Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science
in Global Sustainability Science

Of “Vampires”, “Sweet Promises”, and Contested Developments:
Frame-Analysis of Development Projects in the Omo Valley, Ethiopia
Submitted by:
Rebecca Gerigk
Leuphana matriculation number: 3029324
ASU ID: 1212103462
R.Gerigk@Web.de
Am Iflock 4a
21335 Lüneburg, Germany
Examined by:
Prof. Dr. Daniel Fischer (Erstprüfer, Co-Chair of the committee)
daniel.fischer@leuphana.de
Leuphana University of Lüneburg
Universitätsallee 1, C11.411
21335 Lüneburg, Germany
Prof. Dr. Rimjhim Aggarwal (Zweitprüferin, Co-Chair of the committee)
Rimjhim.Aggarwal@asu.edu
Arizona State University
PO Box 875603
Tempe, AZ 85287-5603, USA
Prof. Dr. Jennifer Hodbod (Member of the committee)
jhodbod@msu.edu
Michigan State University
480 Wilson Road Room 310B
East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
Submitted on: June 27, 2018

1

Of “Vampires”, “Sweet Promises”, and Contested Developments:
Frame-Analysis of Development Projects in the Omo Valley, Ethiopia
Abstract:
Hydroelectric dams, often part of larger development programs in developing countries are
characterized by conflicting interests of stakeholder groups, emblematic for the contested nature of
development. Because of these different interests, stakeholders develop different evaluations of such
projects, that can be understood as frames of events and projects. Frames are “the different ways of
understanding or representing a system" (Leach et al. 2010 b). In this article, I analyze frames stakeholders use to convey a distinct perspective on problems, root causes, solutions, and benefits associated with the hydroelectric Gibe III dam and accompanying sugarcane plantations in the Omo Valley,
Ethiopia. I found that stakeholders use contrasting frames and narratives to describe the projects, but
partially also propose mutual solutions. Stakeholders incorporate modernist arguments to justify their
actions. Supporters and opponents address different aspects of the livelihoods of Omo valley inhabitants. By analyzing different frames and narratives, this paper contributes to opening up and broadening the debate on the development activities in the Omo valley and shows alternative pathways for
sustainable development projects in Ethiopia.

Inhaltsverzeichnis
1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 3
2 Theoretical Background: Frames, Narratives, and Pathways...................................................................5
3 Methods ........................................................................................................................................................... 6
3.1 Data Collection ........................................................................................................................................6
3.2 Data Analysis ...........................................................................................................................................8
4 Development Projects in the Omo Valley ...................................................................................................9
5 Results ............................................................................................................................................................ 11
5.1 Narratives based on frames used to descibe Gibe III dam KSDP ................................................... 11
5.2 Which pathways out of the conflict emerge from the frame analysis? .......................................... 14
6 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................................... 15
6.1 A modernist project? ............................................................................................................................. 15
6.2 Sustainable livelihoods - Same framework, different arguments? ................................................. 16
6.3 Pathway or Pathways? ......................................................................................................................... 18
6.4 Critical Reflection .................................................................................................................................. 18
7 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 18
References ......................................................................................................................................................... 20
Eidesstattliche Erklärung ................................................................................................................................ 23

2

1 Introduction
Almost 15 years after the World Commission on Dams reported numerous social and environmental downsides of large dam projects, Oliver-Smith (2014) wrote: “Dam projects, like vampires,
are hard to kill permanently”. He referred specifically to the attempts made by indigenous people to
stop a dam project in Brazil, but the metaphor is emblematic for the history of large dams in general.
The 1990s were marked by a period of “greater caution towards hydropower” due to negative social
and environmental consequences of dams (Del Bene et al. 2018). In the last decade, there was an increase of hydroelectric dams. In fact, some scholars see a “revival of hydroelectric dams” in the past
decade (Ansar et. al 2014; Del bene 2018). Large hydroelectric dams currently gain momentum in
many developing countries due to an increase in dam financing by the World Bank, the New Development Bank, and Chinese investments (Atkins 2017; Del Bene 2018; Hausermann 2018).
With its high topographic potential for hydroelectricity, Ethiopia plans to become the "hydrotower of Africa" (Little Ethiopia 2016). In 2016, the mega-dam Gibe III started to operate in the Omo
valley (ibid.). The Gibe III is the third dam on the banks of the Omo river and the government plans
to build two more. Gibe III is closely linked to the development of irrigated sugarcane plantations
downstream, which source water from the Omo river (Kamski 2016). The dam and agricultural development projects are highly contested. NGOs and several scientists claim that the resulting absence of
floods and the decreased water flow would adversely impact the livelihoods of people living downstream on the banks of the Omo river and Lake Turkana in Kenya (e.g. Human Rights Watch 2012;
International Rivers 2012; International Rivers 2013; Carr 2017). They argue the projects would lead
to food insecurity, forced resettlement of indigenous people, and social conflict. Supporters of the
projects argue the projects would result in economic development on a national scale and improve
living conditions for people living in Ethiopia (e.g. Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation 2009; Mishra
and Aklilu 2015). The conflict between supporters and opponents of the dam and large-scale sugarcane plantations is characterized by opposing views and opinions on how the development in the
Omo valley should look like (Abbink 2012).
Leach et al. (2010 b) analyzed conflicts arising from water systems and found that the structure
and boundaries of a system as well as its functions are open to multiple interpretations and representations. Different stakeholders perceive systems in different ways, therefore conveying a distinct perspective on benefits and disadvantages of a certain issue. For example, a water system can be bounded
on a local scale that stresses the importance of water on livelihoods for local people. It can also be
bounded on a national scale that highlights the availability of drinking-water in urban areas (Leach et
al. 2010 b). System boundaries of a certain issue are not naturally clear but depend on how actors
perceive a system. The way a system is bounded, and which system functions are prioritized are central dimensions of “framing” (ibid). Different frames highlight different aspects of an issue to make
them more salient (Entman 1993). Frames are used strategically to influence decision-making processes: People with different interests, values, and goals use different frames to make them more memorable, intriguing, and convincing (Entman 1993; Hall and White 2008). Therefore, analyzing frames
is a tool to identify how actors define and evaluate a system. “System-frames” are a part of larger
narratives or “simple stories” that define a system in a particular way and propose how it should
develop (Leach et al. 2010 b). This paper draws on the constructivist pathways approach by Leach et
al. (2010 b) who argue that “particular narratives are produced by particular actors” and lead to “particular pathways of response". This means actors can use narratives to reduce complex information to

3

what they deem important, thereby shedding light on particular ways for the system to develop. If
the narrative is frequently reproduced, the views expressed in it are reinforced. This hinders alternative trajectories to play a significant role in the discourse on a certain topic. This process is referred to
as narrowing down; it impedes finding alternative solutions for sustainability challenges (ibid). The
pathways approach suggests opening up and looking at diverse viewpoints and narratives to find
solutions to complex and diverse sustainability problems.
There is a growing amount of literature on frames used to describe hydroelectric dams in
sustainability science: Atkins (2016) analyzed how government and politicians used diverse frames to
legitimize the Belo Monte hydroelectric dam in Brazil; Hausermann (2018) analyzed frames used in
the discourse on the Bui-dam in Ghana and Risley (2014) explains why critical collective action frames
of NGOs on a hydroelectric dam project on the Bio Bio River were not successful. Other literature goes
a step further and explicitly aims at opening up a certain discourse in addition to analyzing frames
like the examples above: Bausch et al (2015) analyze the discourse on the agriculture- urban interface
in Arizona, USA; Leach et al. (2010a) analyze policy challenges of dealing with epidemics; and Wise
et al. (2014) use the pathways approach to open up the discourse on climate change adaption. Hence,
researchers have already identified frames used in the debate on large dams and stressed that these
frames turn into narratives, which create pathways. While academia has contributed to opening up
different discourses, there are currently no studies that combine a frame analysis of development projects with the explicit and promising aim to broaden the discourse to show diverse pathways to move
forward.
This paper aims at closing the gap in literature on frames used to describe dam projects as
parts of larger development projects and will use the pathways approach to open up discourse on the
development projects in the Omo valley. Hence, I explore how stakeholders frame the hydroelectric
Gibe III dam and the Kuraz Sugar Development Projects (KSDP) in the Omo valley, Ethiopia. The
KSDP is 175,000 hectares in size and is by far the largest plantation developed by the Ethiopian Sugar
Company (Kasmki 2016). Due to data availability, the KDSP will be analyzed representative for other,
smaller plantations in the lower Omo valley in this study. I chose the case of Gibe III and KSDP, because large dam projects are a reoccurring theme in development policy and Ethiopia is planning
further dams. Large dams are interesting to sustainability science, since they have environmental,
societal, and economic impacts. The Gibe III and KSDP pose complex sustainability challenges, thus
there is the need to look at frames used by stakeholders, which form narratives and lead to future
pathways for development. To uncover diverse pathways of development, my first research question
is: How do stakeholders frame the construction of the Gibe III dam and the Kuraz Sugar Development Project
and which narratives emerge? The results will be discussed in the light of relevant theory.
To find diverse pathways for future development, this paper also analyzes the solutions proposed by different stakeholders. Thus, my second research question is: Which pathways out of the conflict
emerge from the frame analysis? This question has the potential of showing commonalities between the
conflicting stakeholders. Future development plans could lead to a window of opportunity for dialogue to find intervention points for sustainable development pathways. Since there might be more
controversy around Gibe IV and Gibe V, finding commonalities between contrasting viewpoints
might prove helpful for future decision-making processes (International Rivers 2013).

4

2 Theoretical Background: Frames, Narratives, and Pathways
The concept of framing describes the process of highlighting aspects of perceived reality to
make them more memorable and to strategically influence decision-making processes (Entman 1993).
Whereas framing usually refers to a conceptual level (Entman 1993; Scheufele 1999), the “frame” itself
refers to a distinct formulation, that shows how an actor defines the boundaries and priorities of a
certain system (Leach et al. 2010 b). Therefore, a system can be framed in different ways. Frames always convey a distinct, socially constructed perspective on a certain issue. They are described as a
process that is active, dynamic and evolving, and can be used by social actors with agency (Benford
and Snow 2000). Snow and Benford (1998) identify three main tasks of framing: diagnostic framing,
prognostic framing, and motivational framing. The diagnostic framing "identifies a problem and attributes responsibility" (White 2013), the prognostic framing shows potential solutions, and the motivational framing “calls to arms or rationale for engaging in ameliorative or corrective action" (Snow
and Benford 1998).
Some peer-reviewed articles on framing also mention narratives, without clearly defining the
boundaries between frames and narratives (for example Abbink et al. 2012; Atkins 2016; Risley et al.
2014). Narratives are a “cohesive story or account of events, experiences, or phenomena, which can be
true or fictitious” (Teeter and Sandberg 2017). My paper goes beyond this and adapts the definition
by Leach et al (2010 b), which argues that narratives are “simple stories” that emerge out of frames.
Narratives often start with a problem frame, elaborate the consequences in the middle, and frame
solutions in the end. Hence, in this paper narratives are understood as stories that contain different
frames.
Narratives often describe how a system should develop and how the response to a specific
issue should look like. These responses are pathways or “possible trajectories for knowledge, intervention, and change, which prioritize different goals, values, and functions” (Leach et al. 2010 b, Figure 1). There is the "pervasive tendency" for actors to close down around certain narratives that lead
into specific pathways (ibid.). Focusing on only one possible pathway forward impedes the ability to
solve complex sustainability problems because it hinders actors’ capacity to recognize alternative solutions and pathways. Therefore, "paying serious attention to multiple, diverse framings and narratives […] brings vital opportunities to advance debates about sustainability […]” (ibid.).

Figure 1: Frames, narratives and pathways (own graphic, based on Entman 1993, Leach et al. 2010 b)

5

3 Methods
The analysis is guided by two research questions: (1) How do stakeholders frame the construction of the Gibe III dam and the Kuraz Sugar Development Project and which narratives emerge?
and (2) Which pathways out of the conflict emerge from the frame analysis? To answer these questions, a document analysis was performed.
3.1 Data Collection
Data was collected in a process based on an example by Fischer et al. (2017). To find diverse
publications on the development projects in the Omo valley, my analysis included scientific publications, NGO reports, and newspaper and blog articles. I specifically looked for documents published
by decision-makers in Ethiopia to gain insights into the decisions that led to the development projects.
Furthermore, I searched for documents by development agencies and Ethiopian as well as international media to display a wide variety of opinions.
As a starting point, I designed a search string 1 that covered the hydroelectric Gibe III and
irrigated sugarcane agriculture in the Omo valley. Searches in two databases (Scopus and Google)
were performed from April to June 2018. This initial search resulted in 17 articles from Scopus and
98,200 search results on google (Table 1). Additionally, further publications were identified through a
backwards citation search and key informants (see text below for details) (Webster and Watson 2002).
Initial results, which passed my inclusion/ exclusion criteria (Table 2 and 3), went into the final sample
of documents.
Table 1: Process of Data Collection (full list of documents in Appendix A)

Source

Sample
Initial

Final

Scopus

17

6

Google

98,200

9

Backwards Citation Search

17

Key Informants

16

8

TOTAL

98233

40

I screened the title, abstract and full text of the scholarly articles found on Scopus for two
formal and one content-related inclusion criteria (Table 1 and 2). Documents found with Google were
screened for one formal and three content related criteria disclosed below (Table 1 and 2).

“Gibe III” OR “Gibe 3” OR "Kuraz Sugar Development Project" OR "Omo valley and dam" OR
"Omo valley and sugar"
1

6

Table 2: Inclusion Criteria
Inclusion

Scopus

Google Searches

English or German Language

English or German Language

Peer-reviewed

-

Content

Explicitly deal with either Gibe III or irri-

Explicitly deal with either Gibe III or irri-

related

gated sugarcane plantations (including

gated sugarcane plantations (including

KSDP) in the Omo valley

KSDP) in the Omo valley

Explicitly mentions socio-ecological im-

Explicitly mentions socio-ecological im-

pacts or justifications for the development

pacts or justifications for the development

projects

projects

-

Explicitly expresses an opinion on the de-

Criteria
Formal

velopment projects OR produced empirical data

Table 3: Exclusion Criteria
Exclusion Cri-

Scopus

Google Searches

In languages other than English or Ger-

In languages other than English or Ger-

man

man

Not peer-reviewed

-

Content

E.g. describes Ethiopia’s economic devel-

E.g. describes Ethiopia’s economic devel-

related

opment in general without referencing

opment in general without referencing the

the development projects in the Omo val-

development projects in the Omo valley

teria
Formal

ley
Only discusses technical details, such as

Only discusses technical details, such as

size of the plantation, Gibe III, or pro-

size of the plantation, Gibe III, or pro-

duced energy

duced energy

-

The site/ report only summarizes other reports/ studies, without producing their
own data or evaluating the developments
themselves

Because of the great number of search results on Google (98,200), I started by applying the
inclusion/ exclusion criteria on the first 10 search results. This process resulted in nine documents. I
also checked relevant studies mentioned in the documents found on google and screened them against
my criteria. In the process, I realized that I did not find new frames and stopped the search after the
first ten search results on Google.

7

In the last step of data collection, I identified key informants in the field of study: one on the
Gibe III and another on the KSDP. Through their research experience in the Omo valley, they were
qualified to validate my sample of documents. I presented my documents to them, asking for additional relevant publications not yet included. They recommended 16 documents, which I checked
against inclusion/ exclusion criteria. I added eight documents that passed the inclusion/ exclusion
criteria and contained new frames to my selection of documents. Finally, my final sample consisted
of 40 documents.
3.2 Data Analysis
I entered the documents into a database and analyzed them with the qualitative data analysis
software MAXQDA. I followed a procedure for qualitative content analysis by Mayring (2014) that
aims to ensure a systematic approach for data analysis. Documents were analyzed completely, except
for some that contained large amounts of purely technical information. In this case, only text passages
that described the legitimization of the Gibe III dam were chosen as units of analysis.
As a first step, I used a semi-inductive coding approach (Ryan and Bernard 2000). Themes2
such as “processes, actions, assumptions, and consequences” (ibid.) for coding were developed partly
inductive from the texts themselves as well as deductively from the works of Entman (1993) and Leach
et al. (2010 b). Both works on framing state that problems, their cause, and the solution are important
parts of conveying meaning. Therefore problem, causes, and solutions were set themes. Leach et al. (2010
b) also stress that stakeholders with different interests also describe different benefits of solutions.
Therefore, associated benefits served as a fourth theme. In an iterative process, after coding the four
broad themes in the documents, I identified sub-codes inductively from the text. This step was part of
the type-building process (Mayring 2014), that “classifies and describes a heterogeneous amount” of
frames used by the stakeholders (ibid). This third round of coding lead to the final codebook (see
Table 4 and Appendix B), which I applied to all documents. I then summarized homogenous groups
of frames combined into narratives based on type-building content analysis (ibdi.). The reliability of
the themes was checked by coding 10% of the documents a month after they were coded the first time.
The test showed a high level of intercoder agreement.

Themes are also called “categories” or “codes” in literature (for example Kuckartz 2007), however,
this paper will use the term “themes”, that “are coded” based on Ryan and Bernard (2000).
2

8

Table 4: Example form Codebook (full codebook in Appendix B)
Thematic

Sub Cate-

Definition

Example

Rule

Category

gory
The

indigenous

“There is no doubt that

Code if it is described

nous Live-

people cannot con-

due to the dam con-

that/ how indigenous

lihood en-

tinue their way of

struction […] local peo-

people

dangered

life due to develop-

ples will have to […]

change

ment projects

change to the point of

tional way of life be-

abandoning

cause of the projects.

P:

Indige-

most

of

have
their

to
tradi-

their way of life.”
P: Volation

Violation of human

“During 2011 Human

Code if human rights

of Human

rights (mostly per-

Rights

violations

Rights

formed by state au-

that local government

thorities on indige-

and security forces had

nous people) is a

carried out arbitrary ar-

problem

rests

Watch

and

found

are

de-

scribed as a problem.

detentions,

used physical violence,
and seized or destroyed
the property of indigenous communities.”
…

…

…

…

…

For the second research question, I coded different solutions proposed in the documents. Using the two-cases model in MAXQDA, I identified individual and shared solutions used by opponents
and proponents of the projects.

4 Development Projects in the Omo Valley
The Omo river flows from the western highlands of Ethiopia through lowland plains to Lake
Turkana in northern Kenya, the world's largest desert lake (Carr 2017; Hurd 2016). The lower Omo
river basin and the Lake Turkana region are culturally diverse and inhabited by ten to twelve groups
of people who practice diverse livelihood strategies including pastoralism, agro-pastoralism, and fishing (Carr 2017). These “groups” (Turton 2011) are referred to as “indigenous people” (Fratkin 2014)
or “tribes” (Schilling et al. 2016) in some peer-reviewed articles. However, the Ethiopian state does
not recognize these local people as indigenous (Abbink 2012). The United Nation’s definition says that
most indigenous people “have retained distinct characteristics which are clearly different from those
of other segments of the national populations” (Masaquiza). Since the people living in the Omo valley
and the Lake Turkana region correspond to this definition (Carr 2017), this paper will use the term
indigenous people. The annual Omo floods transport necessary freshwater, sediment, and nutrients
to Lake Turkana and act as a natural irrigation for flood-retreat cultivations performed in the lower
Omo valley (ibid.).

9

The Ethiopian government plans to increase the national power production to meet domestic
needs for the growing industrial sector, electrify rural regions, and export power to neighboring countries to increase foreign currency earnings (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia 2010). For these
purposes, they plan to build a cascade of dams on the Omo river: Gibe I started operating in 2004,
Gibe II in 2010, and Gibe III in 2016 (Abbink 2012; Rani et al. 2008). Gibe IV and V are in planning
(International Rivers 2013). The dam projects are closely linked to irrigated agriculture. Increasing
irrigated agriculture for economic development and increased food security is a development measure described in the Ethiopian Growth and Transformation Plan (Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia 2010). The plan sets the overarching aim of becoming a middle-income country by 2025 and
describes the goal to become a major exporter of sugarcane. Officials from the Ethiopian Sugar Corporation have called the plans to build irrigated sugarcane plantations a “sweet promise” that will
bring employment opportunities in a “structurally weak” region and increase foreign currency earing
through sugarcane exports (Kamski 2016). Large-scale irrigated sugarcane plantations have been created on the banks of the Omo river. Because Gibe III is preventing the natural Omo floods, it was
possible to build and maintain irrigation infrastructure that leads water from the river to the plantations. With a projected size of 175,000 hectares of irrigated sugarcane, the KSDP is by far the largest
plantation in the Omo valley (ibid.).
The development projects are highly controversial due to their high social-ecological impacts
on people living in the Lower Omo valley and in the Lake Turkana region in Kenya. Numbers of
people who need the water of the Omo river to support their livelihoods vary from 300,000 to 1,000,000
people in Ethiopia and northern Kenya (Carr 2012; Fratkin 2014). Due to the lack of floods resulting
from Gibe III, the indigenous people in the lower Omo valley will not be able to continue traditional
agro-pastoralism or flood-retreat agriculture (Carr 2017; Schilling 2016). The KSDP is also built on
land that was previously used for grazing, which will affect pastoralists even further. Additionally,
the groundwater is predicted to decrease along the Omo river and carry chemical pollutants from the
irrigated plantations (Africa Resources Working Group 2009; Avery 2013). Large projects also bring
about other changes like an increase of working migrants and the spread of sexual transmitted diseases (Gibe III Hydroelectric Project n.d.). Consequently, the livelihoods of local people who do not
perform traditional ways of agriculture will also be affected by the development projects.
The effects of the development projects in the Omo valley are spreading across national borders: People living in the Lake Turkana region in Kenya are also adversely impacted, since scientists
foresee that the development projects will decrease the water level in Lake Turkana. This will lead to
a loss of fish species that they depend on for food. Additionally, shortages of already scarce resources
are predicted to increase social conflicts between different groups living in the region. There was no
environmental and social impact assessment performed for the “actual impact zone” of Gibe III, which
also includes the irrigated plantations (Carr 2012). The plantations are built in areas that are typically
inhabited by pastoral and agro-pastoral peoples. To make room for the development projects, populations are being resettled further inland and away from the Omo river without any or sufficient compensation and consultation (Carr 2017; Stevenson and Buffavand 2018). The resettlement practices,
that are often forced and criticized by human rights organizations, threaten the survival and “way of
life of small but distinct ethnic groups” (Carr 2017; Fratkin 2014; Human Rights Watch 2012).

10

5 Results
The type building content analysis after Mayring (2014) identified patterns of how stakeholders combined frames into larger narratives. This following chapter gives an overview about the different narratives and shared solutions proposed by the stakeholders.
5.1 Narratives based on frames used to descibe Gibe III dam KSDP
Destruction of land and livelihoods3
The most prominent narrative in the selected documents is the narrative I call "destruction of
land and livelihoods". The narrative is expressed in 27 documents in slightly different versions. It argues
that Gibe III and/ or the irrigated sugarcane plantation will adversely affect the livelihoods of people
in the Omo valley and around Lake Turkana. Within the narrative, the stakeholders frame the Gibe
III as the problem, which causes a lack of natural floods and water volume. The narrative argues that
water shortage diminishes crop production for the people who live on the banks of the Omo river.
According to the stakeholders using the destruction of land and livelihoods narrative, the situation is
exacerbated by the KSDP: To make room for the large irrigated plantation, people were forcibly resettled away from the Omo, without prior consultation or adequate compensation. Also, stakeholders
criticize that the water used by the KSDP is not flowing into Lake Turkana, so the lake will suffer a
drastic change in its hydrological cycle, which will lead to a loss of biodiversity and food insecurity
for the people who depend on fishery. Another problem frame used in the narrative is forced resettlement of entire villages to make space for the transmission line build to export energy from Gibe III
to Kenya. Stakeholders telling this narrative also describe the forceful resettlement practices that are
employed to make room for both the KSDP and the transmission line as violations against human
rights. Additionally, they claim that the diminishing resources due to lack of biodiversity and water
scarcity will lead to social conflict between indigenous tribes.
The documents using the destruction of land and livelihoods narrative mostly frame a shift in
development policy as a solution to protect the livelihoods in the region: Eight documents call for a
stop of the development projects, four documents appeal to the donors to stop funding the project,
and nine documents propose a radical change in management practices of the development projects.
Other proposed solutions are compensation for adversely affected locals, benefit sharing, help from
international actors, a proper impact assessment, and dialogue and cooperation between the government and local communities.
Much needed energy
Twenty-one documents described the Gibe III dam as the solution to the pressing demand for
energy in Ethiopia and the wider east African region. Some of the documents in this group stated that
the lack of electricity is a problem to both Ethiopians in their everyday lives and to the developing
economy. Stakeholders describe that as a reaction to this lack of energy, the government of Ethiopia
formulated energy production as one of their core development goals. The much needed energy narrative frames large hydropower projects like the Gibe III as the solution to the increased demand for
energy in Ethiopia. However, stakeholders name different beneficiaries of the produced energy: Some
stakeholders claim that the increase of energy production will lead to benefits on the national scale

3

The names of the narratives resulted from the analyzed texts.

11

and rural electrification on the local scale. Other stakeholders argue that the energy production will
benefit the industry and national economy, but electrification will still be out of reach for the poor in
the country. Frequently mentioned benefits of the hydroelectric dams are that they emit significantly
less CO2 than conventional energy plants and can deliver water for irrigated agriculture nearby.
The narrative is employed in several texts. Even stakeholders who mainly criticize the development projects argue that the dam would produce "much needed energy" (Human Rights Watch
2012). However, they criticize that not everybody will benefit from the energy production.
Escape Poverty
This narrative stresses the potential of the development projects to "escape the poverty" (Hornaffairs 2015) and is used in ten documents. The narrative frames the problem as "underdevelopment"
(Gibe III Hydroelectric Project n.d.) and describes the standards of living as very low. Indigenous local
populations are depicted as plagued by food insecurity, and "wandering around searching for grazing
land" (Ethiopian Sugar Corporation 2017). In this narrative, Gibe III is framed as the solution that
enables irrigated sugarcane agriculture, which in turn will bring economic benefits on a local and
national level. Some of the examples mentioned are that the plantations will bring employment opportunities, better infrastructure, and regulate previously harmful floods. On a national level, exported energy and sugarcane will increase foreign currency earning, increase food security, and help
Ethiopia reach the goal of becoming a middle-income country by 2025. The stakeholders argue in the
logic of the “trickle-down effect”, which claims that wealth accumulated on a national scale will
“trickle-down” (Aghion and Bolton 1997) and eventually lead to higher income and more wealth for
everybody.
Five stakeholders combine this narrative with the problem frame that international actors "do
not want to see a developed Africa" (Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ethiopia 2016). These stakeholders
claim that reports of NGOs, which argue along the lines of the destruction of land and livelihoods narrative, are biased and the NGOs falsely accuse the Ethiopian government. Instead, they claim that the
benefits of the development projects are plenty and outweigh the socio-economic costs.
The three narratives outlined above are fundamentally different in what they frame as problems, causes, solutions and associated benefits. Table 5 gives an overview about often used frames in
the different narratives.

12

Table 5: Summary: Typical frames used in narratives
Destruction of land
and

livelihoods

narrative

Problem frame

Cause frame

Lack of floods

Gibe III & KSDP
Stop

Solution frame

of

Much needed energy

Escape

narrative

narrative

Lack of energy & eco-

Poverty,

nomic development

standards of liv-

in

ing (especially in

Ethiopia,

low

ing, respect human

the Omo valley)

Lack of energy pro-

No economic de-

duction

velopment
Development pro-

Gibe III &KSDP

jects like Gibe III
& KSDP

rights,…

Low CO2 emissions

Associated benefit frame

low

standards of living

projects,

stop of project fund-

poverty

of hydroelectricity

Energy,
Health

jobs,
centers,

education,…

Several stakeholders employ more than one narrative. The most prominent narrative used in
the analyzed documents is the "destruction of land and livelihoods” narrative, followed by "much needed
energy" and "escape poverty". The intention of this paper is not to claim that one narrative is the most
dominant or most used in the discourse on the development projects in the Omo valley, since this
depends on the selection of analyzed documents. However, the count of narratives and the frequency
of narratives by stakeholder group gives a broad overview about which narratives are typically used
by whom (Table 6).
Table 6: Frequency of narratives by stakeholder group
Destruction of land
and livelihoods
Academia (9)

8 (29,6%)

Development Agencies (2)

2 (7,4%)

Ethiopian media (7)

4 (14,8%)

Government and state-owned

Much needed energy

Escape Poverty

6 (28,6%)

1 (10%)

4 (19%)

2 (20%)

5 (23,8%)

7 (70%)

enterprises (8)

4

International media (5)

4 (14,8%)

4 (19%)

NGOs (9)

9 (33,3%)

2 (9,5%)

Total (40)

27 (100%)

21 (100%)

104 (100%)

The sum of the narratives used exceeds 40, because several documents use more than one narrative.

13

The analysis shows that some narratives exclude each other. Most notably, if the destruction of
land and livelihood narrative is predominantly used in a text, the escape poverty narrative is absent and
vice versa. Even though documents from the government and state corporations mention potential
adverse impacts like food insecurity and absence of floods, they stress that there are plans to address
these impacts. They also emphasize the benefits like economic growth and local job opportunities far
more than the projects’ cost.
Overall, there are three main groups among the documents I looked at. The first group is
mostly made up out of academia, NGOs, and international media. These stakeholders mostly use the
destruction of land and livelihoods narrative and argue for a halt of development projects. This group is
highly critical of or against the development projects. This critical group conflicts with a group mostly
made up of Ethiopian media and the Ethiopian government, which argues that the development projects are necessary. Both sides widely recognize the need for energy production and see the benefits
and costs of the projects. However, they assign different weights on the benefits. A third group does
not express a clear opinion of the projects.
5.2 Which pathways out of the conflict emerge from the frame analysis?
At the first glimpse, the analysis shows that stakeholders use different narratives, which
partly contradict each other. Narratives usually suggest a certain way the system or issue they are
referring to should develop. To see how the stakeholders want the development projects in the Omo
valley to move forward, I focused on what they framed as solutions. With the help of the two-cases
model in MAXQDA, I created a figure that shows the proposed solutions of dam opponents and proponents (Figure 2). The group of stakeholders that does not explicitly express an own opinion on the
projects is not represented in the figure.

Figure 2: Solutions proposed by supporting and critical stakeholders
The analysis of the solution frames shows that opponents of the dams propose solutions to
stop or relieve the negative impacts they see on the livelihoods of people dependent on the Omo river.
For example, they request a stop in funding for the projects or a change in management practices to
ensure human rights. Proponents of the projects on the other hand see the dam in itself as part of the
solution that will increase exported goods and “develop” the Omo valley.

14

To link the conflicting groups together, I also searched for solutions that both opponents and
proponents of the projects agree on. For example, conducting and releasing a proper social and environmental impact analysis not only for the Gibe III, but also of the KSDP, is framed as a solution by
both critics and supporters of the projects. This is especially important for future development projects, like Gibe IV and V, since their impact analyses can still be carried out. Conducting an impact
analysis years after the dam and sugarcane plantations started to operate might not solve the conflict
between the proponents and opponents of the development projects. Hence, practical solutions for
the “no-going back scenario” in the Omo valley are needed (Kamski 2016). One constructive solution
mentioned by supporters as well as critics of Gibe III and the KSDP is that there should be compensation for affected households and/ or a system for benefit sharing between the local population and the
sugar plantation. However, there seems to be a lack of implementation of the government's plan to
compensate adversely affected people. Several sources mention that there was little to no compensation so far (Abbink 2012; Oakland Institute 2013).
Improving the living conditions of the people in the Omo valley was also an often-used motivation in the documents. It is a common goal, not a solution, yet it is important to stress that there
are, in fact, shared underlying motives and goals described in the analyzed documents.

6 Discussion
My analysis demonstrates that stakeholders have different priorities that become visible in
their contrasting frames used in different narratives. The following sections put my results in context
with the literature on framing and development projects and aim to shed light on underlying world
views and objectives as drivers for the different frames and narratives.

6.1 A modernist project?
Recent publications by Atkins (2017) and Ahlers (2014) show that parts of the discourse on
modernity are employed today to argue in favor of large dams. Based on Hall et al. (1992), Ahlers
identified five central discursive categories that turn dam projects into modernist projects: (1) the conquering of nature; (2) technological fix for socio-political problems; (3) the ‘civilizing’ mission of western powers; (4) nation-building and the unification of a fragmented society; and (5) notions of economic progress (Ahlers 2014). Atkins et al. (2017) added the categories; (6) demonization of opposition
networks and (7) the sustainability of Belo Monte (a dam in Brazil). I found that frames and narratives
used by the proponents of the development projects in the Omo valley touched upon all these discursive elements.
The ‘civilizing’ mission of western powers
The development projects in the Omo valley are depicted as a mission to civilize people in an
“underdeveloped and backwards” region, especially in the escape poverty narrative (Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ethiopia 2016). Whereas Ahlers (2014) describes western powers as the agents that drive
the “civilization”, the escape poverty narrative sees the Ethiopian state as the actor that develops the
Omo valley. This might be due to Ethiopia’s unique colonial past: In 1896 the Ethiopian Emperor
Melenik seized control over Southwest Ethiopia (including the Omo valley) to keep the region from
being colonized by European powers. The region formerly consisted of independent states and small

15

groups (Hurd 2016). Except for a short Italian occupation in 1939, Ethiopia was never colonized (Yates
2013). However, colonial forces still impacted the livelihoods in the Omo valley. For example when
the Italians unintentionally imported rinderpest that resulted in the Mursi being depended on agriculture instead of cattle herding (Hurd 2016). The colonial history might lie in the past; however, it
cannot be completely separated from the current thinking. In fact, Ethiopians are proud of never having been colonized. This becomes clear regarding the current development projects, where some
stakeholders stress that the development projects were possible due to the growing capacity of Ethiopians to design and carry out large scale technical projects (Mishra and Aklilu 2015).
The conquering of nature
Atkins (2017) finds that the conquering of nature is not an argument used in the conflict on
the Belo Monte dam in Brazil. In contrast to these findings, proponents of the development projects
in the Omo valley frequently mention how the projects will conquer nature. Especially in the escape
poverty narrative, stakeholders want to regulate the natural floods of the Omo river to protect the
people from devastating floods. One stakeholder mentions that it is better to “tame” the river than to
"live at its mercy" (Tigrai Online 2010). The strong focus on conquering nature might be due to historical reasons. When the highlanders under the control of Emperor Melenik took control over Southwestern Ethiopia in 1896, the Omo valley was described as an untamed “wilderness” without a “recognizable imprint of civilization” by the local inhabitants (Turton 2011). The need to conquer nature
in the current conflict seems to be the continuation of these descriptions. How nature is seen is emblematic for the different perspectives of stakeholders on the Omo valley. Opponents of the development projects for example see nature as providing the basis for the livelihoods instead of endangering
them. They argue that floods are crucial to the survival of the indigenous people because they bring
necessary water and nutrients (Carr 2017; Fratkin 2014).
Demonization of opposition
According to Atkins (2017), the opposition of the Belo Monte dam in Brazil is “demonized”.
Similar to Atkins’ findings, the government of Ethiopia portrays opposing forces as evil and characterized by ill intentions towards the Ethiopian state and its people. The escape poverty narrative claims
that whoever does not support the development projects, does not want the people in Ethiopia to have
higher living standards. This argument portrays the Ethiopian development policy as the only possible way to move forward. Hence, it is contributing to closing down the discourse on the development
projects and disregarding other, alternative pathways.
The sustainability of the projects
The "sustainability aspect" (Atkins 2017) of the projects is also prominent in many of the documents analyzed. Fifteen stakeholders see the need for clean energy as a driver of the hydroelectric
developments in Ethiopia. To stress the benefits of the renewable energy sources, most pro dam stakeholders compare the CO2 emissions of hydroelectricity with conventional energy production. However, most stakeholders do not consider the social dimension of sustainability. The use of sustainability as a justification is also a less typical modernist argument than a feature of many other theories as
well, like the sustainable livelihoods framework discussed in the following section.
6.2 Sustainable livelihoods - Same framework, different arguments?

16

The influence of the sustainable livelihood framework on the discourse on large dams is
barely discussed in academic literature. The sustainable livelihood framework is a concept that aims
to improve the understanding of the livelihood of the poor. Among other things, it puts the people in
the center of analysis and argues that people need a wide range of assets to achieve a sustainable
livelihood outcome (Department for International Development 2001). My findings suggest that opponents and proponents of the Gibe III and KSDP use parts of the framework, namely the vulnerability context, transforming structures and processes, and livelihood assets to justify different courses of
action.
Vulnerability Context
According to the sustainable livelihood framework, people operate within a context of vulnerability (Department for International Development 2001). The vulnerability of the local people living downstream of the Omo river is a reoccurring theme in the destruction of land and livelihood narrative. In this narrative, the lack of floods functions as the shock that disturbs the current livelihood
strategies along the Omo river. Proponents of the projects recognize the vulnerability of locals as well.
However, they highlight that the people are vulnerable because of the long periods of drought, the
low flow volume of the Omo river in these periods and the lack of electricity in rural areas. In the much
needed energy as well as the escape poverty narrative, they argue that the development projects will make
the livelihoods more stable, since Gibe III will allow a controlled and constant flow. Additionally, the
KSDP is supposed to create employment opportunities and thereby increase the financial assets of the
local population. The government also argues that Gibe III will lead to rural electrification. However,
there is a lack of detail in government documents that provides information on how the rural population will be supplied with energy (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia 2010, Gibe III Hydroelectric Project n.d.).
Transforming structures and processes
The vulnerability context of the sustainable livelihood framework mostly lies outside of people’s control. Transforming structures and processes, like policy reforms however, can alter the vulnerability contexts of people, for example by helping them become more resilient (Department for
International Development 2001). The opponents and proponents of the development projects in the
Omo valley also have different understandings of transforming structures and processes. The escape
poverty narrative argues that technical solutions like new irrigation techniques for the plantations and
hydroelectricity will lead to trickle down effects that will help the local people gain wealth. Critics of
the projects have a fundamentally different understanding of how the market works. They believe
that the profits from the development projects will stay in the hands of a few and will not trickle down
to the poor.
Livelihood assets
The sustainable livelihood framework also stresses that different assets, like natural and financial capital are needed to achieve a sustainable livelihood outcome. In the narratives that describe
the development projects in the Omo valley, the different stakeholders focus on different assets. In the
escape poverty narrative, the government and state corporations focus on increasing physical and financial assets. The opponents of the projects on the other hand stress the destruction of natural assets
by the development projects. Additionally to the different content of the narratives, the arguments
brought forward have different functions. The much needed energy and escape poverty narrative usually

17

propose solutions to existing problems and highlight the need for Ethiopians to support the projects.
The destruction of land and livelihood narrative on the other hand mostly identifies problems and their
causes. Risley (2014) found that NGOs were unsuccessful in stopping a dam project in Chile, partly
because they were on “collision course” with the government instead of proposing “current policyfriendly” and constructive solutions to the governments. A direct comparison between Chile and Ethiopia is fruitless, due to Ethiopia's autocratic regime being fundamentally different from the democracy in Chile. However, my findings support Risley’s statement that most NGOs assign blame to powerful stakeholders like the Ethiopian state and offer few constructive solutions. In this context, Abbink
(2012) speaks about a "clash of narratives" between stakeholders in the Omo valley.
6.3 Pathway or Pathways?
My results support that the different frames, woven together in different narratives by different stakeholders also point towards “a clash” based on contrasting worldviews (Abbink 2012). Each
stakeholder is focused on their own interpretation of the development projects and therefore only sees
one single pathway how the Omo valley should develop. This is where it becomes important to apply
the pathways approach (Leach et al. 2010 b) and stress that diverse frames and narratives exist. By
looking at the various kinds of narratives told by the stakeholders and the pathways that emerge from
them, ways out of the conflict appear. For example, my findings reveal that the conflicting stakeholders have the common goal of improving living conditions. There is a difference in whose living conditions should be improved, though. The Ethiopian government is mainly concerned with Ethiopians
living in the Omo valley and in other parts of the country. NGOs, scientists, and the government of
Kenya also include people living in northern Kenya. Just like the livelihood framework, this puts the
people in the center of attention. Hence, even though there is a clash in narratives, there are starting
points for a development pathway that takes into account a wider range of stakeholder interests. One
way to target improved living conditions could be to inquire what changes are needed the most in the
Omo valley and northern Kenya. As a next step, the recommendations could be incorporated into
management plans of the Gibe III and the KSDP.
6.4 Critical Reflection
Most studies on framing use interviews to deduct different frames. Due to better data availability, this study analyzes documents published by different stakeholders. This might be seen as a
limitation to the validity of this study. However, I argue that more viewpoints in additional documents or interviews might diversify the identified frames but would not change the patterns that
emerged through this analysis. Additionally, several of the documents analyzed contain interviews
from indigenous people from the Omo valley and Lake Turkana.

7 Conclusion
This study seeks to contribute to the "fundamental need to open up" and describes a great
diversity of narratives touching on different problem, cause, solution, and associated benefit frames
(Leach et al. 2010 b). This rich picture of different perspectives provides a deeper understanding of
the specific situation of different stakeholders and reveals points of common interests that can bring
the stakeholders closer together.

18

I found three narratives which are used frequently within the debate on the development
projects in the Omo valley: destruction of land and livelihoods, much needed energy, and escape poverty. The
research also finds that the destruction of land and livelihoods narrative is prominently used by opponents of the projects, namely NGOs, academia as well as international newspaper articles. Ethiopian
government, state-owned companies, and several of the Ethiopian media sources on the other hand
support the projects and mostly employ the escape poverty narrative. The narrative that highlights the
need for low-carbon energy production in East Africa and the high potential of Gibe III to supply this,
is used frequently among all the stakeholder groups. My research also reveals arguments of the 20th
century modernist discourse provided by Ahlers et al. (2014) are used today to argue for the development projects in the Omo valley. The stakeholders also have a fundamentally different opinion on
how to evaluate parts of the sustainable livelihood framework, like the livelihood assets, transforming
structures and processes, and the vulnerability context.
Hence, this paper depicts many contrasting viewpoints on the development projects, but also
shows that the conflicting parties propose common solutions, and both recognize the importance of
energy production and the need to improve living conditions of the people in the region. These points
create a common ground and can be valuable for decisionmakers of current and future projects in the
Omo valley. However, more research is needed on the potential barriers that prevent the implementation of the shared solutions like the compensation for adversely affected people. Following the pathways approach, this paper shows diversity of narratives and contributes to opening up concrete possibilities for ways forward (Leach et al. 2010 b). A promising next step is an interventionist approach
on the ground that actively provides stakeholders the opportunity to reflect on the different narratives, for example in a stakeholder workshop. Such an opportunity could foster a debate on existing
policy strategies and might lead to a more diverse development policy. Building on the results of this
paper, the workshop could also further assess possibilities of benefit sharing mechanisms. For this,
local people and the government could work on a shared vision that includes such a system. This
would give the local people in the Omo valley and Lake Turkana region the space to express what
kind of benefits, like land or money, they would like to receive. The shared vision could serve as a
base for a follow-up workshop that employs backward planning to sketch out concrete steps to reach
the constructed vision (Holmberg 1998).
Rethinking ideas and practices is not only a task for decisionmakers and opponents on the
development projects in the Omo valley, but for research itself. Most of the peer-reviewed articles I
analyzed were themselves narrowed down on one or a few narratives. In this context, it is important
to go beyond often told narratives and engage in a knowledge production process that is transdisciplinary and participatory.
Declarations of interest: none.
Acknowledgments: I thank my academic advisors, who helped pave the path(way) that led to the
research article, and Jed Stevenson and Benedikt Kamski for validating my documents.

19

References
Abbink, Jon (2012): Dam controversies: contested governance and developmental discourse
on the Ethiopian Omo River dam. In Social Anthropology 20 (2), pp. 125–144. DOI: 10.1111/j.14698676.2012.00196.x.
Africa Resources Working Group, South Omo/ North Turkana Research Project (2009): Available online at www.arwg-gibe.org.
Aghion, Philippe; Bolton, Patrick (1997): A Theory of Trickle-Down Growth and Development. In Rev Econ Stud 64 (2), pp. 151–172. DOI: 10.2307/2971707.
Ahlers, Rhodante; Brandimarte, Luigia; Kleemans, Ineke; Sadat, Said Hashmat (2014): Ambitious development on fragile foundations: Criticalities of current large dam construction in Afghanistan. In Geoforum 54, pp. 49-58. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.03.004.
Ansar, Atif; Flyvbjerg, Bent; Budzier, Alexander; Lunn, Daniel (2014): Should we build more
large dams? The actual costs of hydropower megaproject development. In Energy Policy 69, pp. 43–
56. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.069.
Atkins, Ed (2017): Dammed and diversionary: The multi-dimensional framing of Brazil's Belo
Monte dam. In Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 38 (3), pp. 276-292. DOI: 10.1111/sjtg.12206.
Bausch, Julia C.; Eakin, Hallie; Smith-Heisters, Skaidra; York, Abigail M.; White, Dave D.; Rubiños, Cathy; Aggarwal, Rimjhim M. (2015): Development pathways at the agriculture–urban interface: the case of Central Arizona. In Agric Hum Values 32 (4), pp. 743–759. DOI: 10.1007/s10460-0159589-8.
Benford; Robert D. and Snow David A. (2000): Framing Processes and Social Movements: An
Overview and Assessment. In Annual Review of Sociology 26, 611-639. Available online at
http://www.jstor.org/stable/223459.
Berhane, Fetsum (2015): Gibe is not Gila: Anti-dam activism gone awry. Hornaffairs.com.
Available online at https://hornaffairs.com/2015/12/28/gibe-dam-activism-gone-awry/.
Carr, Claudia (2012): Humanitarian Catastrophe and Regional Armed Conflict Brewing in the
Transborder Region of Ethiopia, Kenya and South Sudan. The proposed Gibe III Dam in Ethiopia.
Carr, Claudia J. (Ed.) (2017): River Basin Development and Human Rights in Eastern Africa A Policy Crossroads. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Del Bene, Daniela; Scheidel, Arnim; Temper, Leah (2018): More dams, more violence? A global
analysis on resistances and repression around conflictive dams through co-produced knowledge. In
Sustain Sci 13 (3), pp. 617-633. DOI: 10.1007/s11625-018-0558-1.
Department for International Development (2001): Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets.
Devi, Rani; Tesfahune, Esubalew; Legesse, Worku; Deboch, Bishaw; Beyene, Abebe (2008):
Assessment of siltation and nutrient enrichment of Gilgel Gibe dam, Southwest Ethiopia. In Bioresource Technology 99 (5), pp. 975–979. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2007.03.013.
Entman, Robert M. (1993): Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. In Journal
of Communication 43 (4), pp. 51-58. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x.

20

Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (EEPCO) (2009) b: GIbe III hydroelectric project - Environmental and social impact assessment. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, updated on 03/2009.
Ethiopian Sugar Corperation (2017): The Triumphant Journey of Omo-Kuraz Sugar Development Project. Available online at http://ethiopiansugar.com/index.php/en/news/articles/274-the- triumphant-journey-of-omo-kuraz-sugar-development-project, checked on 1/24/2017.
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (2010): Growth and Transformation Plan. 2010/112014/15, Draft. Addis Ababa.
Fischer, Daniel; Stanszus, Laura; Geiger, Sonja; Grossman, Paul; Schrader, Ulf (2017): Mindfulness and sustainable consumption: A systematic literature review of research approaches and findings. In Journal of Cleaner Production 162, pp. 544–558. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.007.
Fratkin, Elliot (2014): Ethiopia's Pastoralist Policies: Development, Displacement and Resettlement. In Nomadic Peoples 18 (1), pp. 94–114. DOI: 10.3197/np.2014.180107.
Ryan, Gery W. and Russell Bernard, H. (2000): Data Management and Analysis Methods. In
: Handbook of Qualitative Research // Handbook of qualitative research, pp. 769-802.
Gibe III Hydroelectric Project (n.d.): ESIA Summary for the Gibe III Hydroelectric Project.
Available online at http://www.gibe3.com.et/ESIA%20SUMMARY.html.
Hall, T.E. and D.D. White (2008): Representing Recovery: Science and Local Control in the
Framing of U.S. Pacific Northwest Salmon Policy. In Research in Human Ecology 15, pp. 32– 45.
Hausermann, Heidi (2018): “Ghana must Progress, but we are Really Suffering”: Bui Dam,
Antipolitics Development, and the Livelihood Implications for Rural People. In Society & Natural
Resources 31 (6), pp. 633–648. DOI: 10.1080/08941920.2017.1422062.
Holmberg, John (1998): Backcasting. A Natural Step in Operationalising Sustainable Development(*). In Greener Management International (23), p. 30.
Human Rights Watch (2012): “What Will Happen if Hunger Comes?”. Abuses against the Indigenous Peoples of Ethiopia’s Lower Omo Valley.Ethiopian sugar cooperation
Hurd, Will (2016): Surviving the Second Conquest: Emperor Menelik and Industrial Plantations in Ethiopia's Omo Valley - The Solutions Journal. In The Solutions Journal 7 (1), pp. 68-73,
checked on 5/4/2018.
International Rivers (2013): The Downstream Impacts of Ethiopia's Gibe III Dam. Easz Africa's
"Aral Sea" in the Making?
Kamski, Benedikt (2016): The Kuraz Sugar Development Project (KSDP) in Ethiopia. Between
‘sweet visions’ and mounting challenges. In: Journal of Eastern African Studies 10 (3), P. 568–580.
Kuckartz, Udo (2007): Einführung in die computergestützte Analyse qualitativer Daten. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Leach, Melissa; Scoones, Ian; Stirling, Andrew (2010a): Governing epidemics in an age of complexity: Narratives, politics and pathways to sustainability. In Global Environmental Change 20 (3),
pp. 369–377. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.11.008.

21

Leach, Melissa; Scoones, Ian; Stirling, Andy (2010b): Dynamic sustainabilities. Technology,
environment, social justice. 1. publ. Abingdon u.a.: Earthscan (Pathways to sustainability).
LittleEthiopia.com (2016): Ethiopia opens Africa's tallest and most controversial dam The Gibe
III dam has the capacity to double the country's electricity output at the flick of a switch. Available
online at https://www.littleethiopia.org/blog/ethiopia-opens-africas-tallest-and-most-controversialdam-the-gibe-iii-dam-has-the-capacity-to-double-the-countrys-electricity-output-at-the-flick-of-aswitch.
Marshall, Martin N. (1996): Sampling for qualitative research. In Family Practice 13 (6), pp.
522–525.
Masaquiza, Mirian: Who are indigenous peoples? Factsheet. United Nations Secretariat of the
Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. Available online at www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/5session_factsheet1.pdf, checked on 6/22/2018.
Mayring, Philipp (2014): Qualitative Content Analysis. Klagenfurt. Available online at
http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ethiopia (2016): Prime Minister Hailemariam inaugurates Gilgel
Gibe III Hydro-power Project. Available online at http://www.mfa.gov.et/web/guest/-/prime-minister-hailemariam-inaugurates-gilgel-gibe-iii-hydro-power-project?inheritRedirect=true.
Mishra, Sanjay; Kahssay, Aklilu (2015): A Hydroelectric Project and its Impact on Development Indicators in Ethiopia. In Forum for Development Studies 42 (3), pp. 489–505. DOI:
10.1080/08039410.2015.1053729.
O’Neill, Saffron; Williams, Hywel T. P.; Kurz, Tim; Wiersma, Bouke; Boykoff, Maxwell (2015):
Dominant frames in legacy and social media coverage of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. In Nature
Clim Change 5 (4), pp. 380–385. DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2535.
Oliver-Smith, Anthony (2014): Framing Social-Environmental Justice by Amazonian Indigenous Peoples: The Kayapo Case. In Tipití: Journal of the Society for the Anthropology of Lowland
South

America

12

(2),

pp. 118–121.

Available

online

at

https://digitalcommons.trin-

ity.edu/tipiti/vol12/iss2/6.
Risley, Amy (2014): “It's Not Easy Being Green”: Environmental Advocacy and Policymaking
in Chile. In Society & Natural Resources 27 (4), pp. 421–435. DOI: 10.1080/08941920.2013.861559.
Scheufele, D. (1999): Framing as a theory of media effects. In Journal of Communication 49
(1), pp. 103–122. DOI: 10.1093/joc/49.1.103.
Schilling, Janpeter; Weinzierl, Thomas; Lokwang, Augustine Ekitela; Opiyo, Francis (2016):
For better or worse: major developments affecting resource and conflict dynamics in northwest Kenya.
In Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie 60 (1-2), p. 561. DOI: 10.1515/zfw-2016-0001.
Shriver, Thomas E.; Peaden, Charles (2009): Frame Disputes in a Natural Resource Controversy: The Case of the Arbuckle Simpson Aquifer in South-Central Oklahoma. In Society & Natural
Resources 22 (2), pp. 143–157. DOI: 10.1080/08941920801973789.
Stevenson, Edward G. J.; Buffavand, Lucie (2018): “Do Our Bodies Know Their Ways?” Villagization, Food Insecurity, and Ill-Being in Ethiopia’s Lower Omo Valley. In Afr. stud. rev. 61 (01),
pp. 109–133. DOI: 10.1017/asr.2017.100.

22

Stirling, Andrew (2006): Analysis, participation and power: justification and closure in participatory

multi-criteria

analysis.

In

Land

Use

Policy

23

(1),

pp. 95–107.

DOI:

10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.08.010.
Teeter, Preston; Sandberg, Jörgen (2017): Cracking the enigma of asset bubbles with narratives. In Strategic Organization 15 (1), pp. 91–99. DOI: 10.1177/1476127016629880.
Tigrai Online (2010): Dam these patronising Western campaigns. Available online at
http://www.tigraionline.com/dam_the_western_campaigns.html.
Turton, David (2011): Wilderness, wasteland or home? Three ways of imagining the Lower
Omo

Valley.

In

Journal

of

Eastern

African

Studies

5

(1),

pp.

158-176.

DOI:

10.1080/17531055.2011.544546.
Webster, Jane and Richard T. Watson (2002): Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future:
Writing a literature Review. In MIS Quarterly 26 (2).
Wise, R. M.; Fazey, I.; Stafford Smith, M.; Park, S. E.; Eakin, H. C.; van Archer Garderen,
E.R.M.; Campbell, B. (2014): Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part of pathways of
change and response. In Global Environmental Change 28, pp. 325–336. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.002.
Yates, Brian J. (2013): From White Males to Black Females. In Journal of Black Studies 44 (1),
pp. 81–100. DOI: 10.1177/0021934712466097.

Eidesstattliche Erklärung
Ich versichere, dass ich diese Master-Arbeit – bei einer Gruppenarbeit den entsprechend gekennzeichneten Teil der Master-Arbeit – selbstständig verfasst und keine anderen als die angegebenen Quellen und Hilfsmittel benutzt habe. Ich versichere, alle Stellen der Arbeit, die wortwörtlich
oder sinngemäß aus anderen Quellen übernommen wurden, als solche kenntlich gemacht und die
Arbeit in gleicher oder ähnlicher Form noch keiner Prüfungsbehörde vorgelegt zu haben.
Lüneburg, Germany

27th of July 2018

Ort

Datum

Unterschrift

23