Content uploaded by Ronan McDermott
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ronan McDermott on Apr 04, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cdip20
Development in Practice
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdip20
Integrating cross-community resilience in the Gibe
III hydropower project, Ethiopia: a conceptual
framework
Nigatu Abebe, Sulagna Maitra, Befikadu Esayas & Ronan McDermott
To cite this article: Nigatu Abebe, Sulagna Maitra, Befikadu Esayas & Ronan McDermott
(2023): Integrating cross-community resilience in the Gibe III hydropower project, Ethiopia: a
conceptual framework, Development in Practice, DOI: 10.1080/09614524.2023.2184742
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2023.2184742
Published online: 29 Mar 2023.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 55
View related articles
View Crossmark data
COMMENT
Integrating cross-community resilience in the Gibe III hydropower
project, Ethiopia: a conceptual framework
Nigatu Abebe, Sulagna Maitra, Befikadu Esayas and Ronan McDermott
ARTICLE HISTORY Received 28 October 2020; Accepted 21 February 2023
Introduction
Hydropower accounts for 60 per cent of the global renewable energy supply and 16 per cent of total
electricity production (IHA 2022). Moreover, more than 3,700 hydropower dams are either planned
or under construction worldwide (Quaranta et al. 2022). Contemporary development narratives are
centred around the need for a rapid shift to low-carbon resilient development (UN Climate Change
2022), necessitating the scaling up of renewable sources of energy such as hydropower. Increased
energy production from hydropower leads to significant economic benefits (Alsaleh and Abdul-
Rahim 2022). Hydropower dam infrastructure also enables the management of river flows, creating
opportunities for flood control, irrigation, water storage, and navigation (Kumar et al. 2022).
There is, however, a substantial body of literature on hydropower dams documenting their
often negative impact on the economic, environmental, political, and sociocultural systems of the
communities adjacent to them. Such negative impacts include displacement, loss of access to
natural resources, livelihood disturbances, and ecological disorders (Zarflet al. 2019; Tajziehchi
et al. 2022; Schulz and Skinner 2022). Studies undertaken in the last few decades have indicated
the multifaceted adverse impacts of hydropower dams on communities adjacent to river basins
(McDowell 1996; Cernea 1997). In 2000, following the tensions and conflicts over dam construction,
the World Commission on Dams (WCD) released recommendations on addressing the adverse social
and environmental impacts associated with dam building (Schulz and Adams 2020). Two decades
later, the construction of hydropower dams remains controversial due to their potential negative
impact on communities adjacent to river basins. New narratives have also emerged underpinning
arguments supporting and opposing hydropower dam constructions. While the narrative of a
clean energy source dominates pro-hydropower development arguments, potential impacts, such
as the adverse climatic effects of emissions from dam reservoirs, blockage of fish migratory routes
and its adverse impact on livelihoods of downstream communities, and the disproportionate
effect of dams’negative social impacts on women, feature among the emergent anti-dam narratives
(Schulz and Adams 2019).
Apart from the recommendations by WCD, few studies have adequately addressed the trade-offs
associated with hydropower development. Schulz and Adams (2019) argue that even the WCD was
unable to transcend the bitter pro-/anti-dam debates of the 1980s and 1990s over the trade-offs and
merely became a fulcrum between the different arguments. This Viewpoint helps bridge the knowl-
edge gap in addressing the trade-offs associated with hydropower development. We develop a con-
ceptual framework that can help capture the trade-offs between the need to supply the increasing
demand for electricity via the construction of hydropower dams in the Global South, while preser-
ving or enhancing community resilience (Zarflet al. 2019; Mayer et al. 2021). It does so through the
use of Ethiopia as an illustrative case. The country is endowed with a hydropower potential second
only to the Democratic Republic of Congo in Africa (Michieka, Razek, and Gearhart 2021).
© 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT Nigatu Abebe nigatu.wolkanto@ucdconnect.ie School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College
Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE
https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2023.2184742
Nevertheless, it has utilised only 10 per cent of its potential thus far (Hailu and Kumsa 2021). In 2011,
a Climate Resilient Green Economy strategy (CRGE) was introduced, which identified hydropower
generation as a key priority (Schapper 2021). On the basis of this strategy, Ethiopia has implemented
a range of large-scale hydropower dam projects in order to bolster its development.
One of these hydropower developments is the Gibe III hydropower dam project on the Omo
River. At a cost of $1.8 billion, the project has an installed capacity of 1,870 MW of electricity pro-
duction doubling electricity generation in the country in 2016 (Schapper, Unrau, and Killoh 2020).
In spite of this substantial contribution to clean energy and government claims of a community con-
sultation process in the design of the project, critics argue that the project’s impact on the socio-
economic dynamics of localities along the Omo River has not been adequately considered (Hailu
Woldegebrael 2018). The manner in which local priorities are reconciled with important national
development priorities in the context of this and similar projects across the country and the
Global South merits greater attention. In developing a conceptual framework to advance such
inquiry, we adapt and synthesise a number of relevant theories. These theories centre around the
relative power of agents (referred to herein as agential power) (Gilabert 2018), hydro-social contract
theory (Turton 1999), and livelihood resilience (Carr 2019). The concept of agential power offers
insight into the relative power of agents influencing the decision to implement hydropower projects.
The hydro-social contract lens foregrounds the underlying norms that guide decision-making con-
cerning such projects. Moreover, given the potential negative impacts on community livelihoods
arising from disruption caused by such projects, the livelihood resilience framework serves to
capture the capacities at a community level to absorb or adapt such shocks. The framework devel-
oped on the basis of such a synthesis is detailed in Figure 1. It serves to capture the structural and
cross-scale tensions at play between national development on the one hand and the protection of
local, river basin-level community resilience on the other. The framework thus illustrates the complex
relationship between stakeholder interests and powers and the trade-offs involved in the planning
of hydropower projects.
The three key theories integrated within the framework –the theory of agential power,
hydro-social contract theory, and community resilience –and their inter-relationship are discussed
in the following sections.
Figure 1. A Conceptual Framework to Assess Stakeholder Trade-offs in the Gibe III hydropower project. Source: Authors based on
concepts adopted from the works of literature discussed in this article (Turton 1999; Gilabert 2018; Carr 2019; Ifejika Speranza,
Wiesmann, and Rist 2014; Castro-Arce and Vanclay 2020).
2N. ABEBE ET AL.
The theory of agential power and the Gibe III power project
The theory of agential power originates in Hobson’s(2000) arguments concerning the state in inter-
national relations. Agential power explains a state’s relative influence over policy outcomes within its
jurisdiction vis-à-vis both domestic and international agents. Agents such as the state shape social
relations in a certain socio-economic and political landscape to varying degrees (Gilabert 2018).
To do so, agents require certain resources and capabilities. Agential power thus refers to the capa-
bility of agents to act and affect outcomes within social interaction (Abizadeh 2023).
The relative power of agents shapes outcomes within the governance of natural resources such as
water. In the context of hydropower development, agents can include local communities, districts
and national governments, private companies, nongovernmental organisations, and environmental
activists (Aguilar-Støen and Hirsch 2015; Bazzana, Gilioli, and Zaitchik 2020; Doria et al. 2021). Hydro-
power development creates competition among these agents over resources such as land and water
(Bazzana, Gilioli, and Zaitchik 2020). Hence, in the application of agential power, it is necessary to
ascertain who gets what, how, and the consequences of these outcomes. Meissner (2014) argues
that while agential power creates a situation in which actors can have the agency to influence
the environment and each other, the accomplishment of one actor’s goal does not necessarily
imply another’s total loss of agency over an issue of common interest.
In Ethiopia, non-governmental entities interested in water management tend to lack organisation
(Pascual-Ferrer et al. 2014). This is likely due to the state’s overwhelming power with respect to
natural resources, reinforced by the constitution granting it ownership of such resources (Hailu,
Tolossa, and Alemu 2019). However, criticism from the political opposition, academics, and civil
society reflects the scepticism concerning the legitimacy of the state’s use of its agential power in
carrying out hydropower projects such as Gibe III (Carr 2017; Norgaard 2021; Schapper and Urban
2021). For example, the absence of written submissions of consent from local communities concern-
ing the implementation of the project reflects the sensitive and fragile social context within which
the state’s agential power has been exercised (Hailu Woldegebrael 2018). Significantly, this absence
arose despite Article 43 of the Ethiopian constitution upholding the right of citizens to be consulted
over the implementation of a development project affecting their community (Constitution 1995).
Given the perceived lack of legitimacy of governmental decision-making around the Gibe III
project, it is important to reflect on the network of rights and duties involving the stakeholders at
different levels.
Interpreting the Gibe III project in terms of the hydro-social contract theory
The hydro-social contract theory is of utility in this regard. One of the most enduring theories on the
politics of water governance, it assumes an unwritten contract between the state and its citizens con-
cerning the utilisation of available water resources (Harrington 2017). The theory analyses the
process of managing demands for water resources under the auspices of the state. The latter appro-
priates available water through infrastructure such as dams for allocation to users (Farrelly and
Brown 2014; Buurman and Padawangi 2018). This is referred to as the hydraulic mission. The state
exerts control over water and the territories surrounding dam sites. In doing so, opportunities are
created for establishing a regulated water supply (Zhang et al. 2021). However, this often entails
restricting access to adjacent communities and altering the natural flood cycle of river basins
(Krampe, Smith, and Hamidi 2021; Phung et al. 2021; Hernández-Gutiérrez, Peña-Ramos, and Espi-
nosa 2022). This can adversely impact affected communities’food and economic security (Soukha-
phon, Baird, and Hogan 2021). Turton (1999), the pioneer of the theory, postulates that there are a
series of transitional stages in social interaction concerning the utilisation of water resources. The
stages feature different forms of scarcity. The first phase of water scarcity arises when the
demand for a water resource exceeds its supply. A second phase of water scarcity can arise due
to the failure to address the demand for water triggered in the first phase (Movik 2010). Such a
DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE 3
scenario arises due to the water management regime insufficiently taking the needs of communities
along river basins into account (Nygren 2021).
In Ethiopia, there is a drive for accelerated industrialisation (a factor triggering water scarcity). This
has necessitated a sustainable supply of energy. In turn, this has required the appropriation of avail-
able water through the construction of hydropower dams in pursuit of Ethiopia’s hydraulic mission.
In the case of the Gibe III project, this has led to the people adjacent to the Omo River being denied
access to water (Schapper 2021). Management of the dam’s water flow neglected the interest of
communities whose livelihood depends on the river in a number of key respects (Amos, Mengistu,
and Kleinschroth 2021). Such management has interfered with the Omo River’s annual flood, which
has been essential to the livelihoods of approximately 90,000 people dependent upon flood-retreat
agriculture (Hodbod et al. 2019; Norgaard 2021). As per the hydro-social contract theory, such a situ-
ation has triggered a second stage of water scarcity. This subsequent stage of water scarcity reflects
the challenge faced by the state in ensuring water abundance for communities residing in the Omo
River basin while also retaining sufficient water in the reservoir for electricity generation.
Community resilience in the Gibe III project
The third key theoretical element in the framework, which completes our understanding of the
impact of large-scale projects at the local level, is community resilience. The term resilience
emerged from scholarship relating to socio-ecological systems and can be understood as a phenom-
enon reflecting strength and flexibility in the face of stress and shocks (Carr 2019). Community resi-
lience is defined as the ability of communities to absorb, adapt, and recover from disturbance as well
as the ability to return to, improve upon or even actively transform themselves with respect to the
pre-disturbance state (Rapaport et al. 2018; Béné, Frankenberger, and Nelson 2015). The critical role
of livelihoods in this regard has been strongly emphasised within the literature (Carr 2019; Li et al.
2022; Quandt and Paderes 2022; Shekari et al. 2022). Livelihood resilience involves three key dimen-
sions: buffer capacity, self-organisation, and the capacity for learning (Ifejika Speranza, Wiesmann,
and Rist 2014). Buffer capacity is the ability of a livelihood to encounter stresses or shocks
without changing its original structure and function. Livelihood capitals/assets and their dynamics
represent a livelihood’sbuffer capacity (ibid). It is constituted by financial, physical, social, human,
and natural capitals. Self-organisation refers to the institutions, forms of cooperation, and networks
embedded in a livelihood. Learning capacity refers to the ability of livelihood actors to adapt to
changes affecting a socio-ecological system (Li et al. 2022).
Livelihood resilience involves the optimal combination of buffer capacity, the capacity for self-
organisation, and learning capacity within livelihoods with respect to shocks or stressors. These
three forms of livelihood capacity serve as indicators of livelihood resilience. While relying on
these capacities for illustrating indicators of livelihood resilience, this article adopts Carr’s(2019)
definition of livelihood resilience as the materialisation of safe and secure livelihoods for the greatest
number of people in the face of shocks or stresses. Such a definition considers resilience at the indi-
vidual, household, community, and government levels (Carr 2019). The materialisation of safe and
secure livelihoods for the greatest number of people depends on the intersection of the discourse
of livelihood, mobilisation of identities, and tools of coercion.
Carr (2019) conceptualised the discourse of livelihood as how people talk about performing
livelihood activities in their socio-ecological context. The livelihood discourse classifies the popu-
lation into various sections (identities) assigned to their respective roles in livelihood activities.
Such a process is called the mobilisation of identities. It is the identification of subjects (individuals)
with their respective set of roles or livelihood activities. Sections of the population who see fewer
desirable outcomes in their existing livelihood role may threaten to alter the discourse of livelihood.
Tools of coercion refer to the socially legitimate means of preventing individuals who tend to not live
up to their assigned roles in livelihood activities. Therefore, according to Carr (2019), resilience fun-
damentally concerns the maintenance of safety and certainty considering the configuration or
4N. ABEBE ET AL.
reconfiguration of agency, power, and social difference among members of a community along with
the discourse of livelihood, mobilisation of identity, and tools of coercion. The framework produced
acknowledges these dynamics.
In order to illustrate the entry points for action materialising livelihood resilience in the face of
stress resulting from the Gibe III project, the article adopts the concept of bottom-linked governance
(Castro-Arce and Vanclay 2020). Bottom-linked governance refers to the requisite interaction among
institutions across spatial scales for the achievement of improved local socioeconomic outcomes for
all (Novikova 2021). These conditions need to be in place to perform a “bridging role”between
spatial scales and serve as “success factors”(Castro-Arce and Vanclay 2020). The entities that
perform such a bridging role include the watershed management regimes and a wide range of sta-
keholders such as local communities, local governments, the Ministry of Water and Energy, Africa
Sustainable Aquaculture (ASA) Ethiopia, Wolaita Sodo University, Wolaita Development Association,
Kalehiwot Church, Catholic Relief Service, and World Vision.
Drawing on the concepts discussed thus far, we developed a conceptual framework addressing
the scalar trade-offs in hydropower projects. The framework also helps to address similar trade-offsin
other water-based mega-development projects. The interplay between the hydraulic mission of the
state and its agential power concerning the Gibe III hydropower project explains the stresses
affecting local livelihoods adjacent to the Omo River. This is the point where the trade-offs across
national and local scale priorities lie.
We used the concept of community resilience in order to understand the magnitude and the
entry points for interventions to address the trade-offs associated with the Gibe III project at the
local level. This article’s livelihood approach accommodates the three dimensions of livelihood
capacities (buffer capacity, the capacity of self-organisation and learning capacity), and bottom-
linked governance. While the three dimensions of livelihood capacities capture the magnitude of
the trade-offs associated with the Gibe III project, the bottom-linked governance illustrates the
entry points for interventions addressing them. The stress on the three local livelihood capacities
resulting from the Gibe III project represents the magnitude of the local-level trade-offs associated
with Ethiopia’s hydraulic mission. The interactions and collaboration of stakeholders across local and
national scales working to improve the livelihood of communities along the Omo River enable
bottom-linked governance. In addition to those previously mentioned, these stakeholders include
NGOs such as Terepeza Development Association, Ayuda en Accion, and CEFA Onlus. The inter-
actions also need to successfully negotiate the asymmetries of agential power across the stake-
holders to materialise bottom-linked governance. Such a governance informs the entry points for
action which helps to address the project’s stresses on the local livelihood capacities and achieve
better socioeconomic outcomes.
Conclusion
Studies concerning the trade-offs relating to hydropower projects have focused on the assessment
of their socio-economic and ecological impacts. They often culminate in simply recommending miti-
gation measures such as compensation. However, the trade-offs across stakeholders from this kind of
project demand more than mere mitigation measures. This article proffers a conceptual framework
that allows for the systematic evaluation of the trade-offs involved in large-scale hydropower dam
projects and provides entry points for action.
Individually, the theories of agential power, hydro-social contract theory and community resili-
ence provide indispensable theoretical constructs. Nevertheless, each theory alone insufficiently
addresses the trade-offs impacting stakeholders associated with large-scale development projects.
For instance, analysing Ethiopia’s hydraulic mission through the lens of agential power locates the
trade-offs between local and national priorities in the Gibe III Omo River project. However, such
an analysis does not capture the nature of these trade-offs at the local level in a sufficiently granular
manner. Incorporating the concept of community resilience and Carr’s2019 idea of safe and secure
DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE 5
livelihoods for the greatest number of people in the face of stressors and shocks help to address this
deficiency. However, the concept of community resilience alone overlooks the important multi-
scalar governmental decision-making dimensions. Hence, the indispensable role of the agential
power and hydro-social contract theories. The synthesis of theories from different disciplines and
fields is necessary to complement deficiencies embedded in each conceptual approach. It enables
the capturing of attributes from each of the approaches within the analysis that would otherwise
be missed in their discrete form. Rather than focusing solely on the impact of hydropower projects
on communities adjacent to river basins, it also enables the informing of policy through the gener-
ation of a broader and more integrated perspective. As a consequence, the framework proffered in
this article may serve to better illuminate the scalar trade-offs in water-based mega-development
projects and ultimately how to optimally address them.
Acknowledgements
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under
the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 778196. However, the contents of the Viewpoint reflect only the
authors’view and the Agency is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This research was supported by the Bulding Resilience through Education project (BRTE) –H2020-MSCA-RISE-2017:
[Grant Number 778196].
Notes on Contributors
Nigatu Abebe has a Master’s Degree in African Studies from Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and pre-
sently he is a Ph.D. Student
Sulagna Maitra (Ph.D.) is Assistant Professor in Humanitarian Action at UCD Centre for Humanitarian Action, School of
Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Ireland.
Befikadu Esayas (Ph.D.) is Assistant Professor of Development Studies.
Ronan McDermott (Ph.D.) is Assistant Professor in Climate Adaptation Governance, Department of Global and Local
Governance, Campus Fryslân, University of Groningen, The Netherlands.
References
Abizadeh, Arash. 2023.“The Grammar of Social Power: Power-to, Power-with, Power-despite and Power-over.”Political
Studies 71 (1): 3–19. doi:10.1177/0032321721996941.
Aguilar-Støen, M., and C. Hirsch. 2015.“Environmental Impact Assessments, Local Power and Self-Determination: The
Case of Mining and Hydropower Development in Guatemala.”The Extractive Industries and Society 2 (3): 472–479.
doi:10.1016/j.exis.2015.03.001.
Alsaleh, M., and A. S. Abdul-Rahim. 2022.“The Pathway Toward Pollution Mitigation in EU28 Region: Does Hydropower
Growth Make a Difference?”Renewable Energy 185: 291–301. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2021.12.045.
Amos, S., S. Mengistu, and F. Kleinschroth. 2021.“Three Decades of Pastoralist Settlement Dynamics in the Ethiopian
Omo Delta Based on Remote Sensing Data.”Human Ecology 49 (5): 525–537. doi:10.1007/s10745-021-00257-6.
Bazzana, D., G. Gilioli, and B. Zaitchik. 2020.“Impact of Hydropower Development on Rural Livelihood: An Agent-Based
Exploration.”Journal of Cleaner Production 275: 122333. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122333.
Béné, C., T. Frankenberger, and S. Nelson. 2015. Design, monitoring and evaluation of resilience interventions: concep-
tual and empirical considerations.
6N. ABEBE ET AL.
Buurman, J., and R. Padawangi. 2018.“Bringing People Closer to Water: Integrating Water Management and Urban
Infrastructure.”Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 61 (14): 2531–2548. doi:10.1080/09640568.
2017.1404972.
Carr, C. J. 2017.“The Persistent Paradigm for ‘Modernizing ‘River Basins: Institutions and Policies in Ethiopia.”In River
Basin Development and Human Rights in Eastern Africa—A Policy Crossroads,23–41. Cham: Springer.
Carr, Edward R. 2019.“Properties and Projects: Reconciling Resilience and Transformation for Adaptation and
Development.”World Development 122: 70–84. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.05.011.
Castro-Arce, Karina, and Frank Vanclay. 2020.“Transformative Social Innovation for Sustainable Rural Development: An
Analytical Framework to Assist Community-Based Initiatives.”Journal of Rural Studies 74: 45–54. doi:10.1016/j.
jrurstud.2019.11.010.
Cernea, M. 1997.“The Risks and Reconstruction Model for Resettling Displaced Populations.”World Development 25 (10):
1569–1587. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(97)00054-5.
Constitution, F. D. R. E. 1995. Constitution of Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (Proclamation No. 1/1995). Negarit
Gazette,9, p.92.
Doria, C. R., J. Dutka-Gianelli, M. Paes de Souza, K. Lorenzen, and S. Athayde. 2021.“Stakeholder Perceptions on the
Governance of Fisheries Systems Transformed by Hydroelectric Dam Development in the Madeira River, Brazil.”
Frontiers in Environmental Science 9: 575514. doi:10.3389/fenvs.2021.575514.
Farrelly, M. A., and R. R. Brown. 2014.“Making the Implicit, Explicit: Time for Renegotiating the Urban Water Supply
Hydrosocial Contract?”Urban Water Journal 11 (5): 392–404. doi:10.1080/1573062X.2013.793729.
Gilabert, P. 2018.“A Broad Definition of Agential Power.”Journal of Political Power 11 (1): 79–92. doi:10.1080/2158379X.
2018.1433758.
Hailu, A. D., and D. K. Kumsa. 2021.“Ethiopia Renewable Energy Potentials and Current State.”AIMS Energy 9 (1): 1–14.
doi:10.3934/energy.2021001.
Hailu, R., D. Tolossa, and G. Alemu. 2019.“Water Security: Stakeholders’Arena in the Awash River Basin of Ethiopia.”
Sustainable Water Resources Management 5 (2): 513–531. doi:10.1007/s40899-017-0208-2.
Hailu Woldegebrael, E. 2018.“The Materialization of “Developmental State”in Ethiopia: Insights from the Gibe III
Hydroelectric Development Project Regime, Omo Valley.”L’Espace Politique. Revue en Ligne de Géographie
Politique et de Géopolitique 35.
Harrington, C. 2017.“The Political Ontology of Collaborative Water Governance.”Water International 42 (3): 254–270.
doi:10.1080/02508060.2017.1309507.
Hernández-Gutiérrez, J. C., J. A. Peña-Ramos, and V. I. Espinosa. 2022.“Hydro Power Plants as Disputed Infrastructures in
Latin America.”Water 14 (3): 277. doi:10.3390/w14030277.
Hobson, John M. 2000.The State and International Relations. Cambridge University Press.
Hodbod, J., E. G. Stevenson, G. Akall, T. Akuja, I. Angelei, E. A. Bedasso, L. Buffavand, et al. 2019.“Social-ecological Change in the
Omo-Turkana Basin: A Synthesis of Current Developments.”Ambio 48 (10): 1099–1115. doi:10.1007/s13280-018-1139-3.
Ifejika Speranza, Chinwe, Urs Wiesmann, and Stephan Rist. 2014.“An Indicator Framework for Assessing Livelihood
Resilience in the Context of Social-Ecological Dynamics.”Global Environmental Change 28 (1): 109–119. doi:10.
1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.005.
International Hydropower Association (IHA). 2022. Facts about hydropower. Available on https://www.hydropower.org/
iha/discover-facts-about-hydropower.
Krampe, F., E. S. Smith, and M. D. Hamidi. 2021.“Security Implications of Climate Development in Conflict-Affected
States: Implications of Local-Level Effects of Rural Hydropower Development on Farmers in Herat.”Political
Geography 90: 102454. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2021.102454.
Kumar, S., A. S. S. Vardhan, A. S. S. Vardhan, R. K. Saket, D. P. Kothari, and S. Eslamian. 2022.“Hydropower and Floods.”In
Flood Handbook, 111–142. CRC Press.
Li, T., S. Cai, R. K. Singh, L. Cui, F. Fava, L. Tang, Z. Xu, et al. 2022.“Livelihood Resilience in Pastoral Communities:
Methodological and Field Insights from Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau.”Science of The Total Environment, 155960.
doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155960.
Mayer, A., L. Castro-Diaz, M. C. Lopez, G. Leturcq, and E. F. Moran. 2021.“Is Hydropower Worth it? Exploring Amazonian
Resettlement, Human Development, and Environmental Costs with the Belo Monte Project in Brazil.”Energy Research
& Social Science 78: 102129. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2021.102129.
McDowell, C.1996.Understanding Impoverishment: The Consequences of Development-Induced Displacement (Vol. 2).
Berghahn books.
Meissner, R. 2014.“Who Wants To Be an Agent? A Framework to Analyse Water Politics and Governance.”Water SA 40
(1): 1–10. doi:10.4314/wsa.v40i1.1.
Michieka, N. M., N. A. Razek, and R. S. Gearhart. 2021.“The Relationship Between Climate Factors, Hydropower
Production and Economic Growth in Ethiopia: A Nonlinear and Asymmetric Approach.”The Journal of Developing
Areas 55 (3): 291–315. doi:10.1353/jda.2021.0066.
Movik, Synne. 2010.“Return of the Leviathan? Hydropolitics in the Developing World Revisited.”Water Policy 12 (5):
641–653. doi:10.2166/wp.2010.132.
DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE 7
Norgaard, S. P. 2021.“Modernization Through Capitalization: The Hidden Costs of Ethiopia’s Gibe III Dam and NESTown
Initiative.”Human Geography 14 (3): 381–395. doi:10.1177/1942778621999111.
Novikova, M. 2021.“Transformative Social Innovation in Rural Areas: Insights from a Rural Development Initiative in the
Portuguese Region of Baixo Alentejo.”European Countryside 13 (1): 71–90. doi:10.2478/euco-2021-0005.
Nygren, A. 2021.“Water and Power, Water’s Power: State-Making and Socionature Shaping Volatile Rivers and Riverine
People in Mexico.”World Development 146: 105615. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105615.
Pascual-Ferrer, J., A. Pérez-Foguet, J. Codony, E. Raventós, and L. Candela. 2014.“Assessment of Water Resources
Management in the Ethiopian Central Rift Valley: Environmental Conservation and Poverty Reduction.”
International Journal of Water Resources Development 30 (3): 572–587. doi:10.1080/07900627.2013.843410.
Phung, D., T. Nguyen-Huy, N. N. Tran, D. N. Tran, S. Nghiem, N. H. Nguyen, T. H. Nguyen, and T. Bennett. 2021.
“Hydropower Dams, River Drought and Health Effects: A Detection and Attribution Study in the Lower Mekong
Delta Region.”Climate Risk Management 32: 100280. doi:10.1016/j.crm.2021.100280.
Quandt, A., and P. Paderes. 2022.“Livelihood Resilience and Global Environmental Change: Towards Integration of
Objective and Subjective Approaches of Analysis.”Geographical Review, (just- accepted).
Quaranta, E., K. Bódis, E. Kasiulis, A. McNabola, and A. Pistocchi. 2022.“Is There a Residual and Hidden Potential for Small
and Micro Hydropower in Europe? A Screening-Level Regional Assessment.”Water Resources Management 36 (6):
1745–1762. doi:10.1007/s11269-022-03084-6.
Rapaport, C., T. Hornik-Lurie, O. Cohen, M. Lahad, D. Leykin, and L. Aharonson-Daniel. 2018.“The Relationship Between
Community Type and Community Resilience.”International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 31: 470–477. doi:10.
1016/j.ijdrr.2018.05.020.
Schapper, A. 2021.“Climate Justice Concerns and Human Rights Trade-Offs in Ethiopia’s Green Economy Transition:
The Case of Gibe III.”The European Journal of Development Research 33 (6): 1952–1972. doi:10.1057/s41287-020-
00340-6.
Schapper, A., C. Unrau, and S. Killoh. 2020.“Social Mobilization Against Large Hydroelectric Dams: A Comparison of
Ethiopia, Brazil, and Panama.”Sustainable Development 28 (2): 413–423. doi:10.1002/sd.1995.
Schapper, A., and F. Urban. 2021.“Large Dams, Norms, and Indigenous Peoples.”Development Policy Review 39: O61–
O80. doi:10.1111/dpr.12467.
Schulz, C., and W. M. Adams. 2019.“Debating Dams: The World Commission on Dams 20 Years on.”WIRES Water 6 (5):
e1396. doi:10.1002/wat2.1369.
Schulz, C., and W. Adams. 2020. The World Commission on Dams: then and now.
Schulz, C., and J. Skinner. 2022.“Hydropower Benefit-Sharing and Resettlement: A Conceptual Review.”Energy Research
& Social Science 83: 102342. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2021.102342.
Shekari, F., M. Ziaee, A. Faghihi, and M. Jomehpour. 2022.“Nomadic Livelihood Resilience Through Tourism.”Annals of
Tourism Research Empirical Insights 3 (1): 100034. doi:10.1016/j.annale.2022.100034.
Soukhaphon, A., I. G. Baird, and Z. S. Hogan. 2021.“The Impacts of Hydropower Dams in the Mekong River Basin: A
Review.”Water 13 (3): 265. doi:10.3390/w13030265.
Tajziehchi, S., A. Karbassi, G. Nabi, C. Yoo, and P. Ifaei. 2022.“A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Bakhtiari Hydropower Dam
Considering the Nexus Between Energy and Water.”Energies 15 (3): 871. doi:10.3390/en15030871.
Turton, A. R. 1999. Water scarcity and social stability: towards a deeper understanding of the key concepts needed
to manage water scarcity in developing countries. In Proceedings of the Ninth Stockholm Water Conference,
1999.
United Nations Climate Change. 2022. COP27 Reaches Breakthrough Agreement on New “Loss and Damage”Fund for
Vulnerable Countries United Nations Climate Change https://unfccc.int/news/cop27-reaches-breakthrough-
agreement-on-new-loss-and-damage-fund-for-vulnerable-countries.
Zarfl, Christiane, Jürgen Berlekamp, Fengzhi He, Sonja C. Jähnig, William Darwall, and Klement Tockner. 2019.“Future
Large Hydropower Dams Impact Global Freshwater Megafauna.”Scientific Reports 9 (1): 18531–18510. doi:10.1038/
s41598-019-54980-8.
Zhang, L., Q. Huang, D. Liu, M. Deng, H. Zhang, B. Pan, and H. Zhang. 2021.“Long-term and mid-Term Ecological
Operation of Cascade Hydropower Plants Considering Ecological Water Demands in Arid Region.”Journal of
Cleaner Production 279: 123599. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123599.
8N. ABEBE ET AL.
