This critique titled originally in Amharic “When the Fuel Tank Runs Dry,” presents a legal critique of the Ethiopian Petroleum and Energy Authority’s management of fuel reserves during international crises. It specifically addresses the current fuel shortages, characterized by kilometer-long queues, which the Authority has attributed to transit delays caused by regional conflicts involving the U.S., Israel, and Iran.
This critical legal analysis examines the Petroleum and Energy Authority’s failure to maintain Ethiopia’s strategic fuel reserves during recent global conflicts. The source argues that the government cannot use international instability as an excuse, because Regulation No. 521/2022 specifically mandates the creation of domestic stockpiles to mitigate such risks. Since the nation faced immediate shortages and long queues within just one month of regional tensions, the author concludes that the Authority breached its legal obligation to ensure a reliable supply. Furthermore, the text highlights a breakdown in distribution management and risk assessment, suggesting that fuel trapped in transit does not fulfill the legal requirement for physical domestic reserves. Ultimately, the document asserts that the Authority failed its primary duty to protect the national economy from predictable geopolitical disruptions.
Beyond these core points, the source provides several detailed legal and operational insights:
- Legal Mandates: Under Article 5(17) of the regulation, the Authority has an “unconditional mandatory duty” to determine necessary reserve levels and ensure their physical existence.
- The “In Transit” Fallacy: The author argues that fuel on ships in the Red Sea or Gulf of Aden is “in transit” and cannot legally be considered “in reserve”. For fuel to count as a strategic reserve, it must be physically stored within domestic depots like those in Awash or Horizon.
- Failure of the 30-Day Standard: International standards for landlocked countries require a strategic reserve capable of lasting 30 to 90 days. The fact that Ethiopia’s supply exhausted in less than a month proves the Authority failed to set or maintain adequate reserve levels.
- Risk Assessment Negligence: Per Article 5(14), the Authority is required to analyze supply chain information. The author contends that since Middle Eastern instability is a known factor, the Authority failed to conduct necessary “stress tests” to prepare for supply line closures.
- Operational and Technological Gaps: The source notes a failure to implement “modern technology”—such as digital rationing or emergency priority lines—as mandated by Article 5(15) to ensure “fair and accessible” distribution during shortages.
- Rejection of “Force Majeure”: The document concludes that the Authority cannot claim “Act of God” or “Force Majeure” because geopolitical conflict is the exact peril that strategic reserves are legally designed to mitigate.