A hydraulic mission for whom? A critical examination of Ethiopia's Gibe III hydropower dam

Abstract

Ethiopia is currently investing significantly in large scale-hydropower across its river basins. While serving the national economic agenda, hydropower dams have impacted local communities. This study aims to explore the essence of Ethiopia's hydraulic mission and how it accounts for the national-local trade-offs associated with the building of hydropower dams. It draws on an exploratory case study conducted on the Gibe III hydropower project in southern Ethiopia. Data collection involved key informant interviews, focus-group discussions held among project-impacted communities, and a review of three relevant policy documents. It was found that while the building of hydropower dams in Ethiopia is aimed at the national goal of realizing a Climate Resilient Green Economy, the discourses and practices of the hydraulic mission accompanying the building of hydropower dams reflected shortcomings that contributed to adverse socioeconomic impacts on local communities. The shortcomings concern the policy discourses and practices regarding the handling of local developmental aspirations in hydropower development, feasibility studies on hydropower projects; coordination and transparency among stakeholders involved in hydropower development; and hydropower benefit sharing across spatial scales. Given the prevailing discourse about their contribution in serving the twofold purpose of addressing energy poverty and the challenges of climate change, it is less likely to avoid the building of hydropower dams particularly in the Global South. Hence, the study suggests that exploring the possibility of reconciling the national-local trade-offs is of paramount importance rather than contending the construction of hydropower dams altogether.

Full text

Energy Research & Social Science 115 (2024) 103660
Available online 5 July 2024
2214-6296/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Original research article
A hydraulic mission for whom? A critical examination of Ethiopia's Gibe III
hydropower dam
Nigatu Abebe
a
,
*
, Sulagna Maitra
a
, Bekadu Esayas
b
, Ronan McDermott
a
a
School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
b
Hailemariam & Roman Foundation (HRF), Ethiopia
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Green Economy
Hydraulic Mission
Hydropower development
National-Local Trade-offs
Shortcomings
ABSTRACT
Ethiopia is currently investing signicantly in large scale- hydropower across its river basins. While serving the
national economic agenda, hydropower dams have impacted local communities. This study aims to explore the
essence of Ethiopia's hydraulic mission and how it accounts for the national-local trade-offs associated with the
building of hydropower dams. It draws on an exploratory case study conducted on the Gibe III hydropower
project in southern Ethiopia. Data collection involved key informant interviews, focus-group discussions held
among project-impacted communities, and a review of three relevant policy documents. It was found that while
the building of hydropower dams in Ethiopia is aimed at the national goal of realizing a Climate Resilient Green
Economy, the discourses and practices of the hydraulic mission accompanying the building of hydropower dams
reected shortcomings that contributed to adverse socioeconomic impacts on local communities. The short-
comings concern the policy discourses and practices regarding the handling of local developmental aspirations in
hydropower development, feasibility studies on hydropower projects; coordination and transparency among
stakeholders involved in hydropower development; and hydropower benet sharing across spatial scales. Given
the prevailing discourse about their contribution in serving the twofold purpose of addressing energy poverty
and the challenges of climate change, it is less likely to avoid the building of hydropower dams particularly in the
Global South. Hence, the study suggests that exploring the possibility of reconciling the national-local trade-offs
is of paramount importance rather than contending the construction of hydropower dams altogether.
1. Introduction
The hydraulic mission refers to a state's strategic goals, narrative
discourses, and practices accompanying the building of large-scale hy-
draulic infrastructures such as dams and canals across river basins [1,2].
The growing need for a shift to low-carbon resilient development has
necessitated scaling-up the development of renewable energy sources
such as hydropower [3–5]. This has led to expansion of the building of
hydropower dams across river basins worldwide. However, several
studies have shown trade-offs between boosting national renewable
energy portfolio and entailing local negative environmental and socio-
economic impacts in the building of hydropower dams [3,6–8]. Hy-
dropower dams cause negative impacts such as displacement, loss of
access to natural resources, livelihood and ecological disturbance on the
communities adjacent to river basins [9,10]. However, the discourses of
developmental opportunities (hydraulic mission) legitimizing the
building of hydropower dams mainly originate outside of the river
basins [1].
Prior studies have inadequately addressed how the hydraulic mission
accounts for such scalar trade-offs. These studies indicate that the hy-
draulic mission primarily driven by the national economic agenda has
resulted in the building of hydropower dams that cause local adverse
environmental and socioeconomic impacts [1,11,12]. However, they
inadequately explore how the state's policy discourses and practices
accompanying the hydraulic mission contribute for the differentiated
outcomes across national and local geographic scales arising from the
construction of hydropower dams. This study investigates how those
policy discourses and practices that are embedded in the hydraulic
mission account for the scalar trade-offs associated with the building of
hydropower dams in Ethiopia, in particular with respect to the Gibe III
project. The phrase scalar trade-offs in this study hence refers to the
range of positive and negative outcomes of hydropower dam projects
across national and local scales.
The Gibe III project is Ethiopia's largest hydropower dam next to the
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: nigatu.wolkanto@ucdconnect.ie (N. Abebe).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Energy Research & Social Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/erss
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103660
Received 8 September 2023; Received in revised form 20 June 2024; Accepted 25 June 2024

Energy Research & Social Science 115 (2024) 103660
2
Great Ethiopian Renaissance Dam with an installed capacity of 1870
MW. The project was built on the Omo River basin in southern Ethiopia.
It has a reservoir stretching over an area of 200 km
2
. Despite its
considerable contribution to national economic development by boost-
ing the country's total installed electricity capacity, the Gibe III project
has had a signicant adverse impact on the surrounding environment
and communities [8]. Gibe III is therefore one of the most controversial
hydropower projects in Ethiopia [13].
Drawing on empirical evidence from the Gibe III project, this study
rstly explores the essence of the hydraulic mission accompanying the
building of hydropower dams in Ethiopia. Secondly, it shows how the
discourses and practices of the hydraulic mission account for the scalar
trade-offs that are linked to the building of hydropower dams in
Ethiopia.
The following section elaborates on the concept of the hydraulic
mission. This is followed by an overview of the study area and
description of the research methodology. The fourth section highlights
on the essence of the Ethiopia's hydraulic mission in light of the Gibe III
hydropower dam. This section also discusses the shortcomings regarding
the policy discourses and practices accompanying the hydraulic mission
and how they contribute to the scalar trade-offs resulting from the
building of hydropower dams in Ethiopia. The nal section of the study
highlights how national and local development priorities within the
hydraulic mission can be reconciled and how the scalar trade-offs
associated with the building of hydropower dams in Ethiopia as well
as the Global South can be minimized.
2. Literature review
The hydraulic mission is a long-held paradigm regarding water
resource management [1]. It refers to the conviction to control the
natural ow of water for the sake of human use on the part of the state
[2]. The hydraulic mission also espouses the hydraulic modication of
natural water courses through the building of large-scale hydraulic in-
frastructures such as dams and canals to serve societal goals. Those so-
cietal goals include domestic water supply, food production, and energy
generation [1]. Turton and Meissner ‘s [14] hydro-social contract theory
comprehensively describes the hydraulic mission. The theory claims an
unwritten agreement between the state and citizens about the use of
water resources within their reach [15]. Such an agreement or the
hydro-social contract is reected in the norms or institutions governing
water resource use [14]. The hydro-social contract confers the mandate
of delivering social goals associated with water resources to the state
[16]. The state could be dened as a socially constructed abstract entity
which is reied through the discourses and practices of government
agents [17]. Hence, according to proponents of this theory, the hy-
draulic mission refers to the manifestation of the state's policy in
delivering its hydro-social responsibilities [2]. Specically, the hy-
draulic mission reects the state's strategic goals underpinning the
building of large-scale hydraulic infrastructures across river basins. The
state has been infusing strategic goals ranging from meeting food and
energy security to ensuring domestic and regional security into its hy-
draulic mission [18].
The hydraulic mission also concerns hegemonic discourses the state
uses to legitimize the strategic goals underlying the building of large-
scale hydraulic infrastructures across river basins. The state legiti-
mizes its strategic goals underlying the building of large-scale hydraulic
infrastructure in the name of serving the common good. This is often
reected in the discursive narratives and rhetoric of its hydraulic bu-
reaucracies and policy statements respectively [19]. Molle et al. [20]
indicated that these discourses and rhetoric at most resonate a claim that
“Not a single drop of water should reach the sea without being put to work for
the benet of Man” [20 p. 332]. As part of realizing these discourses,
states have engaged in river basin development programs. The major
components of these programs are the building of large-scale hydraulic
infrastructure across river basins and the accompanying practices of
water resource use and management. Therefore, the hydraulic mission
constitutes an overarching concept encompassing the state's policy,
strategic goals, discourses, and practices associated with the building of
large-scale hydraulic infrastructures such as dams and canals across
river basins.
Around the 1990s environmentalists and NGOs discouraged the
momentum of dam construction in the world due to their negative local
environmental and social impact [1]. Such developments undermined
the legitimacy of the hydraulic mission.
Nevertheless, the recent policy discourse and rhetoric on green
growth and meeting the challenges of climate change have given a new
impetus to the hydraulic mission and the building of large-scale dams
across river basins [1,21]. The policy of green growth provided the main
impetus for the building of hydropower dams, which are largely
considered a clean source of energy [22,23]. However, the associated
local social and environmental impacts remain at the core of criticism of
their construction [24]. Several studies have shown that signicant
scalar trade-offs are generated between national energy generation and
climate goals on the one hand and local environmental and socio-
economic impacts on the other [25–27]. However, the link between
these trade-offs and the hydraulic mission underpinning the building
hydropower dams were not explored adequately. This study argues that
shortcomings in the discourses and practices accompanying the hy-
draulic missions are largely related to the scalar trade-offs associated
with the building of hydropower dams.
The shortcomings concern rst the handling of local development
aspirations in hydropower development. Hydropower projects are
implemented mostly along river basins where settlement is mostly rural
and lacks basic infrastructure. However, the energy generated from the
hydropower plants chiey benets urban settlers where there is rela-
tively better access to basic infrastructure [9,28,29]. The implementa-
tion of hydropower projects inadequately considers such disparity in
spatial development, particularly in the Global South. Although the
scalar development disparity accompanying the construction of hydro-
power dams was noted in prior studies including the report of World
Commission on Dams [8,30,31], this study argues that the concern still
remains largely unaddressed. Secondly, the shortcomings concern the
implementation of feasibility studies accompanying the construction of
hydropower projects. Feasibility studies that fall short of addressing
local environmental and socioeconomic concerns also contribute to the
national-local trade-offs associated with the implementation of hydro-
power projects [9,32]. Thirdly the study considers shortcomings man-
ifested in the poor coordination and lack of transparency across
stakeholders involved in hydropower development [33,34]. This is
largely linked to the institutional arrangements underlying the imple-
mentation of hydropower projects. The last shortcoming of the hydraulic
mission concerns hydropower benets sharing. Hydropower benet
sharing is a relatively new practice which lacks a wider application
worldwide [35].
The study draws on empirical evidence from Ethiopia's Gibe III hy-
dropower project to illuminate these shortcomings of the hydraulic
mission and their specic manifestations in the study area. The study
also explores the scalar implications of these shortcomings.
3. Description of the study area and research methods
This study focuses on the Gibe III hydropower dam project, built
across the Omo River in the former Southern Nations and Nationalities
Region (SNNR).
1
The project is a typical case of national local trade-offs
associated with hydropower development in Ethiopia.
1
Recently Southern Nations and Nationalities Region was split into four
separate regions such as Sidama, Southwest Ethiopia, Central Ethiopia, and
South Ethiopia.
N. Abebe et al.

Energy Research & Social Science 115 (2024) 103660
3
“The Omo was, until the 21st century, a free-owing river; its damming
represents a textbook case of trade-offs in river-basin development”[36
p.6].
As shown in Fig. 1 the project's physical structure lies in the three
kebeles of Zima Waruma, Zaro and Faginamata. These are part of the
woredas/ districts of Loma, Kindo Didaye, and Kindo Koysha. While the
former is located in Dawro, the latter two are in Wolaita.
2
With a con-
struction cost of $1.8 billion, the Gibe III project is a 1870 MW facility
comprising a 240-m dam creating a reservoir with a surface area of at
least 200 km
2
. The project has live storage of 11,750 million cubic
meters of water. The dam structure has an underground, inclined
penstock, and a surface powerhouse with ten power-generating units
and switchyards.
The study employed an exploratory case study design. Drawing on
empirical evidence from the Gibe III project, it illustrates how the state's
hydraulic mission accounts for the scalar trade-offs associated with the
building of hydropower dams in Ethiopia. Case study designs are suit-
able to address the how or why questions about contemporary phe-
nomena [37]. The study draws on primary data collected from key
informant interviews held with individuals afliated with the relevant
national government entities involved in hydropower development and
an academic and research institution. Three focus group discussions
involving 29 participants were also held with local communities affected
by the Gibe III project.
The relevant national government entities include agencies such as
the Ministry of Planning and Development (MPD), Ministry of Water,
Irrigation, and Energy (MWIE) which was renamed as Ministry of Water
and Energy in September 2021 (MWE), Ethiopian Electric Power (EEP),
Ethiopian Electric Utility (EEU), Ethiopian Human Rights Commission
(EHRC), and Center for African and Asian Studies Addis Ababa Uni-
versity. The rst four are national governmental institutions involved in
hydropower development in Ethiopia. EHRC is a public institution
constitutionally mandated to oversee adherence to the norms of human
rights while development projects are implemented. The authors found
a scholar with research experience about Ethiopia's water-based devel-
opment policy and the Omo River basin from the Center for African and
Asian Studies at Addis Ababa University. The study involved local
communities from three Kebeles
3
such as Faginamata, Zaro, and Zima-
waruma, which form part of the woredas/districts
4
of Kindo Koysha,
Kindo Didaye, and Loma respectively in the Omo River's upper course.
These are communities living adjacent to the Gibe III project site and
faced the project's direct impact.
The study undertook eight key informant interviews that explored
the discourses and practices accompanying the building of hydropower
dams in Ethiopia. Table 1 presents a list of the key informants with their
respective afliations. Eight participants for the key informants were
selected due to their expertise relevant to Ethiopia's national policy on
the building of hydropower dams as well as the Gibe III Project and
expressed willingness to participate in the study.
The study also draws on the review of three relevant national policy
documents to explore the strategic goal underlying the building of hy-
dropower dams in Ethiopia. These are the Ethiopian Water Resource
Management Policy (EWRMP), the Growth and Transformation Plan
(GTP), and Ethiopia's Climate Resilient Green Economy (ECRGE).
Ethiopia's Climate Resilient Green Economy (ECRGE) is a document
describing the country's developmental policy of building a zero net
emission economy by 2030. The Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP)
was the Ethiopian state's grand and comprehensive developmental plan
issued for the years between 2010 and 2020. The study limited its review
within the mentioned policy documents since they comprehensively
depict the state's strategic goal and enable an in-depth exploration of the
underlying discourses and practices accompanying the building of hy-
dropower dams across the country's river basins.
The study has also originally considered three additional policy
documents potentially relevant for review. These include Energy Policy
of Ethiopia (EPE), Ethiopian Power System Expansion Master Plan
(EPSEMP), and National Electrication Program (NEP). The rst two
were dropped since the authors were unable to get access to their full
text. The NEP specically focuses on describing the dynamics of national
electricity service rather than the broader policy discourses and prac-
tices accompanying the building of hydropower dams. Its relevance in
terms of providing an in-depth information about the developmental
discourses and practices as well as the political ecology associated with
hydropower development is marginal.
The study employed discourse analysis to unpack the nature of
Ethiopia's hydraulic mission accompanying the building of hydropower
dams. The analysis was undertaken by interpreting the narratives of the
research participants and the rhetoric in the policy documents regarding
the building of hydropower dams in Ethiopia in light of the Gibe III
project. The data from interviews and focus group discussion were
transcribed and de-identied by replacing the original names of the
research participants with code labels. Texts from the transcripts of the
interview and focus group, as well as the national policy documents
were interpreted coded according to their respective meanings using
NVivo software. The authors coded the texts under overarching themes
that comprehensively capture their respective meanings. These include
themes such as Essence of the hydraulic mission, Shortcomings of the
hydraulic mission, Local development aspiration, Feasibility study, Co-
ordination and Transparency, and Hydropower benet sharing. The
themes were used as units of analysis in order to organize and present
the empirical results in meaningful patterns.
This study has passed through Human Subjects (Science) Full Ethical
Review at the University College Dublin (UCD) and secured the requisite
ethical permission. Informed consent was obtained from each of the
participants in the study. Voice recorder was used to collect qualitative
data from interviews and focus group discussion. The study participants
were assured of the condentiality of their response, and this was done
by anonymizing the responses prior to analyzing the data. Anonymity
was made by de-identifying the data in the analysis stage. De-
identication was made by replacing the name of the participants
with code labels.
4. Results and discussion
This section rst presents and discusses the empirical results
regarding the essence of Ethiopia's hydraulic mission. Specically, it
discusses the strategic goal of the hydraulic mission relating to the
building of hydropower dams in Ethiopia. The second part of this section
elaborates on how the Gibe III project realizes Ethiopian state's hy-
draulic mission. Finally, the section describes the shortcomings of the
hydraulic mission and discusses how they account for the scalar trade-
offs associated with the project.
4.1. The essence of Ethiopia's hydraulic mission
Based on the data from a review of the policy documents Table 2
presents a summary of the policy discourses accompanying the building
of hydropower dams in Ethiopia.
The results from the review of national policy documents and the
interviews showed that Ethiopia has relied on its river basins to realize
the strategic goal of building a Climate Resilient Green Economy (CRGE
hereafter). The specic target of this strategic goal is realizing a zero net
2
Wolaita and Dawro Zones belong to South Ethiopia and Southwest Ethiopia
regiones respectively.
3
A kebele (Amharic: ቀበሌ, q¨
ab¨
ale, “neighborhood”) is the smallest admin-
istrative unit in the Ethiopian federal state structure like a word, neighborhood,
or a localized and delimited group of people (en.wikipedia.org).
4
Woreda or districts (also spelt woreda) are the third-level administrative
divisions in Ethiopia's federal system. They are composed of kebeles or neigh-
borhood associations.
N. Abebe et al.

Energy Research & Social Science 115 (2024) 103660
4
emission economy by 2030. Realizing such a target is contingent on
scaling up national electricity supply from renewable energy sources,
mainly hydropower. Ethiopia's Climate Resilient Green Economy
(ECRGE) document stated that electricity is a fundamental enabler of
modern economic development from powering cities and fueling in-
dustrial activity to pumping water for irrigation. ECRGE describes the
low rate of national electricity supply as an integral part of the chal-
lenges the country has been facing to sustain its economic growth:
"If not adequately scaled up to support economic development, it also risks
becoming a fundamental bottleneck to growth…." [39 p.26].
Ethiopia is a country with 56 % of its population lacking access to
electricity [40]. The ECRGE sets expansion of the electricity supply rate
by more than 14 % per year to support economic development at an
annual rate of more than 10 %.
The aim of building a Climate Resilient Green Economy (CRGE) in
Ethiopia aligns with the globally dominant discourse of sustainable
development [1]. Subscribing to such a policy discourse is becoming
very common especially among countries in the Global South. In
Ethiopia, the strategic goal of building CRGE is discursively linked to
narratives legitimizing the building of hydropower dams.
The ECRGE document indicated hydropower is an important source
of energy that Ethiopia can depend upon to boost national electricity
supply [39 p.76]. The document describes that if adequately captured
the supply of electricity from hydropower could exceed the projected
domestic demand of generating 70 TWh by 2030. Ethiopia has priori-
tized the building of large-scale hydropower dams across the country's
river basins to materialize CRGE (interview with IPC1). The ECRGE
document also indicated that the country's hydropower sector has a
Fig. 1. Map of the study area. Source: Authors based on WGS1984World Mercator Coordinate System. SNNR- Southern Nations and Nationalities Region.
Table 1
List of the key informants and their afliations.
List of the key informants Afliations
AAU1 Addis Ababa University
IEEP 1 Ethiopian Electric Utility
IEEU 1 Ethiopian Electric Utility
ICP1 Ministry of Planning and Development
IPC2 Ministry of Planning and Development
IMWIE1 Ministry of Water and Energy
IMWIE2 Ministry of Water and Energy
IEHRC1 Ethiopian Human Right Commission
Table 2
Summary of the policy discourses accompanying the building of hydropower
dams in Ethiopia.
Policy Document Issuance
Year
Policy Discourse accompanying the
building of hydropower dams
Ethiopia's Climate Resilient
Green Economy (ECRGE)
2011 Ethiopia needs to use its available
natural resources, mainly
hydropower, to create an electricity
infrastructure with zero Greenhouse
Gas (GHG) emissions by 2030
Ethiopian Water Resource
Management Policy
(EWRMP)
1999 “…. hydropower development is an
integral part of the multipurpose uses of
water” [38 p.40]
The Growth and
Transformation Plan
(GTP)
2010–2020 Materializing the CRGE necessitates
the boosting of renewable energy
generation capitalizing on the
hydropower potential
N. Abebe et al.

Energy Research & Social Science 115 (2024) 103660
5
surplus potential for exporting electricity abroad. This will enable the
gross national economy to earn substantial foreign exchange, perhaps
not less than other exportable commodities. The ECRGE stated that in
addition to buttressing the country's economic growth, the export of
electricity contributes to generating funds for nancing the building of
hydropower dam projects in the future. The ECRGE document also
stated that the export of electricity will enable Ethiopia to share its green
development with other neighboring countries. This will help to
decarbonize the regional energy prole.
The Ethiopian Water Resource Management Policy (EWRMP) stated
that although the country's river basins have a hydropower generating
potential of 161,000 GWh electricity per year, only a fraction of this has
been harnessed for the socio-economic development of the country. The
mountainous topography and associated hydrological conditions enable
Ethiopia to generate hydropower at a low cost [38 p.39]. The total in-
vestment in expanding electric power capacity until 2030 will be
approximately USD 38 billion. This has been calculated based on the
average unit capital cost which is around 1100 USD/kW for hydro, 2000
USD/kW for wind, and 4600 USD/kW for geothermal [39 p.96].
The GTP document indicated that the state aims to materialize CRGE,
by making the building of large-scale hydropower projects at the core of
its integrated river basin development programs [41 p.71–77]. AAU1, a
scholar from Addis Ababa University, stated that the building of hy-
dropower dams is also in tandem with the state's program of expanding
large scale commercial agriculture. The building of large-scale dams
across the country's river basin in the early years in Ethiopia was more
associated with irrigation for expanding commercial farms rather than
hydropower generation.
The GTP indicated that in the last two decades there was a need to
establish a reliable electricity supply to transform the country's pre-
dominantly agrarian economy into a manufacturing industry. IPC1, an
expert from MPD, indicated that the main target of boosting electricity
production is supporting the manufacturing sector of the country's
economy. Such developmental rhetoric was further reinforced by the
introduction of the policy of building CRGE. Nevertheless, although the
policy of building CRGE seemed to focus on transforming the
manufacturing industry, the state has never relinquished its program of
expanding commercial agriculture alongside with the building of large-
scale dams across the country's river basins (Interview with AAU1). As
indicated in the GTP document, the state made the agenda an integral
part of the goal of building CRGE in the form of expanding irrigation.
The ECRGE document shows that the generation of electricity from
clean and renewable energy sources enables the green development of
other sectors of the economy. These include the replacement of trucks by
electric rail or diesel pumps by electric pumps for irrigation [39 p.37].
The EWRMP also indicated that hydropower development is set to
enable the multipurpose utilization of the country's water resource. The
major components of this discourse are boosting the manufacturing in-
dustry and agricultural productivity. The hydropower development is
set to materialize these by scaling up access to renewable energy supply
and opportunities for irrigation respectively. The Policy also indicates
the potential of using hydropower dam reservoirs for boosting shery.
The ndings in the preceding paragraphs indicated that the claim
about availability of untapped resource potential, the cheapest source of
electricity production, and suitability for multi-purpose use of the water
resource constitute the three major discourses accompanying the
building of hydropower dams in Ethiopia. Ethiopia has used only 10 %
of its potential in hydropower generation. Particularly countries in the
Global South have the largest share of the global untapped hydropower
generation potential [42]. They invest considerably in building hydro-
power projects to address rising electricity demand [4,5]. The relatively
cheap source of electricity generation and suitability for multipurpose
water utilization, makes hydropower dams a plausible water-based
development project among others in the Global South [43,44]. Prior
studies have also indicated that the above mentioned three discourses
constitute the core arguments legitimizing the building of hydropower
dams in the Global South [9,42].
In the meantime, there has been a growing criticism of the building
of large-scale dams for serving national economic ends at the expense of
local environmental and socio-economic concerns. Despite the criticism,
the hydraulic mission is growing rather than waning as a dominant
paradigm underpinning the building of large-scale dams over the last
couple of decades. This is largely attributed to the hydraulic mission's
ability to withstand the criticism by embracing new discourses (such as
climate resilience, sustainability, green growth) which served to legiti-
mize the building of large-scale dams across river basins [1]. Addressing
challenges of global warming by creating opportunities for boosting
clean energy sources is currently used as one of the new discourses
legitimizing the hydraulic mission and the accompanying building of
large-scale hydropower dams. Consequently, new hydropower dams are
being constructed at a growing rate and such a tendency is expected to
continue in the coming decades [45]. Nevertheless, the new discourses
did not reect a break away in terms of serving the national economic
agenda at the expense of local development priorities. Warner et al. [1]
used the metaphor “an old wine in a new bottle” to describe the new
discourse regarding the essence of the hydraulic mission accompanying
the building of large-scale hydropower dams especially over the last two
decades.
4.2. Ethiopia's hydraulic mission and the Gibe III hydropower project
The reports from the key informant interviews conrmed that the
Gibe III project largely ts into the discourses of the hydraulic mission
accompanying the building of large-scale hydropower dams in Ethiopia.
The Gibe III project accounted for 23 % of GTP's total national electricity
generation scheme. The project increased Ethiopia's national electricity
generation capacity by more than a half fold. According to the key
informant from Ethiopian Electric Power (EEP), before the commis-
sioning of the Gibe III project, Ethiopia's total installed electricity gen-
eration capacity was about 2000 MW. Gibe III is working at full capacity
and accounted for 48 % of the electricity generated nationally in 2021.
Ethiopian Electric Power intensively uses Gibe III to deliver electricity
nationwide (interview with EEP1, an informant from Ethiopian Electric
Power).
Omo-Gibe
5
is one of Ethiopia's most suitable river basins for building
hydropower dam projects [46]. The basin has hydropower development
potential with an estimated total installed capacity of generating 5864
MW electricity [47]. EEP1 stated that Gibe III is a cost-effective Project.
The specic unit cost of the Gibe III project, based on the generation
component excluding the transmission part, is estimated to be 2.86
Euros per unit (kWh) and this makes it an attractive hydropower scheme
[48].
“It is a decisive project that came at a decisive moment for the country”
(interview with EEP1).
Table 3 indicates the summary of the discourses realized in the Gibe III
project.
The key informant also stressed that had it not been for the Gibe III
project, the energy crisis the country might have faced would have been
signicant. IPC2, a key informant from MPD said that despite several
challenges as per the timeline of commissioning of the project, Gibe III is
currently instrumental in addressing the country's energy poverty.
The key informants from the MPD mentioned that the Gibe III has
opened opportunities for other major economic activities which have
signicant contributions to national economic growth. It has enabled
the launching of other mega-development infrastructures that are
dependent on electricity. A case in point is the Ethio-Djibouti Electricity-
driven Railway Project. Gibe III has considerably contributed to the
5
Sometimes, the Omo and Gibe Rivers together are referred as the Omo-Gibe
basin.
N. Abebe et al.

Energy Research & Social Science 115 (2024) 103660
6
export of electricity to Sudan, Djibouti, and Kenya. It also makes the
hydropower sector a major foreign currency generator for Ethiopia [48].
The export of electricity was also planned to extend as far as Uganda-
Kampala and Tanzania-Dar es Salaam. IPC1 indicated that capitalizing
on the reservoir of the Gibe III dam, which stretches to an extensive area,
the ofce of the prime minister has implemented a national tourism
project. The reservoir also created a potential for shing. An interna-
tional company called Africa Sustainable Aquaculture (ASA) took the
concession for shing in the reservoir of the Gibe III Dam. Following the
Gibe III project, a large-scale commercial farm was also launched along
the lower Omo River to implement sugarcane plantation (Interview with
AAU1). The plantation is part of the big national development scheme
called the Omo Kuraz Sugar Development Project. The Omo-Gibe is the
country's second largest and most crucial river basin hosting large-scale
hydropower and irrigation projects [49].
The heretofore mentioned developments illustrate how the Gibe III
project is well-tted to the major discourses accompanying the building
of hydropower dams in Ethiopia. Schapper [22] indicated that the
Ethiopian government considers Gibe III as the most representative
hydropower project in realizing the strategic goal of building CRGE.
However, despite the government's framing of the Gibe III as a showcase
of realizing the strategic goal of building CRGE, it remains the most
controversial project due to the magnitude of its adverse impact on the
nearby communities. The next section illustrates how the state's hy-
draulic mission underlying the building of Gibe III accounts for the
project's adverse impact on local communities. Particularly, it focuses on
the short comings associated with the hydraulic mission.
4.3. Shortcomings of the hydraulic mission
This section presented the empirical results concerning shortcomings
of the hydraulic mission underpinning hydropower development in
Ethiopia. The shortcomings manifest in the policy discourses and prac-
tices accompanying the building of hydropower dams. Table 4 below
presents a list of the shortcomings.
As shown in Table 4, the short comings of the hydraulic mission
specically manifested in the discourses and practices concerning the
handling of local developmental aspirations in hydropower develop-
ment, feasibility studies; hydropower benet sharing, and the coordi-
nation and transparency among stakeholders involved in hydropower
development. The subsequent sub-sections elaborate on the shortcom-
ings considering the Gibe III project.
4.3.1. Indifference towards local development aspirations
One of the shortcomings of the hydraulic mission accounting for the
scalar trade-offs associated with the building of hydropower dams in
Ethiopia is reected in the national-local development disparity. All the
policy documents reviewed did not indicate how the local development
aspirations should be addressed while implementing hydropower pro-
jects across river basins in Ethiopia. The EWRMP describes that water
resource development shall be based on rural centered, decentralized
management, participatory approach, and integrated framework.
However, the EWRMP does not mention any specic governance
framework in which the decentralized management of water resources
could be realized while implementing hydropower projects. This could
be for instance in the form of availability of local water basin governance
platforms such as basin authorities, local level water shade management
agencies, local basin councils, water users' association etc…
The ECRGE document stated that the annual emission rate from the
electric power sector will remain at 3MtCO2e in the Business As Usual
(BAU) scenario with the Ethiopian Electric Power (EEP) switching off
conventional power generation by 2030. It indicated the need to exploit
the abatement potential of electricity generation from hydropower
source, in order to change the current national annual emission rate
(3MtCO2e). However, ECRGE document primarily suggests modifying
the pattern of energy consumption in the existing fossil-fuel-based
generation rather than switching to clean energy sources such as hy-
dropower for rural households to reduce Grean House Gas emission [39
p.82]. This is the point where one can raise a question about how the
hydraulic mission is managed across spatial scales.
Rural households, where the rivers harnessed for hydropower
development come from, remained out of the policy discourse that
represents the strategic goal legitimizing the hydraulic mission. Ethio-
pia's hydraulic mission in its essence does not recognize the agency of
the people along river basins regarding the issue of water use [50]. There
were no local level institutional platforms dealing with the country's
water resource governance and management [51]. The hydro social
contract, denoting exclusive privilege for the national/federal govern-
ment on water resource use, has contributed to the hydraulic mission's
failure in considering the agency of communities living along river ba-
sins in Ethiopia [8]. The hydro social contract in this sense refers to the
norm governing water resource use and it is reected in the country's
pertinent legal provisions. Ethiopia's constitution vested an exclusive
ownership of the country's water resource upon the federal government
[52]. EWRMP indicated that water is a natural endowment commonly
owned by the people of Ethiopia. The idea of a “commonly owned
resource” subtly obscured the agency of the people near the river basins
on the use of the water (interview with IPC1).
The hydraulic mission often resonates with policies prioritizing the
“common good” ostensibly realized in large scale dam projects at the
expense of the few local communities living adjacent to river basins [1].
Mayer et al. [5] in their study conducted in Brazil indicated the gov-
ernment's discourse regarding large scale hydropower projects reects
the conviction that the national need for energy might require local
communities' sacrice for the “larger good”. Hence, while the electricity
generated goes elsewhere, the communities along river basins hosting
hydropower dams were denied their right for access to electricity.
Siciliano et al. [9] illustrated the right of communities hosting hydro-
power dams for access to electricity in light of the discourses of energy
justice which appeals for equality in terms of the location and distri-
bution of energy service. The disregard to local development priorities
while implementing hydropower projects has been mostly observed in
the Global South and it reects the energy injustice embedded in the
underlying institutional system [9,28,29]. Crootof et al. [7] also indi-
cated the spatially uneven development across local and national scales
that are associated with hydropower project implementation in the
Global South.
The other shortcomings of the hydraulic mission regarding the
handling of local development aspiration concerns the policy discourse
Table 3
Summary of interview reports showing the discourses of the hydraulic mission
realized in the Gibe III project.
Key
informants
Afliation Discourses
AAU1 Addis Ababa University Enabling commercial agriculture
a
EEP1 Ethiopian Electric Power Boosting national electricity supply
IPC1 Ministry of Planning and
Development
Supporting other electricity-based
mega-development projects
IPC2 Ministry of Planning and
Development
Addressing the country's energy
poverty.
a
“Specially apart from the Lower Awash basin in place called Methara, the
initiative to expand large scale commercial agriculture capitalizing on sugar was
directed to the Omo basin” (interview with AAU1).
Table 4
Shortcomings of the hydraulic mission accompanying the building of hydro-
power dams.
1 Indifference towards local development aspirations
2 Inadequate feasibility studies.
3 Poor coordination and lack of transparency
4 Lack of hydropower benets sharing.
N. Abebe et al.

Energy Research & Social Science 115 (2024) 103660
7
which espouses the building of hydropower dams for multi-purpose use
of the water resource. AAU1 described the Omo basin saw signicant
development interventions after the 13th Annual Pastoralists' Day cel-
ebrations held in Jinka, the seat of the South Omo Zone in 2011. The
then Prime Minister Meles Zenawi addressed the pastoralists promising
the implementation of various infrastructure development projects in
the basin.
“The Federal government is working hard to bring a permanent solution.
The Giggle Gibe 3 dam is developing rapidly and when it is nished the
ood, which has been a huge problem for years in this region, will end
forever. It will then be possible to create a big irrigation system in this wide
and fertile area of South Omo. Following the good results, we have ach-
ieved in the Afar region, the government is planning and working hard to
establish a 150,000-hectare sugarcane development in this area starting
this year. When this development work is done, we believe that it will
transform the entire basis of the area. This will help the people of this area
and hundreds of thousands of other Ethiopians, by creating employment. I
promise you that, even though this area is known as backward in terms of
civilization, it will become an example of rapid development. I also want
to assure you that the work we have started in this area on infrastructure
and social development will continue stronger than ever” [53 p.2] an
excerpt from Prime Minister Meles Zenawi's speech at the 13th
Annual Pastoralists' Day).
The hydraulic mission entails a top-down hydraulic infrastructure
development programs across river basins. The hydraulic infrastructures
are often portrayed as a sign of modernity and civilization to commu-
nities living along river basins [1]. AAU1 indicated that following Gibe
III, the government implemented a sugar production project called Omo-
Kuraz in the lower Omo basin. The Omo-Kuraz is Ethiopia's biggest
commercial agriculture project on sugarcane production next to the
Lower Awash. It has enabled the implementation of 5 huge Sugar fac-
tories which were envisaged in the GTP to support national economic
growth. However, such a huge sugar cane plantation farm has displaced
the local communities without commensurate compensation [54–56].
The hope of modernity and civilization associated with the commercial
agriculture program accompanying the Gibe III project turned into a
livelihood disaster to the communities in the lower Omo basin (Inter-
view with AAU1). The commercial agriculture program resulted in the
displacement of more than 2000 agropastoral households in the lower
Omo basin [57]. Carr [13] also argues that the commercial agriculture
program was not successful in terms of changing the lives of the com-
munities living along the lower Omo River basin.
The other economic opportunity associated with the Gibe III project
is shing. IPC1 said that the Gibe III hydropower project has created a
huge reservoir, in the upper course of the Omo River which is suitable
for shing. This has also opened the prospect of implementing other
secondary activities including sh processing in the area. The shing
activity might have primarily created employment opportunities for the
nearby project-affected communities. The participants in the focus
group discussion reported that the unemployed youths in the area have
been waiting to engage in shing. However, the shing concession on
the reservoir was exclusively granted to an international company called
Africa Sustainable Aquaculture (ASA). The company did not create
adequate employment opportunities for the local communities. It also
entirely supplies the sh produced in the reservoir of the Gibe III dam to
the national market.
The national policy discourses in the Global South mostly fail to
consider local developmental needs in their narratives regarding the
economic opportunities associated with the building of large scale hy-
dropower dams across river basins [9]. Israel and Herrera [58] have
shown the expansion of large-scale hydropower projects in the Global
South follows a consolidated development model and indicates the need
for a policy shift in the governance of the energy system. Amjath-Babu
et al. [59] also argued for the need for adopting policies which are
responsive to the local needs in order to harness hydropower projects for
multipurpose economic ends. Hydropower dam projects have the po-
tential to alleviate local poverty in sub-Saharan Africa provided that
appropriate policies were put in place [60]. However, the empirical
ndings from Gibe III project show that hydropower development policy
discourses still fail to adequately take into account of the local devel-
opment aspirations.
4.3.2. Inadequate feasibility studies
This sub-section elaborates on the shortcomings regarding the
conduct of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as an integral part of
the feasibility studies accompanying the building of hydropower dams
in Ethiopia. The EWRMP indicates that hydropower projects are subject
to strict economic feasibility studies encompassing environmental
impact assessment and stakeholder consultations. Key informants from
the Ministry of Water and Energy (MWE) indicated that international
consulting rms conduct feasibility studies on hydropower projects in
Ethiopia. The intention is to ensure their technical robustness and meet
expectations required by international funding agencies. International
consulting rms are selected to conduct feasibility studies on an open
and competitive bid. The Ministry of Water and Energy (MWE) selects
the rm conducting the feasibility studies after going through a tech-
nical and nancial capacity assessment.
The key informants described that the major criterion underpinning
the selection of rms is their global reputation and experience in feasi-
bility studies in Ethiopia and elsewhere. Carr [13] argues that rather
than their global reputation, the need for an alleged “independent”
Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) is the major factor
explaining the preference for international rms for conducting feasi-
bility studies on hydropower projects in Ethiopia. The motivation
behind this is meeting the requirements of international agencies which
nance the implementation of hydropower projects. These include
among others the World Bank, African Development Bank, and Euro-
pean Investment Bank [13].
IPC2 from MPD described that most often project proponents reect
a bias of optimism as far as project benets are concerned. This prompts
the rms involved in the feasibility studies to show the benets of
projects at the expense of the costs in terms of economic, social, and
environmental aspects. Their observation is limited to the nancial as-
pects of the hydropower projects under consideration. These include for
instance availability of adequate cash ow, loans, etc. Carr [13] showed
that global nancing agencies are primarily concerned with their in-
vestment interests while nancing river basin development projects.
They have developed tacit clientelist links with Global Consulting Firms
(GCF) to legitimize their investment. Monetary interests underpin such a
tacit relationship between global nancing agencies and global consul-
ting rms.
“Contract amounts for these different consulting efforts in river basin
developments vary with a large number of factors. Hundreds of thousands
of dollars are common contract amounts extended to GCI members for
such functions where large capital projects such as mega dams and major
linked developments are involved. Even fractions of river basin de-
velopments can amount to such large sums—or larger. For example, the
tender extended by the European Investment Bank (EIB) for the ‘inde-
pendent’ assessment of the Gibe III dam—a contract awarded to Sog-
reah—was announced with a contract amount of up to EURO 300,000”
[13 p.37].
The GCF does not check other relevant aspects of the projects
including the ESIAs. Interviews with experts of MPD showed that there is
no independent entity in charge of monitoring the implementation of
ESIAs on hydropower projects in Ethiopia. Although there are occa-
sional informal discussions with stakeholders on the reliability of the
feasibility studies, they fell short of the leverage to alter the ESIAs out-
comes. Although feasibility studies are conducted, they do not
adequately address the relevant issues at stake. Projects are endorsed
without robust feasibility studies that take the community,
N. Abebe et al.

Energy Research & Social Science 115 (2024) 103660
8
environment, and technical aspects into consideration.
Local communities hosting the hydropower projects are not willing
to accept them since they were not involved in the associated feasibility
studies (interview with AAU1). The procedures of decision making on
implementing hydropower projects in the Global South mostly does not
involve the nearby communities [9]. This has been largely associated
with the lack of concern for human rights in the feasibility studies
accompanying hydropower projects. International human rights re-
gimes to which Ethiopia is a party advocate that development programs
need to uphold concern for human rights (interview with the IEHRC1, an
expert from Ethiopian Human Rights Commission). IEHRC1 described
that the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission was not involved in any of
the feasibility studies accompanying hydropower projects in the country
thus far.
Similar malpractices were reected in the feasibility study accom-
panying the Gibe III project. The ESIAs constituting an integral part of
the feasibility study, have failed to meet adherence to the relevant norms
of practices. Ethiopia's Constitution requires the conduct of ESIAs on any
development project before it gets implemented [52]. The FGD Partic-
ipants conrmed that the ESIA on the Gibe III project was conducted
well after the beginning of the construction.
IPC2 indicated that Salini Impregilo, a company very familiar to
Ethiopia, due to its involvement in the construction of Koka and Tana
Belles hydropower plants, took a non-bid contract for building the Gibe
III hydropower dam project [25]. In an unusual trend, the same com-
pany took part in selecting the rms that conducted the ESIA on the Gibe
III project. This has resulted in a conict of interest and a lack of over-
sight on the project regarding ESIA [13]. IPC2 disclosed that such cir-
cumstances entailed nancial constraints on the project. The World
Bank and African Development Bank have declined to directly fund the
Gibe III project due to their skepticism over the credibility of the ESIA
associated with it [10]. The construction was made possible after the
government secured the requisite fund from China's Exim Bank to
nance the project. This indicates that it was the availability of funds
rather than compliance with ESIA norms that matters in endorsing the
feasibility accompanying the Gibe III project.
The FGD participants questioned the appropriateness of the ESIA
undertaken as an integral part of the feasibility accompanying the Gibe
III project. They particularly referred to the incommensurate compen-
sation the ESIA has recommended with the socio-economic cost they
incurred due to the project. The compensation scheme reported in the
ESIA, while limited in scope, has taken only arable lands that individual
households lost because of the reservoir of the Gibe III dam. The
compensation does not take the implied losses incurred as the result of
the inundation of communal resources by the reservoir into account. A
case in point is the submergence of the bridge along the highway con-
necting the Wolaita and Dawro zones. Due to this communities were cut
off from their lifeline market without proper compensation. The value of
the market for the community's livelihood is left out of the compensation
discourse. The loss of that part of the road also cut off the communities
from other social services such as education and health care which were
not considered in the compensation (FGWP3, FGD participant). The FGD
participants also mentioned the reservoir overwhelmed the habitat of
the wildlife on the banks of the Omo River to which the ESIA did not
consider any mitigation measure. Wild animals have begun migrating to
the nearby villages endangering human life and livestock. ESIAs
accompanying the building of hydropower projects in the Global South
mostly lack comprehensiveness in terms of addressing the multidimen-
sional aspect of adverse impacts [9,32].
The FGD participants attributed the heretofore mentioned short-
comings in the feasibility study accompanying the Gibe III project to the
“deliberate negligence” of the project owner.
"……the problem emanates from poor preliminary investigation and
'deliberate negligence' from those in charge of the project" (FGWP1, FGD
participant).
The reservoir has expanded, inundating additional arable land which
was not considered in the ESIA report. The FGD participants indicated
although they reported this to the project owner, they did not get a
proper response. The additionally inundated arable land was never
compensated at all. EEP1 conrmed that the maximum size of Gibe III
reservoir is 892 m above sea level. This could be recognized early at the
feasibility study stage. Hence the loss in this regard could have been
properly compensated in advance.
The other concern associated with the ESIA accompanying the Gibe
III project was its compliance with issues of human rights. The Ethiopian
Human Rights Commission has no information on the extent to which
the ESIA accompanying the Gibe III project adheres to the relevant
norms regarding human rights (interview with IEHRC1). Several studies
have shown that the Gibe III project disregarded the rights of the people
living in the Omo basin [10,13,26].
The heretofore presented empirical results indicate that the feasi-
bility studies accompanying hydropower projects in Ethiopia did not
comply with relevant norms and were inadequate in terms of addressing
the associated local environmental and social impacts. The case in the
Gibe III project illustrated how the costs of such malpractices in the
feasibility studies were incurred by the local communities living along
the river basins. The government built the Gibe III project without
conducting ESIA in advance as an integral part of the feasibility study.
Consequently, the cost of the negative ecological and social impacts of
the project incurred by the nearby communities were left unaddressed.
Although ESIA was conducted after the beginning of the construction of
the Gibe III project, there lies no means to compel the project owner
(government) to consider addressing the project's adverse local ecolog-
ical and social impacts since the project was already implemented. Local
environmental and social concerns associated with the building of hy-
dropower dams mostly remain unresolved in the Global South [3]. Aung
et al. [32] indicated that while hydropower projects contribute consid-
erably to the national economy by increasing the supply of renewable
energy at low cost, their associated local environmental and social im-
pacts were not adequately considered in the Global South. They argue
that the conduct of ESIA on hydropower projects throughout their life
cycle is needed to effectively address such local environmental and so-
cial adverse impacts.
4.3.3. Poor coordination and lack of transparency
This sub-section discusses the coordination and information ow
among institutions and stakeholders that are involved in hydropower
project implementation in Ethiopia. These include among others the
MPD, MWE, EEP, EEU, EHC, and local communities living along the
river basins.
The Policy documents reviewed in this study did not indicate insti-
tutional frameworks enabling the coordination of the relevant stake-
holders in hydropower project implementation in Ethiopia. Such
institutional frameworks could be for instance laws and regulations that
coordinate collective actions among stakeholders in the hydropower
project implementation. The key informants from MPD said there is a
lack of coordination among the mentioned governmental institutions
regarding hydropower project implementation. The lack of coordination
is mostly manifested in the planning, budget allocation, and construc-
tion of hydropower infrastructure. This is largely attributed to the
absence of institutional arrangement enabling the coordination of the
mentioned governmental stakeholders in hydropower project imple-
mentation. Yericho and Mulugeta [51] have also shown that the absence
of such an institutional practice not only concerns hydropower devel-
opment but also the entire water management projects across river ba-
sins in Ethiopia. The MPD was supposed to play a leading role in
coordinating the other institutions over the planning, budget allocation
and construction tasks accompanying hydropower development.
Sometimes even the MPD might not get adequate information on when
and where the hydropower development projects are designed and
implemented (interview with IPC2). In the Global South, especially in
N. Abebe et al.

Energy Research & Social Science 115 (2024) 103660
9
Africa the implementation of hydropower development is often frag-
mented, and it does not integrate the relevant governmental agencies
adequately [61].
The poor coordination among the relevant governmental agencies
affected the mitigation of the hydropower projects' adverse impacts on
the nearby communities. The Gibe III project illustrated how such poor
coordination contributed to the failure in addressing local concerns
associated with the project. Part of the local communities' interest
regarding the mitigation of the Gibe III project's adverse impact is the
provision of access to electricity. However, the communities were un-
able to nd a pertinent governmental agency with a clear mandate to
address their quest for access to electricity as part of the mitigation of
Gibe III's adverse impact. IMWIE2, a key informant from MWE indicated
that the mandate of MWE is limited to undertaking design and feasibility
studies on the Gibe III project.
"…… Our mandate is only up to the study and design. So, anything more
than this will be left to other pertinent institutions including Ethiopian
Electric Power and Ethiopian Electric Utility" (interview with IMWIE2).
The key informants from MPD expressed that their institution has
nothing to do with the distribution of electricity across users. Such a
mandate entirely belongs to the EEU.
"I hope when they distribute electric power, they pay due attention to
priorities as far as users are concerned" (interview with IPC1).
On the other hand, the key informants from the EEU claimed that
their company would have delivered electricity to the local communities
if it had received payment to do so from the relevant agency.
"…. If there is a need for electricity from the communities in the project
site, the body that is responsible for their displacement needs to make the
relevant payment for the utility section and we can deliver electricity to
the people who were affected by the project" (interview with IEEU1).
On the other hand, the key informant from Ethiopian Electric Power
(EEP) explains that EEP could not provide electricity to communities
adjacent to the Gibe III project site since this does not fall within the list
of the agency's responsibilities.
"……We do not participate in electricity production at the low voltage
level. We are involved in the production of electricity which is beyond 132
kilovolts. The task of producing electricity below this level is the re-
sponsibility of the Ethiopian Electric Utility” (Interview with IEEP1).
EEU is one of the institutions linked to the Gibe III project's owner-
ship. However, it expects payment from an undisclosed agency for
delivering electricity to the local communities affected by the project.
The EEU and EEP operate under the MWE. The former is charged with
delivering the electricity impounded into the national grid from Gibe III.
The generation and operation of electricity in the Gibe III is the re-
sponsibility of the latter. Given such a relationship, it is difcult to
overlook the EEU's role in addressing the local communities' need for
access to electricity.
The shifting of responsibilities among the institutions in charge of the
Gibe III project left the local communities without a clear agency to
interact with in order to materialize their quest for electricity. The FGD
participants conrmed that they did not nd any entity that took the
mandate to address their quest for access to electricity. Failure to clearly
dene the roles and responsibilities of the pertinent stakeholders as an
integral part of coordinating the task of hydropower development makes
them unable to function efciently [62].
In addition to the poor coordination, the key informants from MPD
indicated that there is a lack of transparency among the relevant
governmental agencies on implementing hydropower projects in
Ethiopia. One of the activities reecting this is the feasibility studies
accompanying the hydropower projects. IMWIE2 described that the
MWE undertakes a feasibility study on prospective hydropower projects
involving international rms. Then it issues the feasibility study report
to other relevant stakeholders for further review. The key informant did
not mention those relevant stakeholders responsible for reviewing the
feasibility study report. The Key informants from the MPD said that
there is a lack of transparency on the conduct of feasibility studies
accompanying hydropower projects in Ethiopia. They indicated that the
MPD has no adequate information about the feasibility study associated
with the Gibe III Project.
"……I reiterate that there are concerns about displacement and environ-
ment that are associated with the Gibe III project and for which I don't
have clear information" (interview with IPC1).
The EHC, another relevant stakeholder on concerns of human rights
regarding the feasibility study accompanying the Gibe III project, was
also not involved in its implementation. Environmental advocates have
also criticized the project over the lack of transparency regarding the
feasibility study accompanying the project [13]. The other related pro-
vision that lacked transparency was the compensation proposed by the
ESIA to mitigate the Gibe III project's adverse impacts on local com-
munities. The compensation was prepared without taking the views of
communities into account.
"Particularly there is no such a situation whereby the local communities
get space to bargain over their vested interest and even there is no such a
mindset on the government's part to let it take place. There is no way for
the communities to deal with their concern on an equal footing with the
government over the project's impact on their livelihood. The whole pro-
cess is led by the project proponent (the government) (interview with
IPC2).
Ethiopia's constitution upholds the project affected communities'
right to get consulted about the impacts of the Gibe III project within the
general framework of ESIA. However, the country lacks a robust legal
protocol or instrument illustrating how to ensure the protection of such
rights within the ESIA accompanying the construction of hydropower
dams [13]. The FGD participants indicated that the proposed compen-
sation was not proportionate to the project's adverse impact on their
livelihoods. The compensation considered only the direct value of the
livelihood assets lost due to the building of the Gibe III dam and other
components of the project. It overlooked the livelihood assets implied
multi-faceted socio-economic value for the local communities (FGWP3,
FGD participant). Soukhaphon et al. [63] indicated that compensations
need to consider the hydropower projects' comprehensive adverse im-
pacts on local livelihoods.
The FGD participants indicated that the communities lacked infor-
mation regarding the estimation of the monetary value of the lost live-
lihood assets in the compensation proposed by the ESIA accompanying
the Gibe III project. They were also denied the requisite time to
contemplate the compensation before they signed off. Some people were
never compensated at all. Although the people took the case to the
federal Ombudsman, until the date of the FGD, it was not resolved
(FGZ1, FGD participant).
FGD participants in Zaro raised the lack of transparency on the
provision of mitigation for the submergence of the bridge connecting the
Dawro and Wolaita Zones. Mitigation was done in the form of diverting
the original course of the road. Although the people opposed the
diversion on the grounds of socioeconomic and security concerns, it was
never considered at all. The people were not properly consulted
regarding the compensation set for the displacement linked to the
diversion of the road. The people also lacked the freedom to express
their grievances regarding compensation. Those who tried to express
their grievances faced intimidation from local government
establishments.
"…. For instance, 38 people including me from our village were detained
for the very reason that we expressed our grievances associated with the
Gibe III project to the higher level of government organs while falsely
accused of destroying the electricity transmission infrastructure linked to
N. Abebe et al.

Energy Research & Social Science 115 (2024) 103660
10
the Gibe III hydropower plant. The incident was aired on the local radio
broadcast stations to further intimidate us" (FGZ 6, FGD participant).
The poor public consultation process regarding the Gibe III project's
ESIA reects the marginalization of affected communities and the
violation of their constitutional rights to development [13,54,64,65].
Furthermore, the local-level government bodies' agency in dealing with
the human rights concerns regarding the Gibe III project is considerably
limited [66]. This is largely attributed to the country's Constitution,
which gave the federal government an exclusive power on the admin-
istration of the country's river basins [67].
Lack of transparency regarding the implementation of compensation
for loss resulting from hydropower projects is very common in countries
across the Global South [9]. The empirical results discussed so far
illustrated how the poor coordination and lack of transparency among
the relevant stakeholders have affected the mitigation of the Gibe III
project's adverse impact on local livelihoods. Several studies conrmed
that poor coordination and lack of transparency among the relevant
stakeholders affect the mitigation of local adverse impacts associated
with hydropower projects [28,29,32].
4.3.4. Lack of hydropower benets sharing
The three documents this study has reviewed lacked clear informa-
tion about the sharing of the benets obtained from hydropower pro-
jects across national and local scales. The EWRMP describes that the
negative impacts of hydropower projects are mitigated to the extent that
it is possible, and the corresponding positive impacts are exploited. The
EWRMP does not clarify the agencies to whom the negative and positive
impacts of the hydropower projects respectively refer to. In another part
of the same policy document, it was stated that local environmental and
social impact assessments (ESIA) are undertaken as an integral part of
hydropower project implementations. This indirectly implies that the
EWRMP's reference to the negative impacts of the hydropower dams is
more associated with the local communities. Hence, the policy recog-
nizes the adverse aspects of hydropower projects at the expense of their
opportunities as far as local communities are concerned. Although
EWRMP shows that the positive impacts shall be exploited, it does not
reect whom such impacts refer to.
Moreover, issues regarding negative versus positive impacts are
mostly addressed within the scope ESIA accompanying hydropower
construction and they do not indicate additional long term develop-
mental opportunities. Particularly the mitigation of negative impacts is
mostly associated with compensation, which in its essence implies
replacement or marginal improvement of lost assets [35]. Hydropower
benet sharing according to Schulz and Skinner [35] refers to a ‘sus-
tainability’ interventions aimed at making additional and long-term
development impact beyond replacing what has been lost. The bene-
ts also need to be directly or indirectly related to earnings or oppor-
tunities obtained from the construction of the hydropower projects.
Although the local communities concede their access to resources
such as land, water, vegetation, and infrastructure for the sake of
building hydropower dams, they do not share part of the benet ob-
tained from such investments (Interview with AAU1). FGD participants
raised the need to enable local communities to get access to electricity as
part of sharing the benet acquired from the Gibe III project. They
claimed that the community paid a lot for the project, but the electricity
produced went to the outsiders while they were living in darkness.
"…...we also expected electric supply from the project since we are the
prime victims of a project which is producing electricity" (FGFP 8, FGD
participant).
FGZ P6, another FGD participant, said that the project owner
installed electricity service for its employees living in the project site but
the nearby communities, who sacriced their belonging to the project,
are living in darkness. Access to electricity is essential to boost local
livelihoods (FGWP9, FGD participant). The local people have been
trying to engage in small-scale shing to support their livelihood. They
were unable to do so, due to the lack of electricity to run the refrigerators
required for the sh storage (FGZP1, FGD participant). The Ethiopian
Electric Utility (EEU) manages the distribution of electricity across the
country using a centralized national grid system which makes it difcult
to share the electricity generated from the Gibe III project for the nearby
local communities.
"…. there is no means by which the power generated from Gibe III will go
directly to the local communities in the project site" (interview with
IEEU1).
Electrication of the project affected communities is a typical
manifestation of benets sharing since it directly links communities with
benets accrued from hydropower development [35].
The FGD participants in Zaro indicated that the reservoir of the Gibe
III dam has exposed the nearby local population to malaria epidemic.
Nevertheless, the Gibe III project owner provided bed nets to deal with
the spread of malaria only to its staff living in the project site. FGD
participants in Zimawaruma also described that the local youth started a
boat transport enterprise to overcome the livelihood losses associated
with the submergence of the highway connecting the Wolaita and
Dawro zones due to Gibe III dam reservoir. However, their effort did not
bear signicant success due to nancial constraints. Although they ex-
pected support from the Gibe III project owner and any other relevant
stakeholders in addressing their problem, no one showed up to support
them thus far (FGWP9, FGD participant). Reservoir lakes created by
storage dams could provide opportunities for boat sailing that could
create additional opportunities for supporting local livelihoods [68].
The key informant from the Ethiopian Human Right Commission
indicated that the local communities affected by the Gibe III hydropower
project need to be the direct beneciaries of the electricity it has
generated. They also need to get more services as part of mitigating the
project's adverse impact on local livelihoods. These include housing,
health care, education, and other facilities (Interview with IEHC1). The
key informants from MPD indicated that local communities affected by
hydropower projects need to get the corresponding benets. This could
be in the form of supporting local livelihoods through “project exter-
nalities” such as opportunities for shing, irrigation, tourism. Hydro-
power dam developers worldwide are increasingly expected to share
benets with project affected communities [35]. There is a moral obli-
gation to support communities' livelihoods that the construction of hy-
dropower dams has adversely affected [30].
"…. under any circumstance the local people need to have something out
of the project they cost for, otherwise…. if the worst happens, they may
even resort to harming it" (interview with IPC1).
IPC1 explained that there is a water pricing arrangement adopted
from abroad and put in place for beneciaries engaging in irrigation in
Ethiopia. Such a kind of practice might help to overcome adverse im-
pacts on livelihoods resulting from hydropower projects too. Imple-
menting the provision of royalty services in hydropower construction
might also help to address the adverse impacts on local livelihoods.
Pineau et al. [69] showed that implementing a royalty service enables
the fair distribution of the cost and benets of hydropower projects
among stakeholders. FGD participants also raised the need to establish a
system in which the local communities could benet from the export of
the electricity generated from the Gibe III project. Sharing the revenues
generated from hydropower projects to project affected communities is
also another option in which benet sharing could be effected [70].
The realization of benet sharing above all is contingent on the
availability of pertinent institutional mechanisms [35]. Particularly in
countries in the Global South such as Ethiopia where the state has an
exclusive power on the water resource governance, it is difcult to
implement the provisions of the hydropower benet sharing scheme
without crafting a strong institutional mechanism empowering project
affected communities.
N. Abebe et al.

Energy Research & Social Science 115 (2024) 103660
11
The empirical results presented in this sub-section revealed that
Ethiopia's investment in hydropower development lacks the relevant
institutional mechanism that enables the sharing of its earnings for
locally impacted communities. The local communities who have lost
their livelihood for the sake of Gibe III did not get anything from its
earnings. Several studies have also shown that the benet of the hy-
dropower project goes to those who had cost little for its implementation
[35,71,72]. Soukhaphon et al. [63] explained that uneven power re-
lations among the local people and national governing entities
contribute to such an imbalanced conguration of the cost and benets
of hydropower projects. Schulz and Skinner [35] additionally argue that
the practice of hydropower benet sharing is not sufciently widespread
globally and the concept is also not widely understood. The empirical
results in this study indicate that both the power factor and lack of fa-
miliarity with the concepts and practice are considerably linked to the
absence of hydropower benet sharing in Ethiopia.
While providing a considerable contribution, this study has limita-
tions in terms of the scope of its empirical base. Hence, future studies
might consider more empirical cases to draw a more generalizable
inference about how errors in the discourses and practices accompa-
nying the hydraulic mission account for scalar trade-offs associated with
the building of hydropower dams in Ethiopia. Specially, a wider
empirical base in the form of undertaking a comparative study of related
cases across Africa or the Global South might contribute a lot in this
regard.
5. Conclusions
The results of this study indicated that the building of CRGE un-
derlies the state's motive driving hydropower development in Ethiopia.
The CRGE constitutes the essence of the hydraulic mission dening
national development schemes materialized through the Gibe III hy-
dropower project. However, the policy discourses and practices
accompanying hydraulic mission bear shortcomings that contributed to
hydropower projects' contrasting outcomes across national and local
scales.
The shortcomings include indifference to local development aspira-
tion in hydropower project implementation. The policy discourse on
hydropower development prioritized the need for addressing national
energy security at the expense of local energy concerns in the name of
addressing “the greater common good”. The Policy discourse of multi-
purpose water use in hydropower development also does not appeal to
the interest of local communities. The Gibe III project illustrated how the
discourse regarding multipurpose hydropower projects served the na-
tional economic growth at the expense of local development priorities.
Secondly, the shortcomings are manifested in the feasibility studies
accompanying the construction of hydropower dams. The feasibility
studies accompanying the construction of the hydropower projects did
not adhere to the norms of the local ESIA. Hydropower projects are
endorsed for their national economic feasibility while the cost of their
local environmental and socio-economic impacts remain signicantly
unaddressed. The third attribute manifesting the shortcomings of the
hydraulic mission is the poor coordination and lack of transparency
among stakeholders involved in hydropower project implementation.
This was largely reected in the conduct of ESIA and the respective
mitigation measures, which were presumed to address local concerns
associated with the construction of hydropower projects. The last
manifestation of the shortcomings in the hydraulic mission is the lack of
benets sharing arrangement between hydropower project owners and
the nearby communities. The cost and benets of hydropower projects
are unevenly distributed across people within the project site and
outside.
The ndings of the study indicate that the discursive narratives on
building CRGE accompanying hydropower development reect a new
way of legitimizing the perpetuation of extractivism associated with
development programs across river basins in Ethiopia. The building of
large-scale hydropower dams across river basins driven by the policy of
green growth alienated the nearby communities from their natural re-
sources including land and water. However, the benets such as access
to clean energy as well as associated project externalities were taken
away to those outside of the river basins. Other related studies have also
shown a more or less similar developments constituting the character-
istic feature of the hydraulic mission elsewhere, particularly in the
Global South. The empirical evidence in this study indicated that the
shortcomings on policy discourse and practice accompanying hydro-
power development manifest such extractivism in Ethiopia. The study
also showed that the roots of such extractivism are embedded in the
institutional infrastructure underlying the hydraulic mission. This is also
largely attributed to the asymmetric agential power between the gov-
ernment and local communities regarding the governance and man-
agement of river basins.
Hence, in order to deal with the shortcomings and minimize the
associated scalar trade-offs related to hydropower development in
Ethiopia and elsewhere in the Global South, the government specically
needs to rst consider developing an institutional framework enabling
communities harness opportunities in hydropower projects for sup-
porting their livelihoods. This could be in the form of reforming existing
water governance regimes and establishing local institutional platforms
such as local river basin councils, local level river basin authority, and
water users' associations. Hydropower projects need to contribute to
improving the livelihood of the nearby communities meaningfully
beyond their mere existence. Second, the government needs to consider
improving the conduct of feasibility studies accompanying the con-
struction of hydropower projects. Particularly, attention should be given
to improving ESIA as an integral part of the feasibility study. The
conduct of ESIA should not be limited to the adverse impacts of hy-
dropower projects on nearby communities. The ESIA should also
consider exploring the implications of the corresponding project exter-
nalities for the nearby communities. Improving the institutional infra-
structure underlying the conduct of ESIA is also of paramount
importance in this regard. Thirdly, the government needs to consider
developing guidelines or protocols in order to uphold transparency
among the relevant stakeholders regarding hydropower project imple-
mentation. The roles and functions of relevant stakeholders or agencies
involved in hydropower development should be clearly dened. Finally,
the government needs to consider the institutionalization of hydropower
benet-sharing between communities hosting hydropower projects and
the project owners. This needs to be accompanied with empowering the
communities by reforming the institutional infrastructure underlying
river basin governance and management.
Furthermore, the ndings from this study indicated that although
hydropower projects often cause adverse impacts on the nearby com-
munities, dependence on them to boost national renewable energy
supply remains inevitable for the foreseeable future, particularly in the
Global South. This entails a need to search for a way to reconcile such
trade-offs across national and local scales. The empirical evidence from
this study is instrumental in informing the policy on how to minimize
the trade-offs. This is of paramount importance for countries in the
Global South where we see a considerably increasing trend in the con-
struction of hydropower projects to deal with the corresponding in-
crease in the national demand for renewable energy. The ndings from
this study also add relevant insights to the pertinent literature on how to
deal with the scalar trade-offs associated with the construction of hy-
dropower projects. Particularly the ndings illuminate how to optimize
the national- local trade-offs associated with the construction of hy-
dropower dams. They also inform future research about the need to
explore how to reconcile trade-offs in the hydraulic mission without
rejecting it altogether.
Notes on contributors
Nigatu Abebe received his master's Degree in African Studies from
N. Abebe et al.

Energy Research & Social Science 115 (2024) 103660
12
Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and he has also received
a PhD. from University College Dublin.
Sulagna Maitra (PhD) is a lecturer/assistant professor/in Humani-
tarian Action.
Bekadu Esayas (PhD) is an Assistant Professor of Development
Studies and Senior Program Ofcer.
Climate Smart Conservation & Ecotourism.
Ronan McDermott (PhD) is an Assistant Professor in Cultural Geog-
raphy and Climate Adaptation Governance.
Funding
This research was supported by the Building Resilience through
Education project (BRTE) – H2020-MSCA-RISE-2017: [Grant Number
778196].
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Nigatu Abebe: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft,
Software, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation,
Conceptualization. Sulagna Maitra: Writing – review & editing, Writing
– original draft, Supervision, Methodology, Investigation, Formal anal-
ysis, Conceptualization. Bekadu Esayas: Writing – review & editing,
Writing – original draft, Validation, Supervision, Software, Methodol-
ogy, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization.
Ronan McDermott: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft,
Validation, Supervision, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis,
Data curation, Conceptualization.
Declaration of competing interest
No potential conict of interest was reported by the authors.
Data availability
The data that has been used is condential.
Appendix A. Annex 1 Interview Guides
A.1. Interview guide for a scholar from Addis Ababa University
1. Thank you very much for your time and let me begin my question
with the development trend in Ethiopia as per national-local scalar
disparity. How do you see this trend in emerging economies espe-
cially focusing on the implementation of mega-development projects
such as hydropower dams, which are known to have impacts on local
environments.
2. Well, having all these things you raised let us move to the Omo basin
…. how do you see contexts in the Omo basin as per the issue raised
in your response to the rst Question?
3. How far do you think projects including Gibe III in the Omo basin
conform to local, national, and international norms?
4. Would you reect on the issue of energy integration?
5. You see in relation to hydroelectric power there is a new initiative
about regional integration on the part of the government, for
example, if you have information about the East African Power Pool,
established in 2005 with the aim of harnessing energy across coun-
tries in the horn of Africa. So, with this initiative, Ethiopia is por-
trayed as the tower of energy. In this regard, how much do you think
Gibe III will contribute to making the country a regional hub for
energy transactions?
6. Well, I appreciate the time you took for this interview. Thank you
very much!
A.2. Interview guide for the key informants from Ethiopian Electric Power
1. Thank you for your time and let us begin with the introduction of
yourself.
2. How do you describe your impression of the Gibe III hydropower
Dam Project?
3. How do you evaluate the Gibe III project in terms of addressing its
stated purpose prior to its construction?
4. How do you also evaluate the benet of the project against its cost?
5. Since they are the primary victims of the project, communities
adjacent to the project site claim that they deserve at least electricity
generated from Gibe III as compensation. So, do you think there is
anything your institution will do to address this concern?
6. Well, I appreciate the time you took for this interview. Thank you
very much!
A.3. Interview guide for the key informants from Ethiopian Electric Utility
1. Thank you for your time and would tell me your name rst?
2. Well, what is your general impression about the Gibe III hydropower
project?
3. How do you see its role in addressing the country's energy needs?
4. How do you see the distribution of electricity across users? Specif-
ically, do you consider the services fairly distributed as far as com-
munities affected by the project are concerned?
5. Well, I appreciate the time you took for this interview. Thank you
very much.
A.4. Interview guide for the key informants from the Ethiopian Human
Right Commission
1. Thank you for your time and you may begin by introducing yourself.
2. …. you know human rights issue is one of the components that need
to be considered as part of feasibility studies conducted on large-
scale development projects such as the Gibe III project. Hence, as a
major stakeholder in this regard, how do you evaluate the involve-
ment of your institution in such undertakings thus far in the country?
How far do you consider projects such as the Gibe III project conform
to the relevant norms of human right?
3. Well, as a matter of fact, the country has abundant water resources.
While utilizing the resource what kind of approach do you think need
to be pursued to address pertinent human right concerns related to
the people living along the water courses?
4. Well, I appreciate the time you took for this interview. Thank you
very much!
A.5. Interview guide for the Key informants from the Ministry of Planning
and Development
1. Can you tell me your position and the experiences you had so far?
2. How do you describe your impression about the Gibe III hydro-
power dam project?
3. How do you see the necessity of such a developmental initiative
for the country? How do you see the compatibility between the
development policy of the state and the project? Do you see
developmental narratives inuencing the endorsement of the
Gibe III project? I mean just… you know there is a discourse of
green economy playing on this kind of project and I mean how do
you see the value of the project to such a policy end?
4. Do you see any groups of professionals dominating public
discourse pertaining to the project? Is there any dominant
discourse underlying the endorsement of the project?
5. How do you see conformity of the project with relevant local,
national, and international norms?
6. How do you see the projects benet for national development
priorities?
N. Abebe et al.

Energy Research & Social Science 115 (2024) 103660
13
7. Are there any implied benets associated with Gibe III that can
serve national goals (economic, political, and social)?
8. I had an opportunity to talk with the local people and they told
me that there is already a shing rm that has been granted the
concession to work on the reservoir and this arrangement totally
ignored them. In addition to that, they said that even the sh
product is also distributed to areas more than 300 km away from
the project's location. For example, it is not even distributed in
the city of Wolaita Sodo which is the zonal capital. They also
raised the fact that the project is an electricity plant but due to
lack of access to electricity local people who endeavored to
engage in shing were unable to proceed due to the lack of the
power to run refrigerators. So how do you see this concern?
9. Can you tell me some details about the standard against which it
is possible to measure the value of the project for national
development? Well, the new arrangement you're talking about, is
it a formal? Is it supported by ofcial legal protocols or other
similar documents?
10. Well, do you see any possibility in which the Gibe III project can
be a platform where the communities in the river valley can have
access to improve their resilience towards challenges associated
with livelihoods? Can you tell me some details about aspects of
development that can be addressed in this respect?
11. Can you mention stakeholders that can inuence the course of
action in the way to harness the project for local development?
12. Well, I appreciate the time you took for this interview. Thank you
very much!
A.6. Interview guide for the key informants from the Ministry of Water
and Energy
1. Thank you for your time and you may begin by introducing
yourself.
2. Well, what is your general impression about the Gibe III hydro-
power project?
3. How do you see its role in addressing the need for energy in the
country?
4. Well, how did you see the feasibility study undertaken for the
Gibe III project? How do you evaluate its scientic rigor? Do you
see any gap in this respect?
5. How do you see conformity of the project with relevant local,
national, and international norms?
6. Did you encounter any challenges while you are conducting the
feasibility study? Perhaps if there is a conict of interest arose
over it?
7. How far the project did conform to the relevant norms of prac-
tice? So how far the project has gone to observe the relevant
norms of practices? Perhaps did you encounter challenges in this
respect?
8. How do you see the project's benet for national development
priorities?
9. How do you evaluate the performance of the project against the
plan you originally envisaged? How far does the project full its
stated purpose prior to its construction?
10. How far does Gibe III is in line with your feasibility study
ndings?
11. Finally, do you think there is any prospect in which the power
generated from Gibe III will serve local communities along the
project site? If you conrm the existence of the possibilities, how
far do you consider your role as a stakeholder in the project will
extend to realize them?
12. Well, I appreciate the time you took for this interview. Thank you
very much!
Appendix B. Annex 2 Focus group discussion guide
B.1. Focus group discussion guide
1. Let us move to the rst question, it is all about introducing each
other. So briey tell us about you and your family
2. How do you see your livelihood base and your community?
3. How do you examine your community's aspiration in pursuing
the livelihood it preferred?
4. What do you think are the major livelihood challenges and op-
portunities in your locality?
5. Do you see any loss you have incurred as the result of the Gibe III
hydropower dam in your locality? If yes, would you describe
them?
6. Is there any compensation schemes put in place in your locality
for the loss associated with the Gibe III hydropower project? If
yes, how far the compensation is commensurate with the losses
incurred? If not, why do you think that the compensation was not
put in place?
7. How do you describe the outcomes (probe as negative and positive)
of the Gibe III dam project for livelihoods in your community?
8. If there are positive outcomes, would your list the envisaged
positive livelihood outcomes that the dam will have for your
locality?
9. How do you see your communication with different stakeholders
(probe as local administrators, NGOs, Woreda/Zonal governments,
and private sector) and national government agencies (probe as
Ministry of Water and Energy, Ethiopian Electric Power, and Ethio-
pian Electric Utility) to address livelihood concerns related to Gibe
III project?
10. How do you describe your interest to take part in activities that
will harness the project for supporting livelihoods in your
community?
11. What would be your preference regarding options of livelihood
activities that could be practiced using opportunities associated
with the Gibe III project?
12. What would be your role in addressing the ongoing livelihood
disruption owing to the dam if any? What capacities (such as
nancial, human, material, and others) do you have to contribute
to your livelihood improvements?
13. These are all the questions prepared for today's discussion. I
sincerely appreciate your cooperation and participation
throughout the discussion and thank you very much for your
time.
Appendix C. Annex 3 NVivo analysis result
Lack of proper Consideration for national-local development.xlsx.
Feasibility study.xlsx.
Lack of coordination and information asymmetry.xlsx.
Sharing the earnings of the project.xlsx.
Essence of the hydraulic mission.xlsx.
References
[1] J.F. Warner, J. Hoogesteger, J. Pablo Hidalgo, Old wine in new bottles: the
adaptive capacity of the hydraulic Mission in Ecuador, Water Altern. 10 (2) (2017).
[2] A. Conker, H. Hussein, Hydraulic mission at home, hydraulic mission abroad?
Examining Turkey’s regional ‘pax-aquarum’ and its limits, Sustainability 11 (1)
(2019) 228.
[3] G. Siciliano, et al., Environmental justice and Chinese dam-building in the global
south, Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 37 (2019) 20–27.
[4] C. Zar, et al., Future large hydropower dams impact global freshwater megafauna,
Sci. Rep. 9 (1) (2019) 18531.
[5] A. Mayer, et al., Is hydropower worth it? Exploring amazonian resettlement,
human development and environmental costs with the Belo Monte project in
Brazil, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 78 (2021) 102129.
[6] R.C. Sayan, Exploring place-based approaches and energy justice: ecology, social
movements, and hydropower in Turkey, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 57 (2019) 101234.
N. Abebe et al.

Energy Research & Social Science 115 (2024) 103660
14
[7] A. Crootof, et al., Sacricing the local to support the national: politics,
sustainability, and governance in Nepal’s hydropower paradox, Energy Res. Soc.
Sci. 80 (2021) 102206.
[8] N. Abebe, et al., Integrating cross-community resilience in the gibe III hydropower
project, Ethiopia: a conceptual framework, Dev. Pract. 33 (6) (2023) 742–749.
[9] G. Siciliano, et al., Large dams, energy justice and the divergence between
international, national and local developmental needs and priorities in the global
south, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 41 (2018) 199–209.
[10] M.S. Huda, Autocratic power? Energy megaprojects in the age of democratic
backsliding, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 90 (2022) 102605.
[11] R. Baghel, R. Baghel, Genealogy of the hydraulic mission, in: River Control in India:
Spatial, Governmental and Subjective Dimensions, 2014, pp. 61–91.
[12] M.I. England, D. Haines, Topography and the hydraulic mission: water
management, river control and state power in Nepal, Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 37
(1) (2018) 1–23.
[13] C.J. Carr, River Basin Development and Human Rights in Eastern Africa—A Policy
Crossroads, Springer Nature, 2017.
[14] A. Turton, R. Meissner, The hydrosocial contract and its manifestation in society: A
South African case study, in: Hydropolitics in the Developing World: A Southern
African Perspective, 2002, pp. 37–60.
[15] G. Bermejo-Martín, C. Rodríguez-Monroy, Y.M. Nú˜
nez-Guerrero, Water
consumption range prediction in huelva’s households using classication and
regression trees, Water 13 (4) (2021) 506.
[16] C. Kitoko, M. Whittington, L. Swatuk, Confronting the system: an exploration of the
water security crisis in Melbourne, in: The Political Economy of Urban Water
Security under Climate Change, Springer, 2022, pp. 157–183.
[17] M. Rusca, et al., Space, state-building and the hydraulic mission: crafting the
Mozambican State, Environ. Plan. C: Politics Space 37 (5) (2019) 868–888.
[18] D.J. Blake, Unsettling bureaucratic designs: inter-bureaucratic competition and
patrimonialism in the pursuit of Thailand’s hydraulic mission, Int. J. Water Resour.
Dev. 39 (6) (2023) 986–1006.
[19] D. Suhardiman, M. Giordano, Is there an alternative for irrigation reform? World
Dev. 57 (2014) 91–100.
[20] F. Molle, P.P. Mollinga, P. Wester, Hydraulic bureaucracies and the hydraulic
mission: ows of water, ows of power, Water Altern. 2 (3) (2009) 328–349.
[21] A.K. Gerlak, et al., Dams, Chinese investments, and EIAs: a race to the bottom in
South America? Ambio 49 (2020) 156–164.
[22] A. Schapper, Climate justice concerns and human rights trade-offs in Ethiopia’s
green Economy transition: the case of Gibe III, Eur. J. Dev. Res. 33 (6) (2021)
1952–1972.
[23] M.N. Bimir, Ethiopia's climate change policies in retrospect: from conservationism
to green economy, in: Energy Policy Advancement: Climate Change Mitigation and
International Environmental Justice, 2022, pp. 163–183.
[24] G. Siciliano, F. Urban, Equity-based natural resource allocation for infrastructure
development: evidence from large hydropower dams in Africa and Asia, Ecol. Econ.
134 (2017) 130–139.
[25] Z. Fang, et al., Framework for a more balanced consideration of hydropower
development through ecosystem services assessment, Sustain. Prod. Consum. 33
(2022) 557–566.
[26] R.M. Almeida, et al., Strategic planning of hydropower development: balancing
benets and socioenvironmental costs, Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 56 (2022)
101175.
[27] E.K. Opoku, et al., Quantifying and analysing water trade-offs in the water-energy-
food nexus: the case of Ghana, Water-Energy Nexus 5 (2022) 8–20.
[28] R. Kruger, D. McCauley, Energy justice, hydropower and grid systems in the global
south, Energy Justice Across Bord. (2020) 91–109.
[29] N. Antadze, K. Gujaraidze, The role of traditional rituals in resisting energy
injustice: the case of hydropower developments in Svaneti, Georgia, Energy Res.
Soc. Sci. 79 (2021) 102152.
[30] World Commission on Dams, Dams and Development: A New Framework for
Decision-Making: The Report of the World Commission on Dams, Earthscan, 2000.
[31] M.A. García, et al., Spatial injustice to energy access in the shadow of hydropower
in Brazil, World Dev. 178 (2024) 106570.
[32] T.S. Aung, T.B. Fischer, A.S. Azmi, Are large-scale dams environmentally
detrimental? Life-cycle environmental consequences of mega-hydropower plants in
Myanmar, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 25 (2020) 1749–1766.
[33] A.O. Diri¨
oz, Addressing climate change through the water–energy–food nexus:
Lessons learned from Turkey, in: Climate Change Law and Policy in the Middle East
and North Africa Region, Routledge, 2021, pp. 136–152.
[34] M. Sibtain, et al., Hydropower exploitation for Pakistan’s sustainable development:
a SWOT analysis considering current situation, challenges, and prospects, Energ.
Strat. Rev. 38 (2021) 100728.
[35] C. Schulz, J. Skinner, Hydropower benet-sharing and resettlement: a conceptual
review, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 83 (2022) 102342.
[36] E.G. Stevenson, Water access transformations: metrics, infrastructure, and
inequities, Water Secur. 8 (2019) 100047.
[37] B.K. Sovacool, J. Axsen, S. Sorrell, Promoting novelty, rigor, and style in energy
social science: towards codes of practice for appropriate methods and research
design, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 45 (2018) 12–42.
[38] Ministry of Water Resources, Ethiopian Water Resources Management Policy, The
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Ethiopia, 1999.
[39] D.A. Habtewold, B. Ponce, P.C. Mulatu, D. Woubishet, Ethiopia's Climate-Resilient
Green Economy: Green Economy Strategy, Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia, 2011.
[40] A.W. Yalew, The Ethiopian energy sector and its implications for the SDGs and
modeling, Renew. Sustain. Energy Transit. 2 (2022) 100018.
[41] FDRE-MOFED, Growth and Transformation Plan 2010/11–2014/15, Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Ministry of Finance and Economic Development,
2010.
[42] M.M.V. Cantarero, Of renewable energy, energy democracy, and sustainable
development: a roadmap to accelerate the energy transition in developing
countries, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 70 (2020) 101716.
[43] J.M. Williams, The hydropower myth, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27 (12) (2020)
12882–12888.
[44] W.M. Tefera, K. Kasiviswanathan, A global-scale hydropower potential assessment
and feasibility evaluations, Water Resour. Econ. 38 (2022) 100198.
[45] G. Voegeli, D.C. Finger, Disputed dams: mapping the divergent stakeholder
perspectives, expectations, and concerns over hydropower development in Iceland
and Switzerland, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 72 (2021) 101872.
[46] A.T. Haile, et al., Deterioration of streamow monitoring in Omo-gibe basin in
Ethiopia, Hydrol. Sci. J. 67 (7) (2022) 1040–1053.
[47] S.T. Avery, E.J. Tebbs, Lake Turkana, major Omo River developments, associated
hydrological cycle change and consequent lake physical and ecological change,
J. Great Lakes Res. 44 (6) (2018) 1164–1182.
[48] EEPCO, Gibe III Hydroelectric Project. Environmental and Social Impact
Assessment, EEPCo, 2009.
[49] T.P. Orkodjo, G. Kranjac-Berisavijevic, F.K. Abagale, Impact of climate change on
future availability of water for irrigation and hydropower generation in the Omo-
Gibe Basin of Ethiopia, J. Hydrol.: Reg. Stud. 44 (2022) 101254.
[50] L. Hommes, R. Boelens, From natural ow to ‘working river’: hydropower
development, modernity and socio-territorial transformations in Lima’s Rímac
watershed, J. Hist. Geogr. 62 (2018) 85–95.
[51] B.M. Yericho, B.A. Mulugeta, Challenges and opportunities for implementation of
integrated water resource management in Omo-Gibe Basin, Ethiopia, J. Ecol. Nat.
Environ. 11 (7) (2019) 84–97.
[52] F. Constitution, Constitution of Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
(Proclamation No. 1/1995) 9, Negarit Gazette, 1995, p. 92.
[53] M. Zenawi, Speech by Meles Zenawi during the 13th Annual Pastoralists’ Day
Celebrations, Jinka, South Omo, 2011.
[54] D. Turton, Hydropower and irrigation development in the Omo Valley:
development for whom? Antropologia Pubblica 4 (1) (2018) 51–64.
[55] J. Hodbod, et al., Social-ecological change in the Omo-Turkana basin: a synthesis
of current developments, Ambio 48 (2019) 1099–1115.
[56] A.K. Gebeyehu, J. Abbink, Land, sugar and pastoralism in Ethiopia: comparing the
impact of the Omo-Kuraz sugar projects on local livelihoods and food (in) security
in the lower Omo Valley, Pastoralism 12 (1) (2022) 1–20.
[57] Y.A. Zikargie, L. Cochrane, Zikargie, Y.A. and L. Cochrane. Modernist Land
Development-Induced Villagisation: Deconstructing Socio-Economic Rights of
Pastoralists in South Omo, Ethiopia. in Forum for Development Studies, Taylor &
Francis, 2022.
[58] A. Israel, R.J. Herrera, The governance of Peruvian energy transitions: path
dependence, alternative ideas and change in national hydropower expansion,
Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 69 (2020) 101608.
[59] T. Amjath-Babu, et al., Integrated modelling of the impacts of hydropower projects
on the water-food-energy nexus in a transboundary Himalayan river basin, Appl.
Energy 239 (2019) 494–503.
[60] E. Adjei, et al., Assessing the impact of hydro energy project on poverty alleviation:
the case of Bui Dam in Ghana, Energy Policy 170 (2022) 113227.
[61] B.J. Dye, Unpacking authoritarian governance in electricity policy: understanding
progress, inconsistency and stagnation in Tanzania, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 80 (2021)
102209.
[62] K. Ullah, M.S. Raza, F.M. Mirza, Barriers to hydro-power resource utilization in
Pakistan: a mixed approach, Energy Policy 132 (2019) 723–735.
[63] A. Soukhaphon, I.G. Baird, Z.S. Hogan, The impacts of hydropower dams in the
Mekong River Basin: a review, Water 13 (3) (2021) 265.
[64] T. Hathaway, Facing Gibe 3 Dam: Indigenous Communities of Ethiopia's Lower
Omo Valley, International Rivers, 2009, pp. 1–10.
[65] I. Rivers, Ethiopia’s Gibe III Dam: Sowing Hunger and Conict, International
Rivers, Berkeley, 2011.
[66] E. Hailu Woldegebrael, The materialization of “developmental state” in Ethiopia:
Insights from the Gibe III hydroelectric development project regime, Omo Valley,
in: L'Espace Politique. Revue en Ligne de G´
eographie Politique et de G´
eopolitique
35, 2018.
[67] R. Hailu, D. Tolossa, G. Alemu, Water security: stakeholders’ arena in the Awash
River basin of Ethiopia, Sustain. Water Resour. Manag. 5 (2019) 513–531.
[68] J.L. Arthur, et al., Differential impacts of dam construction on livelihoods in
Ghana, Afr. Geogr. Rev. 39 (3) (2020) 267–281.
[69] P.-O. Pineau, L. Tranchecoste, Y. Vega-C´
ardenas, Hydropower royalties: a
comparative analysis of major producing countries (China, Brazil, Canada and the
United States), Water 9 (4) (2017) 287.
[70] F. Vanclay, Project-induced displacement and resettlement: from impoverishment
risks to an opportunity for development? Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 35 (1)
(2017) 3–21.
[71] D. Koenig, Advantages and obstacles to retrotting benet-sharing after
development-induced displacement and resettlement, Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais.
39 (5) (2021) 417–428.
[72] R.A. Vaidya, et al., The role of hydropower in South Asia’s energy future, Int. J.
Water Resour. Dev. 37 (3) (2021) 367–391.
N. Abebe et al.