia, 12 June 2008.
74. Federal Supreme Court Cassation Division of Ethiopia. Action for Professionals’ Association for the People
(APAP) vs. the Federal Environmental Protection Authority of Ethiopia; Civil File No. 51052; Federal Supreme
Court: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 3 December 2008.
75. Revised Constitution of Ethiopia; 1/1955, No 2, 1955, Article 192.
76. Lawrence, B.M. Standing for Environmental Groups: An Overview and Recent Developments in the D.C.
Circuit (1989). Available online: [Link] (accessed on 2
July 2018).
77. Charities and Societies Proclamation; No. 621/2009, No. 25, 2009, Article 2, 14.
78. Definition of Powers and Duties of the Executive Organs of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
(Amendment) Proclamation; No. 803/2013, No. 61, 2013, Article 4(33).
79. Environmental Protection Authority in Collaboration with the Ministry of Economic Development and
Cooperation of Ethiopia. The Conservation Strategy of Ethiopia Volume III: Institutional Framework and Operational
Arrangements; The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 1996.
80. Waste Management, Collection and Disposal Regulation of the Addis Ababa City Administration
Government Regulation; No. 13/2004, No. 29, 2004, Article 25.
81. Regulation to Determine and Collect the Sanitary Service Tariff of the Addis Ababa City Government; No.
25/2009, No. 25, 2009, Article 3, 5,6.
82. The Addis Ababa City Government Executive and Municipal Service Organs Re-establishment Proclamation;
No. 35/2012, No. 35, 2012, Article 53, 55, 58, 59.
83. Addis Ababa Water and Sewerage Authority Re-establishment Proclamation; No. 10/1995, No. 3, 1995,
Article 5, 7, 14.
84. The Addis Ababa Water Supply and Sewerage Disposal Services Regulations no. 5/1995 (Repealing)
Regulations; No. 31/2002, No. 1, 2002, Article 6, 39, Schedule I and III.
85. Addis Ababa Cleanliness Administration Agency. Addis Ababa Cleanliness Administration Agency Sanitation
Service Delivery Standard; AACAA: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2014.
86. Addis Ababa Cleanliness Administration Agency (AACAA) Annual Report of 2015; AACAA: Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia, 2015.
87. Addis Ababa Cleanliness Administration Agency (AACAA) Annual Report of 2016; AACAA: Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia, 2016.
88. Addis Ababa Cleanliness Administration Agency (AACAA) Annual Report of 2017; AACAA: Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia, 2017.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4735 20 of 20

89. Addis Ababa Solid Waste Re-use and Disposal Project Office (AASWRDPO) Annual Report of 2015; AASWRDPO:
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2015.
90. Addis Ababa Solid Waste Re-use and Disposal Project Office (AASWRDPO) Annual Report of 2016; AASWRDPO:
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2016.
91. Addis Ababa Solid Waste Re-use and Disposal Project Office (AASWRDPO) Annual Report of 2017; AASWRDPO:
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2017.
92. Researcher’s Video Record-Based Observation of Repi Landfill (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 16 April 2014).
93. Researcher’s Video Record-Based Observation of Kaliti Waste Water Treatment Plant ((Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,
28 March 2014).
94. Researcher’s Video Record-Based Observation of Kotebe Waste Water Treatment Plant (Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia, 25 December 2015).
95. Definition of Powers and Duties of the Executive Organs of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
Proclamation; No. 691/2010, No. 1, 2010, Article 10.
96. Federal Environmental Impact Assessment Proclamation (FEIAP); No. 299/2002, No. 11, 2002, Article 14.
97. Federal Environmental Protection Authority of Ethiopia (FEPAE), Letters of Delegation of the Power to
Review EIA to Sectoral Institutions (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 14 November 2009).
98. Gebregiorgs, M.T. Administrative Powers of the Federal Environmental Protection Authority of Ethiopia in
the Protection of the Environment: The Law and the Practice. Master’s Thesis, University of Addis Ababa,
Institute of Development and Research, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2010; pp. 51, 83.
99. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Environmental Protection Authority, (Letter to the Addis Ababa
Environmental Protection Authority, Ref. no. 8/1.1/1089, 25/02/2012.
100. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Environmental Protection Authority, Letter to the Ministry of Trade
of Ethiopia, Ref. No. 8/1.1/2245, 08/08/2012.
101. Ethiopian Federal Water Resources Management Proclamation; No. 197/2000, No. 25, 2000, Article 11, 13,
20, 22.
102. Ethiopian Water Resources Management Regulation; No. 115/2005, No. 27, 2005, Article 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 32.
103. Addis Ababa Water and Sewerage Authority. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment of Waste Water
Treatment Plant and Sewer Line Expansion and Rehabilitation in the Kaliti Catchment; Addis Ababa Environmental
Protection Authority: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2014.
104. Researcher’s Video Record-Based Observation of Akaki River (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 17 June 2014).
105. Federal Environmental Protection Authority of Ethiopia (FEPAE). Survey on Environmental Pollution Impact
on Akaki and Mojo Rivers; FEPAE: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2006.
106. Addis Ababa City Government Environmental Pollution Control Regulation; No. 25/2007, No. 56, 2007,
Article 27(1) and (2).
107. African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right, Adopted on June 27, 1981, OAU Doc. 1982, Article 50, 55, 56.

© 2018 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license ([Link]