The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam: the 'losers'

Last week I discussed the hydro politics behind the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). This blog will be a sequel of my last blog. Whereas in the first blog about this topic I discussed the transnational power relations and political issues the riparian states of the Nile (in particular Egypt and Sudan) face with Ethiopia concerning the GERD, this week I will change the perspective of the GERDs impact from a transnational to a local level. My aim for these blogs is to try to get as many perspectives of different levels of interest groups in particular problems as possible. Therefore it’s important to see what actually happens in local context. Building the GERD might be beneficial for Ethiopia overall, but what happens to the people who live in the area where the dam is built?

When building a construction as big and impactful as the GERD there are some international organisations that guide the way in building constructions like this. The World Commission on Dams (WCD) prescribed seven commonly shared strategic priorities and integrated sustainability standards which are endorsed by the International Hydropower Association (IHA) to analyse the sustainability situation, opportunity and development of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). One of them, a particularly important one is ‘gaining public acceptance’. This priority emphasises that all interest groups should be informed about the project's affects and outcomes, these should not harm but safeguard their rights. Therefore all parties should be involved into the decision-making process. Finally, an importance is given to special attention for vulnerable people such as women, the poor and indigenous people (Chen, H. & Swain, A. 2014). The seven priorities set by the WCD seem to be reasonable and guiding when it comes to mediating between several interest groups and safeguarding the most beneficial outcomes for everyone. However this is not what’s happening in the case of the GERD. The building of the dam has not involved local residents in decision-making.

Figure 1: Explosion of dynamite to built the GERD

Local context

The GERD area is a sparsely populated one. The region is home to the indigenous people of Gumuz and Berta. They are one of the less developed groups of the country, even by Ethiopian standards. They know a huge project is happening but they have no idea how this may impact their life (International Rivers, 2012; Chen, H. & Swain, A. 2014; Veilleux, J.C., 2013). The impact of the GERD can be devastating: loss of livelihoods, unemployment and impoverishment are all likely to happen. The construction of the dam causes approximately 12,500 people to be displaced and start their lives elsewhere (International Rivers, 2012). According to the former director-general of the Ethiopian Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) displacement is not an issue. The displaced groups get money and land to resettle and an opportunity to work on the GERD project as well. This sounds like a generous and fair treatment for the affected groups. However we need to understand this is still an involuntarily displacement. The Gumuz and Berta strongly connect with the local land and water resources. It’s not easy for them to just switch to non-agricultural activities where they have to compete in the labour market while suffering from limited education (Chen, H. & Swain, A. 2014).

Massive projects like this include a lot of different interest groups to whom the outcomes of the project have great importance. With organisations like the WCD and the IHA, outlining strategies and frameworks, managing these kinds of projects should be doable in quite a smooth and inclusive way. Everybody who’s affected by the consequences of a dam should be involved in decision-making and planning. However this is not what has been done in the case of the GERD. The Ethiopian government has been focused on the greater good of the project rather including everybody such as the local people affected by it. Considering the Gumuz and the Berta are already a marginalised group with a relatively bad economic background it’s a shame they haven’t been taken into account in decision-making. The government is proud of the GERD and presents it as something that benefits all, however this in not the case for the local residents of the GERD area. Building a massive project like this might be easiest when you are building on the land of marginalised people with a worse economic background. They are less likely and capable in unifying themselves and protest against the state for building a big project. Ignoring them even with informing about the project seemed to be easier than taking their opinions and wellbeing into account with decision-making. This is reality for local level hydro-politics. A project like the GERD is important for entire governments and populations to argue about. While the people that are going to be affected by it the most have no voice.