Servicios Sociales

Claudia J.
Carr
River Basin
Development and
Human Rights in
Eastern Africa
A Policy Crossroads
River Basin Development and Human Rights
in Eastern Africa A Policy Crossroads
Claudia J. Carr
River Basin Development and Human

Rights in Eastern Africa A Policy
Crossroads
Claudia J. Carr
Environmental Science, Policy
and Management
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA
USA
ISBN 978-3-319-50468-1 ISBN 978-3-319-50469-8 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-50469-8
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016959399
The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017. This book is published open access.
Open Access This book is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 International License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/), which permits any noncommercial use, duplication, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or
format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes
were made.
The images or other third party material in this book are included in the works Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if
such material is not included in the works Creative Commons license and the respective action is not permitted by statutory regulation, users will need to
obtain permission from the license holder to duplicate, adapt or reproduce the material.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microlms or in any other physical way, and transmission or
information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specic
statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of
publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made.
Photographs by Claudia J. Carr
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
This book is dedicated:
to Jolishthe young leader who worked tirelessly to inform his own people
and neighboring ones about the crisis at hand and who lost his life in this
struggleand to the young people of these Ethiopian, Kenyan and South
Sudanese border lands who carry on the struggle to direct their own futures
to my son Calen and niece Leahand those who follow them

as agents of change for a better world
and
to Marion Hall, who taught me to see whole systems of nature and society
and then sent me on my way.
Preface
For countless centuries, river basins have been fundamental to the survival of peoples residing in the vast drylands of
Sub-Saharan Africa. The water, soils and living resources of these river systemspunctuating what are otherwise aridic and
often harsh conditionsprovide for human settlement, livestock grazing, seasonal flood (recession) agriculture, wild food
harvesting, shing and a host of other activities central to livelihoods. What happens to river basin systems determines the
fate of millions of people. Predominantly pastoral in history economy and culture, the extensive drylands of eastern Africa
are also where some of Africas most ambitious economic development programs, including hydrodam, irrigated plantation,
mineral, oil and gas projects, are being implemented.
One cannot experience the rhythm of daily life among pastoral villagers for any length of time without realizing that such
developments have profound impacts on these longstanding survival systems and that there is an obvious disconnect
between the life conditions of these pastoralists and the decision-making in the nancial centers of Washington D.C.,
Brussels, and Beijing, as well as in the major cities of their own nations. Almost inevitably, one begins to question how these
traditionally oriented peoples can possibly survive in the face of such development pressures and whether or not they can
truly have a voice in determining their own futures.
This book is the outcome of a lengthy effort to answer these and other difcult questions as they pertain to sweeping changes
in the semi-arid borderlands of Ethiopia, Kenya and South Sudanchanges already extending to the broader eastern Africa
region. It is here that the Africas largest hydrodam to date, the Gibe III dam, has recently been completed, on the Omo River
in southwestern Ethiopia, and is moving into early operation. This megadam, together with its closely linked and extensive
irrigated agricultural enterprises and a hydroelectricity transmission system for power export to the eastern Africa region,
amounts to a multi-billion dollar development that is radically transforming the entire transboundary human and environ-
mental systems. More than 500,000 indigenous pastoralists, agropastoralists and shers reside in the lower Omo River basin,
around Kenyas Lake Turkana in the easternmost segment of South Sudans Ilemi Triangle. Most of them face partial or
complete destruction of their means of survival, with no available livelihood alternatives. Already among the most
marginalized peoples in the continent, the multiple ethnic groups in this region face impacts that are unimaginable to most
outsiders.
From early on in the endeavor to understand changes underway in the region, the questions became more detailed. For
example, what are the types of economies, or survival systems, in this vast, tri-nation transboundary region and how do they
interact? How adaptive are these systems to changes in their environments and what are their main vulnerabilities in the face
of major shifts in the resources available to them? What are the specic forces of government, international aid and private
development now impacting the region and how have these come about? From what institutions and social priorities have
they emerged? What account of the hundreds of thousands of indigenous residents has been takenwith what concerns and
accuracy? What impacts have unfolded so far and how have the pastoralists attempted to cope with them? What human
rights are pertinent to these changes and do the developments underway constitute violations of those rights? Finally, is there
a positive way forward for such peoples to have a genuine voice in what economic development and other changes will be
brought to their lands in the name of progress?
I rst came to know the peoples of this region many years ago, as a young ecologist with the international paleontological
Omo Expedition, led by F. Clark Howell, Richard Leakey and Yves Coppens, in the lowermost Omo River basin of
southwest Ethiopia. Basing a good deal of my work in pastoral villages in order to learn about the regions ecological change
and its relationship to the indigenous land use patterns, I learned in the most concrete terms about the inseparability of
environmental and social realities. Much of this effort is summarized in my book, Pastoralism in Crisis: the Dassanetch
of Southwestern Ethiopia, and in several papers. Moving on to research and practical policy work elsewhere in eastern Africa
vii
viii Preface
(within Ethiopia, Somalia, northern and coastal Kenya and elsewhere), I experienced multiple contexts where river basin
developments, including hydrodams, have fundamentally transformed local socioeconomic and environmental systems and
influenced entire nations. Everywhere I engaged in policymaking circlesfrom African ministries, international aid orga-
nizations and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences to remote administrative ofces and grassroots organizations strug-
gling to effect change, the enormous impactsand often, the conflicts generatedfrom major river basin developments
were apparent.
When invited to return to southwestern Ethiopia in 2008, I eagerly accepted the opportunitythis time with private
foundation support to investigate the social and environmental conditions there. Surprised to learn about the virtually
unprecedented development planned for this region, my efforts evolved into a multi-year, intensive investigation of the
changes underway and their likely impacts on the region. Early on, it was necessary to form a research team, identied as the
South Omo/North Turkana Research Team (SONT), with local residents from two of the regions major ethnic groupsthe
Dasanech and the (northern) Turkana. SONT was able to work cooperatively with elders from many locales throughout the
transboundary region. Meanwhile, I and several colleagues co-founded the Africa Resources Working Group (ARWG)an
informal network of scientic and policy focused professionals with experience in the region. Both of these efforts proved
essential to the complex tasks at hand.
Conditions for eld-based research in the border region were difcult, both logistically and politically. Within Ethiopia, it
was necessary to carry out all investigations with extreme care due to the Ethiopian restriction of independent investigators
from the region, as well as extensive government political surveillance and repressionmeasures generating pervasive fear
among villagers throughout the area. In Kenya, the situation was far less difcult, with community members far more able to
participate openly in our work. Information gathering included settlement area mapping, ecological reconnaissance, village
survey, male and female household head interviews, recording of elder life histories and recording of livelihood shifts and
available resources. Local government authorities, aid ofcials and technical personnel active in the area (e.g., in
sheries/Beach Management Unit, water development, health relief work) provided vital information and perspective. In
2009, the Africa Resources Working Group released a preliminary report concerning the Gibe III dam and its likely impacts;
I subsequently released a lengthy report on the matter, based on my investigations with SONT and the ARWG (Carr 2012)
a report rst posted at the ARWG website and later at www.academia.edu.
It is my hope that the information and perspectives presented in this book will promote further understanding of the
sweeping changes underway in this eastern Africa region and their signicance, as well as contribute to discourse and
possible solutions. If it is useful to inquiring government and aid ofcials, villagers, nongovernmental organizations,
students, concerned scholars, and other citizens within Africa and abroad, it will have been worth the effort.
It has been a profoundly moving experience and an honor to work toward accomplishing these tasks in the company of so
many wise, persevering and courageous people.
Acknowledgments
This book was made possible by the contributions of many peopleboth in and out of eastern Africa. My deepest thanks are
to the villagers in both the lowermost Omo River basin of Ethiopia and the northwestern lands of Kenya, west of Lake
Turkana. The conditions of working in these two regions are vastly different. Villagers throughout the northern Turkana
localities visited were not only welcoming to me and my African colleagues but also eager to discuss matters of their
changing survival systems, livelihood, and political conditions in the regionbroadly dened and their concerns about the
major developments they knew are being undertaken in the region. This eagerness was prevalent, even with concern over the
fact that such discussions are a sensitive matter for Kenyan authorities. While equally welcoming, villagers along the Omo
River within Ethiopia live under conditions of pervasive political surveillance and repression by their government and
cannot openly discuss their declining conditions for survival or their fears and opposition concerning the radical changes
underway along the Omo River. Nevertheless, many retain the courage to speak about these matters and learning from them
has been a most humbling experience. I must trust that their descriptions and concerns are accurately summarized in
accounts presented in this book. The identities of all informants in these areas of Ethiopia and Kenya have been protected
and will remain so.
It is my privilege to have helped form and direct the South Omo/North Turkana Research Team (SONT). The team was
comprised primarily of Turkana individuals from local villages, participating in nearly all aspects of the eld-based research
for this project within Kenya, as well as Dasanech individuals from the west bank and delta region. The SONT experience
successfully gave form to what is often empty rhetoric of locally based and participatory research and offered new skill
learning to those joining in the effort. I am grateful to all those who took part and have protected their identities as well. My
greatest debt in the SONT effort is to Jolish (whose traditional name must remain protected), the co-coordinator of eld
operations with me and a wonderful colleague in both investigative and interpretive phases of our work. His exceptional
intelligence, cross-cultural outlook, and deep humanity, combined with his clear passion for retaining traditional cultural
values, surely contributed to the remarkable respect he enjoyed throughout a vast area of northern Turkana. Jolish tragically
lost his life in the course of his unrelenting efforts. Working alongside him and sharing the ups and downs of this complex
work and the people it concerns has made a major mark on my life. I am certain that countless others join me in being forever
grateful to him for his uncompromising and inspirational efforts. The dedication of this book to him is but one small
expression of this gratitude.
A number of local ofcials within northern and central Turkana were extremely helpful in this work, as were a very large
number of council of elders membersespecially along the northwestern shoreline of Lake Turkana. My thanks to them for
their immensely valuable contributions. Many other individuals in Ethiopia and Kenya provided major logistics and other
support. Most prominent among them was Elias H. Selassie during early phases of the eld investigation and analysis.
T. Solomon of Ethiopia provided much parallel support in the southwestern region there.
Jeffrey Gritzner, a well-known scholar of African drylands and expert in African resource policy, including as a former
senior staff member at the U.S. National Research Council, has contributed greatly to this investigation. His synthetic view
of environmental change, indigenous knowledge systems, and the intricacies of environmental recovery and restoration have
impacted this work, as have his comments on draft sections of this book. Dr. Gritzner cofounded the Africa Resources
Working Group (ARWG) with me in 2008. This informal network is comprised of 11 African and non-African individuals
from the physical science, social science, public policy, and diplomatic professionsall with substantial experience in the
eastern Africa region. Its members have contributed in fundamental ways to this work, both with information when
requested and with comments on particular written sections. While the analysis and conclusions drawn in this book
undoubtedly do not reflect the viewpoint of each member of the ARWG, I have endeavored to take all of their comments and
ix
x Acknowledgments
criticisms into account and deeply appreciate their efforts. Most of these individuals are still actively engaged in the region
and so need to remain anonymous.
Laura M. Daly, a young California-based professional in Geography and GIS technique, has produced the major graphics
for this book (indicated in the List of Figures). Ms. Daly spent countless hours patiently working with me to translate specic
ground-based information and understanding into graphic representation in one of the most difcult regions in the world.
Applying her skill and artistry as well as her own propensity for perfection, Ms. Daly somehow tolerated my unending
requests for just one more change in our efforts to represent complex patterns and processes. Her close associate, Bertrand
Johnson, generously assisted with a good deal of technical work on my large set of photographs for the book.
James Lindsay, a former Australian diplomat and director of a nonprot organization focused on alternative energy in Africa,
has been a major contributor to the progress and completion of this book. His contributions have included direct assistance
with systematizing information from environmental and social impact assessments, assisting with matters of energy and
other technical systems, and performing supplemental graphics and photo work. Mr. Lindsay has also provided substantial
material support for both eld-based and book preparation activitiesa necessary supplement to private foundation funding
provided. I extend my deep thanks for his willingness to assist in all ways.
The contributions of George Leddy to this book cannot be overstated. Dr. Leddys longterm analytical background in
international development matters and his generosity in critiquing the chapters of this book, including with his experience as
an assistant executive editor of a major international journal, were of great help throughout this effort. I am I am deeply
indebted to him, including for his unwavering recognition of the magnitude of the crisis unfolding and the importance of
tracing its origins and essence.
The seismic discussion in Chap. 3 was grounded in a detailed siesmic report for the Gibe III dam region in Ethiopia by Steve
Walter, a seismologist with the Earthquake Science Center at the U.S. Geological Survey. This report (included in Carr
2012) detailed the sobering reality of a 20 % probability that the dam will experience at least Intensity VII shaking within 50
years and possibly as high as Intensity VIII. For practical reasons, the report was not able to be incorporated into the present
book and I am grateful for Dr. Walters encouragement and continued advice for the present, somewhat extended study.
Joshua Dimon, an expert on extractive industry development in eastern and southeastern Africa and completing his doctoral
degree at the University of California at Berkeley, played a major role in the extended seismic study for this book (Chap. 3).
Mr. Dimons careful investigative and synthetic work is greatly appreciated. He is also the primary author of Appendix A in
this book which is an overview of the incursion of the oil industry in the Ethiopia-Kenya-South Sudan transbourndary region
and part of our jointly executre investigation of the industrys growth in eastern Africa. I extend my deep thanks to him for
his excellent contributions.
James Carr, an environmental consultant and former senior ofcer of a nongovernmental organization promoting global
sheries reformwho is also my brotheroffered major advice and assistance concerning the books emphasis on
indigenous shers knowledge of their own resource base, as well as other aspects of the investigation. He has long been a
guiding force in my intellectual pursuits and perspectives, and continues to be so in his work as an environmental policy
analyst.
My efforts to navigate the difcult terrain of international human rights standards and approaches to the matter of rights
violations at both national and institutional levels benetted greatly from the advise of a number of outstanding attorneys.
Dan Siegel, Peter Weiner, and Michael Freund offered valuable advice at the outset of this portion of my investigation as it
applies to the the transboundary region. Several attorneys highly experienced in international human rights issues in
developing countries, including within Africa and Latin America, offered critical perspective and information, as well as
comments on my drafts of the human rights section of the book. They are Laurel Fletcher and Alexa Koenig, both faculty at
Boalt Law School at the University of California, Berkeley, and Naomi Roht-Arriaza, a faculty member at the University of
California Hastings Law School in San Francisco. I am most grateful for their help. I also wish to offer special thanks to
Michael Hannigan, President and Cofounder of the innovative company, Give Something Back, for his crucial insight
toward making this book widely available and helping to implement that objective.
My deep appreciation extends to other professionals who have contributed to this volume. Jason Gritzner, a Watershed
Program Manager for the National Forests Program and an individual experienced in East African river basin development,
offered important information and perspective regarding hydrological and riverine ecology dynamics. Justin Fong, a public
xi Acknowledgments
policy specialist with strong knowledge of the rising importance of China in African economic development offered many
comments on book chapters as well as numerous thoughts on the political shifts underway.
Daniel Lavelle contributed valuable document research and comments concerning the physical character of Lake Turkana
and patiently entered into valuable dicussions of the issues involved. Richard Brenneman offered insightful and penetrating
comments on an early version of the book, contributing his expertise as an investigative journalist and his passion for
in-depth analysis in social matters of consequence. Kathy Sheetz offered assistance in both investigative and presentational
dimensions of the early phase of this book, with suggestions from her professional and political experience in health related
issues Africa, Haiti, and elsewhere. Ann Kroeber offered valuable perspective concerning visual presentation of the materials
at hand.
Among my faculty colleagues at UC Berkeley, I want to thank Andrew Gutierrez, who lent his support and expertise to this
work from his knowledge of biological systems in the Ethiopian region. Miguel Altieris many years of leadership in the
eld of agroecology and indigenous systems provided a critical source of information and perspective regarding the
agropastoral component of livelihoods in the transboundary region. I greatly appreciate their efforts, including within
the University context. My community-based colleague and friend in Berkeley, Samir (Aka F.D.), has also offered much
encouragement.
In the world of education, the earliest major teacher in my own lifeMarion T. Hallnot only taught me about systems
ranging from plants to people, but also about the importance of explicitly considering those systems when trying to
concretely address the real problems in this world. Many of my international development and natural resource policy
students and young colleagues at UC Berkeley participated in various phases of this books development. In its earliest
phase, Adam Gray was particularly key in our investigation of the history of oil leases in eastern Africa, with strong focus on
the Horn region. Crossley Pinkstaff made important contribtions to the economic and policy investigations of the eastern
Africa region and has remained a valuable source of perspective and information. Andy Kreamer assisted with major
bibliographic work and early project organizing toward eld investigations. Michal Karmi, Juan Ramos, Dylan Kasch.
Chase Livingston, Ian McGregor, Kaleigh Rhodes, Judi Li, Nicholas Calderon, Yuki Jiang, and Dawning Wu worked
together to update operations of the oil and gas industry in eastern Africa. Alicia Krueger, Regina Clincy, Phoebe Song,
Vickie Duong, Corey Wood, Lexi Spaulding, and Gyngyi Gzon all donated their time to do fact checking and related
work, making valuable suggestions for improvement. To all of these individuals, I offer my sincere thanks and hope that they
learned from our experience together. I certainly did. If I have failed to mention others students efforts, I hope that I shall be
forgiven. The long and arduous times synthesizing information and its meaning throughout this work would not have been
possible without the sustainment of musicespecially by Dasanech and Turkana villagers and desert dwellers throughout
the region, but also the magical and energizing sounds of Ali Farka Toure, Dadi Kouyate and Miriam Makeba.
Finally, I would never have been able to carry out this work without my family, to whom I give my deepest love and
appreciation. In addition to my brother James, my son Calen provided unwavering encouragement throughout. His caring for
people from many cultures and his uncanny ability to always look forward have been a constant source of inspiration and
strength for me. My niece Leah and her two daughters, Marin and Jenesea, with their high spirits and caring for all forms of
life have provided ongoing motivation. I thank them for their love and patience throughout this effort.
Much of this work derived nancial support from a private foundation concerned with development, conservation, and
resource rights in Africa and elsewhere. The foundation was flexible and helpful in all regards and my thanks to them for
letting this entire effort move forward. In preparing for this books publication by Springer-Verlag, I have had the incredible
good fortune to work with Neil Olivier and Diana Nijenhuijzen. I deeply appreciate their assistance, patience and good cheer
throughout the preparatory process and it is a great privilege to have worked with them. The nal production team added a
major boost to the book as well, with exemplary flexibility and professionalism.
Contents
1 At Stake with River Basin Development in Eastern Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

River Basin Development in Africa: Development Versus Disaster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The Transboundary Character of Emerging Crisis in Eastern Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The Gibe III Dam and Linked Agricultural and Power Export Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2 The Persistent Paradigm for Modernizing River Basins: Institutions and Policies in Ethiopia . . . . . . . . 23
Early River Basin Development in Ethiopia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
The Resurgence of Western Dominance in River Basin Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Fast Track to the Gibe III Megadam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
A Nexus of Public Policy Institutions for River Basin Development: Collaboration with Complicity . . . . . . . . 36
3 The Seismic Threat to the Gibe III Dam: A Disaster in Waiting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

High Seismicity in the Gibe III Dam Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Reservoir Seepage and Landslide Danger at the Gibe III Dam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Failed Government and Development Bank Seismic Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4 Transboundary Survival Systems: A Profile of Vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Indigenous Livelihoods and Survival Strategy Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Pastoral Dispossession and Rising Dependence on the Omo River and Lake Turkana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Environments in the Transboundary Region: From Pristine to Degraded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
The Lowermost Omo River Basin and Environs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Lake Turkana and Environs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Cross-Border Conflict and Diminishing Resources: The Ilemi Triangle Ingredient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
5 Components of Catastrophe: Social and Environmental Consequences of Omo River

Basin Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Radical Reduction of River and Lake Waters by Omo Basin Development . . ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Consequences for the Lowermost Omo River Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Consequences for the Lake Turkana Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Consequences for the Ilemi Triangle and the Broader Region . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
6 The Rush to Rationalize: Public Policies and Impact Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Launching the Gibe III DamAnd a System of Bias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
The Myth of Flood Disasters as Rationale for Megadam Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Invalidity of the Ethiopian Governments Downstream Impact Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
xiii
xiv Contents
The False Promise of an Artificial Flood Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Multilateral Development Banks and the Complicity Treadmill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
7 The Dasanech of the Lowermost Omo Basin: From Adaptation to Development Debacle. . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Dasanech Pastoral Decline: Roots and Responses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Adapting from Upland Pastoral Life to Diversified Economy at the River. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Last Resort Survival: Desperate Dependence on Omo River Annual Flood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Ethiopian Expropriation and Political Repression of Riverine Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
8 Nyangatom Livelihood and the Omo Riverine Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Nyangatom Omo Settlements and Dependence on Riverine Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Fate of the Forest: Nyangatom Survival and Ethiopias Heritage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
9 Turkana Survival Systems at Lake Turkana: Vulnerability to Collapse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Northern Turkana Pastoralists: The Long Decline and Migration to the Lake. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Adaptation from Pastoral to Fishing Livelihood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Fishing Shoreline Communities: Household Practices and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Fish Species and Critical Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Counting the Discounted: Northern Turkana Population at the Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
10 Human Rights Violations and the Policy Crossroads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

The Crisis Unfolding and the Human Right to Context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
The Ethiopian Governments Violations of Human Rights in the Transboundary Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
Emerging Human Rights Violations in Kenyas Lake Turkana Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
International Development Bank Collaboration with Human Rights Violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
The Stark Policy Choice: Catastrophic Level Destruction or Sustainable Development
Within a Human Rights Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ 211
Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ 214
Appendix A: Activation of Oil Exploration and Development in the EthiopiaKenyaSouth Sudan

Transboundary Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Appendix B: Species Collected in the Lower Omo River Basin and Transborder Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
Appendix C: Reference set of Selected Major Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

Acronyms
AFD French Development Agency/Agence Franaise de Dveloppement

ACHPR African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
AFDB African Development Bank
ARWG Africa Resources Working Group
CRBM Campagna per la Riforma della Banca Mondiale (CRBM)
DFID Department for International Development, United Kingdom
EAPP Eastern Africa Power Pool
EEHP Eastern Electricity Highway Project
EEPCO Ethiopian Electric Power Company
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EIB European Investment Bank
ELPA Ethiopian Electric Light and Power Authority
EPA Environmental Protection Authority, Ethiopia
EPRDF Ethiopian Peoples Revolutionary Democratic Front
ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment
ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework
EUR Eurodollars
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations
FoLT Friends of Lake Turkana
GCI Global Consulting Industry
GOE Government of Ethiopia
GOK Government of Kenya
IDA International Development Association (Soft Loan Window) of the World Bank
KMFRI Kenya Marine Fisheries Research Institute
mg/L Milligram(s) per liter
MW Megawatts
kV Kilovolts
MoFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Ethiopia)
MOFED Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (Ethiopia)
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MOWR Ministry of Water Resources (Ethiopia)
NEMA National Environment Management Authority (Kenya)
NGO Nongovernmental organization
PBS Promotion of Basic Services
ppm Parts per million
SNNPR Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples Region (Ethiopia)
SONT South Omo/North Turkana Research Project
TOR Terms of Reference
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
xv
xvi Acronyms
UNESCO United Nations Educational Scientic and Cultural Organisation

USD U.S. Dollars
USGS United States Geological Survey
USAID United States Agency for International Development
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Location of the Gibe III dam on the Omo River in the tri-nation transboundary region . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Figure 1.2 Omo River delta expansion from 1973 to 2006 with the rivers terminus in Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Figure 1.3 Ethnic groups in the tri-nation transboundary region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figure 1.4 Indigenous Dasanech and Nyangatom residents in the lowermost Omo River basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Figure 1.5 Turkana villagers at Lake Turkana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 1.6 Interethnic exchange network in the transboundary region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 1.7 Major livelihoods in the transboundary region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Figure 1.8 Peoples of the tri-nation border region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Figure 1.9 Habitat variation in the transboundary region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure 1.10 The Gibe cascade of hydrodam and electricity projects along the Omo River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Figure 1.11 Gibe III dam site and construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 1.12 Meandering section of the lower basin Omo River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Figure 2.1 Awash River basin in context of all Ethiopian river basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Figure 3.1 The East Africa Rift System with Main Ethiopian Rift (MER). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Figure 3.2 Earthquake risk in Africa: Modified Mercalli Scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Figure 3.3 Seismic activity within 1600 km of the Gibe III dam: 1963 to present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Figure 3.4 Seismic activity within 700 km of the Gibe III dam: 1906 to present. Indicated by magnitude
of earthquake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Figure 4.1 Pastoral life along the Omo River west bank and Kibish River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Figure 4.2 Northern Turkana pastoralists in upland plains. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Figure 4.3 Riverside settlement and secondary production along the lowermost Omo River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Figure 4.4 Northern pastoral Turkana dependency on Lake Turkana for watering and grazing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Figure 4.5 Northern Turkana fishing villagers at Lake Turkana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Figure 4.6 Indigenous village relocation (migration) to the Omo River and Lake Turkana: 1960 to present. . . . . 61
Figure 4.7 Seasonal dependence on Omo River and Lake Turkana resources by pastoral, agropastoral,
and fishing indigenous communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 65
Figure 5.1 Elevation of Lake Turkana relative to lake volume. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76
Figure 5.2 Progressive retreat of Lake Turkana caused by the Gibe III dam and dam enabled irrigated
agriculture (Base map from Hopson 1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 77
Figure 5.3 Expanding armed conflict from effects of Gibe III dam and dam-linked development. . . . . . . . . . .. 79
Figure 5.4 Summary of the humanitarian catastrophe and conditions for armed conflict from the Gibe III dam
and its linked large-scale irrigated agricultural development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80
Figure 5.5 Ilemi triangle border area with Ethiopia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 83
Figure 6.1 Dimensions of invalidity in the Ethiopian governments downstream impact assessment of the
Gibe III dam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 88
Figure 6.2 Satellite images before and after the August 2006 Omo River flood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 91
Figure 7.1 Dasanech herders and livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 113
Figure 7.2 Pasture deterioration phases in upland plains. Dominant and comparable soil type in Dasanech
region of the lower Omo basin (sandy-silt soils on relict beach/interridge areas) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Figure 7.3 Phases of ecological decline in lower Omo basin pastoral lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Figure 7.4 Dasanech pastoral villagers and activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Figure 7.5 Seasonal movement patterns of six Dasanech settlement areas west of the Omo River . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Figure 7.6 Dasanech settlement migration from upland plains to Omo riverine zone: 19602011. . . . . . . . . . . . 118
xvii
xviii List of Figures
Figure 7.7 Major Dasanech livelihood decline from upland pastoral economy (west side of the Omo River) . . .. 120
Figure 7.8 Dasanech woman making dugout canoe from a tree trunk in a small clearing in the Omo riverine
forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Figure 7.9 Zone of Ethiopian Government Expropriation of Dasanech villages and livelihood areas. . . . . . . . . . 122
Figure 7.10 Dasanech male elders in the Omo riverine zone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Figure 7.11 Flood recession agriculture and Dasanech planters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Figure 7.12 Dasanech Life along the Lower Omo River. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Figure 7.13 Calves in starvation condition grazing in stubble of riverside farm plot. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Figure 7.14 Desiccation of modern Omo delta and northern end of Lake Turkana predictable from Gibe III dam
and dam-linked irrigation systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 131
Figure 7.15 Wetlands at the Omo delta terminus at Lake Turkana. Dasanech cattle grazing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 132
Figure 7.16 Dasanech village complex at shoreline near northwestern extreme of Lake Turkana,
close to Omo delta wetland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 132
Figure 7.17 Dasanech crossing Omo River at high flood stage for transactions between west bank residents and
Omorate traders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Figure 7.18 Planned and potential irrigated agriculture in the lower Omo River basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Figure 7.19 Cracking silty clays in relict floodplains, near planned irrigated commercial farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Figure 8.1 Nyangatom trek from Omo River villages to Kibish River and Ilemi Triangle settlements . . . . . . . . . 147
Figure 8.2 Nyangatom man and woman at (5 m deep) watering hole dug in Kibish riverbed during the
dry season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Figure 8.3 Nyangatom family in village alongside the Omo Rivers west bank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Figure 8.4 Nyangatom in agropastoral villages along west bank of the Omo River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Figure 8.5 Omo riverine forest in Nyangatom region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
Figure 8.6 Transition zone between the Omo riverine forest and adjacent drylands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Figure 8.7 Riverine vegetation types along the lower Omo River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Figure 8.8 Riverine forest development along the lowermost Omo River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Figure 9.1 Pastoral life in northern Turkana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Figure 9.2 Northern Turkana livestock herds watering at the lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Figure 9.3 Turkana fishing villagers along northwestern shores of Lake Turkana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Figure 9.4 Fishing and mixed fishing/pastoral Turkana village areas at Lake Turkana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Figure 9.5 Turkana fishing village activities at Kalokol and northward along the lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Figure 9.6 Northern Turkana Fishing Villagers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Figure 9.7 Turkana girl and villagers with dried fish pallets set at roadside for transport to market . . . . . . . . . . 170
Figure 9.8 Turkana life at Fergusons Gulf and northward along shoreline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
Figure 9.9 Turkana woman drying fish for marketing with secondary geese/chickenraising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Figure 9.10 Bathymetric representation of Lake Turkana retreat from Gibe III Dam and linked irrigation
agriculture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 182
Figure 9.11 Desiccation of Fergusons Gulf and the modern Omo delta: projected from Gibe III dam
and irrigated enterprises along the Omo River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 183
Figure 9.12 Indigenous map of Turkana villages at Fergusons Gulf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 185
Figure 10.1 The planned eastern Africa electricity export and distribution system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 204
Figure 10.2 Chinese-financed 51-km transmission connection between the Gibe III dam
and the Ethiopia-Kenya Energy Highway Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 205
Figure A.1 Concessions for oil and gas exploration in the EthiopiaKenyaSouth Sudan transboundary
region2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 219
Figure A.2 Cumulative concessions for oil and gas exploration in Eastern Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 220
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Three key components of the institutional policy nexus for major river basin development,
with selective list of participants. Ethiopia, 19552013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Table 3.1 Earthquakes within 300 km of the Gibe III (3) dam since 1906 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Table 4.1 Diversied food production among transboundary ethnic groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Table 4.2 Major food related exchange: Turkana-Nyangatom and Dasanech-Turkana ethnic groups. . . . . . . . . . . 64
Table 6.1 Recent Omo River flood history from a SONT 2009 survey of village elders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Table 6.2 Dimensions of invalidity of the Ethiopian governments environmental and social impact
assessment (GOE 2009b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 96
Table 6.3 European Investment Bank and African Development Bank impact assessments . . . . . . . . . ........ 105
Table 7.1 Dasanech village complexes along the Omo River: 20092010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 123
Table 7.2 Dasanech household wealth status and livelihood change. Households from west bank
of the Omo River: 1972 versus 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Table 7.3 Selected irrigated agricultural enterprises in the lower Omo basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Table 7.4 Partial list of Ethiopian government evictions and expropriations of Dasanech villagers. . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Table 8.1 Nyangatom livelihood activities dependent on riverine habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Table 9.1 Annual seasons described by northern Turkana shers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Table 9.2 Household survey in Lake Turkana shing communities: A Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Table 9.3 Lake Turkana sh species and habitats of importance to Turkana shing communities . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Table 9.4 Population estimates from Fergusons Gulf region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
Table 9.5 Population estimates for towns and village complexes along Lake Turkanas western shore
from Kalokol to the Kenya-Ethiopia border . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 187
xix
At Stake with River Basin Development
in Eastern Africa 1
In the time of our fathers and grandfathers, our land was the land of good grass and it was big. The grass
was tall for our cows and we moved our herds apart when danger came. The river gave us what we needed
water and grass for our animals. Our life was good. But look at our land now! It is bare and you can nd
our dying animals everywhere. Look at those carcasses! Our fathers and grandfathers did not know this
hungerthey did not know this life. We have had to bring our villages to the river to nd grass for our
animals and to plant so we can feed our children. The poorest of us are even shing. Now we are afraid that
we will lose our river waters. What is happening to our river and our landsdo you know?
[Dasanech male elder in the western Omo River delta, within Ethiopia]
Abstract
River basin development in Africa has nearly unparalleled signicance for the future of
entire nations. Most major hydrodam projects undertaken in the continent have produced
intense controversy, particularly over their socioeconomic and environmental impacts. In
eastern Africa, river basin development is producing a major humanitarian and human
rights crisis for a half million indigenous people in the border region of Ethiopia, Kenya
and South Sudan. This crisis stems from developments in the Omo River basin of
southwestern Ethiopia, with major international support. Construction of the Gibe III
hydrodamone of the worlds tallestis primarily geared to the production of
hydroelectricity for the benet of commercial and nancial interests within Ethiopia and
energy export throughout eastern Africa, as well as to major irrigated commercial
agricultural development along the Omo River. The crisis at hand is an international one,
especially since the Omo River is a transboundary watercourseflowing from the
Ethiopian highlands to its terminus within Kenya at that nations Lake Turkana, where it
provides most of the lakes water. The combined hydrodam and large-scale irrigation
agriculture development would cause radical reduction of both river flow volume and lake
levelthus destroying pastoral, agropastoral and shing livelihoods of hundreds of
thousands of indigenous people dependent on these waters. Catastrophic level collapse of
survival systems in the region would usher in major new inter-ethnic, cross-border armed
conflict as communities are forced to ght over the regions vanishing resources. Major
human rights violations involving national governments and key international aid agencies
are already underway.
River Basin Development in Africa: Development Versus Disaster
Few development initiatives in Sub-Saharan Africa have the economic and political importance of river basin
developments, whether in terms of the sheer size of undertaking, magnitude of social and environmental transfor-
mation, impact on the future of entire nations or controversy regarding benecial versus destructive outcomes.
The range of people and institutions frequently engaging in heated controversy over these developmentsfrom World Bank
executives and Prime Ministers through multiple levels of technical specialists, water resource/engineering consultants and
non-governmental or civil society organizations to villagers directly impactedreflects the signicance of such develop-
ments within African nations.
For African heads of state, the nearly unparalleled capital intensity of major dam and physical infrastructure projects, along
with linked agricultural and industrial development, requires major infusions of international capitalnearly always
The Author(s) 2017 1

C.J. Carr, River Basin Development and Human Rights
in Eastern Africa A Policy Crossroads, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-50469-8_1
2 1 At Stake with River Basin Development in Eastern Africa
as loans, viewed as a most powerful river impetus for economic growth and transformation and inevitably termed in the
national interest. Assurances of major trickle down of wealth and other benets to the general population from such huge
developments, moreover, are extended as promise of a better futurewhile serving as a means of staving off increased or
potential social unrest, as viewed by existing leaders.
International aid organizations, particularly multilateral development banks and major bilateral agencies, have for years held
comparable enthusiasm for large dam and dam linked basin projects in Africa. The large size of loans extended for megadam
developmentwell into the billions of dollars when dam-enabled projects are included, as well as the conditions attached to
themprovide major donor countries and banks with opportunity for continued or expanded economic and political
leverage in African nations along with major investment opportunities, access to natural resources and other benets. Such
developments are sometimes closely related to geostrategic objectives vital to donor country foreign policy.
Finally, rapid and denitive regional economic integrationa major objective in foreign aid policiescan be rapidly
advanced by dams generating hydroelectricity, along with major new infrastructure construction serving new industrial-
ization, agro-industry and expansion of extractive industry interests.
Although most African river basins have been considered with reference to individual countries, a high proportion of them
are actually transboundary in characterfar more than the United Nations has ofcially recognized. In addition to major
rivers that flow across national boundaries in eastern Africa, numerous others terminate at the Indian Ocean where their
altered character has profound impacts on the biophysical, sheries and other dimensions of coastal systems that extend
across national boundaries.
A major boom in river basin development unfolded within Africa in the post World War II yearsone primarily
under the auspices of international aid programs as the regions nations became independent from their colonial
administrations. This boom in development was dominated by the United States for years, since its economy and domestic
experience at the end of the war fostered strong incentive as well as potential to move its dam-building approach and
expertise to Africa, Asia and Latin America. This dominance in African basin development lasted until a number of
European nations also took on major roles in dam-building in the 1970s.
The U.S. modeled its approach after its own Hoover dam and Grand Coulee dam (at the Nevada-Arizona border and in
Washington state, respectively) and its Tennessee Valley Authoritya U.S. government owned entity created by the U.S.
Congress in 1933 to oversee river basin development.1 A highly controversial and centralized planning effort introduced as
part of President Franklin D. Roosevelts New Deal, the TVA was broad spectrum in its roles which ranged among major
dam construction, water and land policy coordination and management, and numerous other basin development initiatives,
including agricultural ones.
These developments were part of a new centralized planning under President Roosevelts New Deal that included elevating
water resource policy to a key executive concern, with strong emphasis on harnessing energy and promoting economic
development. The rise of a new techno-managerial approach to water resources and river basin development emerged as a
major fulcrum of economic expansion in a market economy. This new wave had clearly already swept up some of the most
prominent water resource economists, geographers and other scientists and technicians.2
The most ardent critics of major dam and basin developments have long pointed to their major social and envi-
ronmental problems and injustices, including the human rights violations that have accompanied them. Denial of
U.N. recognized human rightsincluding rights to water, health, livelihood, and freedom from forced relocation and
political repression is widespread in river basin developments within Africa. In many ways, they parallel the many con-
troversies occurring since the 1980s, in particular, between river basin developeers and their critics. However, these rights
violations take an extreme form in the lowermost Omo River basin and northern Lake Turkana region, as detailed in the next
chapters.
1
Two comprehensive histories of international dam and river basin development are by Patrick McCully (2001) and Leslie (2005)McCully
taking a worldwide view and Leslie emphasizing cases in India, South Africa and Australia.
2
Among the rising gures in this realm was Gilbert F. White, who was elevated to an executive water resource advisory position as a young man in
his twenties by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. A biographical account of Gilbert Whites life from the New Deal 1930s to the 2000s (Hinshaw
2006) provides an excellent view of the origins of these policies and their general application in international development. After playing a major
role in megadam projects throughout much of Africa, Southeast Asia and the U.S., White became more equivocal (from the late 1980s onward)
about the 'techno-managerial' approach in river basin/large dam development.
River Basin Development in Africa: Development Versus Disaster 3
Key components of the techno-managerial approach to major river basin developmentsare scientic reports (mandated
by international and national development agency operational principles) includes feasibility and baseline studies as well as
impact assessmentsall typically commissioned by the very governments, aid organizations and transnational companies
participating in the intended development. These are generally produced by rms and individuals within the global con-
sulting industrya multi-billion dollar industry whose members are trusted repeat contractors. Documents produced by the
global consulting industry generally endorse the overall thrust of the intended developments, with limited consideration of
social and environmental potential impacts and with suggestions for risk-minimization, mitigation and monitoring mea-
sures. These are typically based on the assumptions that the projects will continue to completion and that any projected
social or environmental impact problems can be solved by technical and managerial action. Such legitimation efforts
generally lead to project approval in eastern African nations and may other development country contexts, whereas in
developed countries, criticism and opposition by experienced constituencies frequently delays or even blocks such projects.
This clash of perspectives between large dam developers and critics has nowhere been clearer than in the proceedings of the
World Commission on Dams (WCD), with its comprehensive report of 2000. By now, the results of the detailed WCD
studies and deliberations have been extensively reported on and evaluated. The optional guidelines produced by compro-
mises among Commission members are just that: optional. The rush to megadam development and major river basin
industrialization has continued, howeverin fact, recently intensied.
The World Bank has in 2013 stated its intention to rejuvenate, or increase its emphasis on large dams in developing
countries, and both environmental and social safeguards of the multilateral development banksnotably the World
Bank as the lead institution, and the African Development Bank are actually in the process of being substantially
weakened, not strengthened.
One of the strongest indictments of large dams has been produced by economists Ansar, Flyvbjerg and associates at
the University of Oxfords Said School of Businessin a sense, using the dam developers own criteria of success.
The study was based on an investigation of the real costs of 245 large hydrodamsall built between 1934 and 2007 in 65
countries on ve continents. This study represents the largest and most reliable data set of its kind with portfolios worth
USD 353 billion in 2010 prices (Ansar et al. 2014). Ethiopias Gibe III dam was included in this study, as noted below.
Using measures including the gap between managers forecasts and actual outcomes related to construction costs, or
the cost overrun, and implementation schedule, or schedule slippage, Ansar, Flyvbjerg and associates concluded the
following:
We nd that even before accounting for negative impacts on human society and environment, the actual con-
struction costs of large dams are too high to yield a positive return (ibid.).
Ansar and colleagues specically cite Ethiopias [Gilgel] Gibe III dam, along with other large dams in planning stages
stating that these are likely to face large cost and schedule overruns, seriously undermining their economic viability. The
matters of:
Environmental and social impacts on local populations
Risk of dam collapse, and
Major debt incurred by African peoples
are noted as important additional considerations by the Oxford business group.
It is clear that something has gone terribly wrong in the realm of development policy formulation and implementation
in terms of the gap between the rhetoric and the reality of macroeconomic and social/environmental outcomes.
Megadams and linked river basin developments have frequently been documented to cause extensive livelihood destruction
with widespread malnutrition, disease contraction, irreversible natural resource losses and increasing economic inequality,
yet they persist as cornerstones of aid funded national development programs in Africa, including in the eastern region.
In order to answer the question of how such a gap exists between the evidence for negative effects of large dam and basin
developments, on the one hand, and the surge of megadam and linked river basin development, on the other, it is necessary to
take full account of the political and economic origins, objectives and marketing of policies within Africa and internationally.
This book will consider these issues for the transboundary region of Ethiopia-Kenya-South Sudan/Ilemi Triangle (a contested
area), where the Omo Rivera major river originating in southwestern Ethiopiaflows into Kenyas Lake Turkana (Fig. 1.1).
The Ethiopian governments interests in the Omo basin center on the construction of the Gibe III megadam, an extensive
system of dam-dependent irrigated agricultural enterprises and an electricity export transmission line from Ethiopia to Kenya
the rst step in a multi-nation, eastern Africa energy highway promoting industrialization economic expansion. The pages
to follow trace this development, its origins and unfolding through the matrix of national and international policy-making, and
its predictable impacts on hundreds of thousands of indigenous people in the Omo basin within Ethiopia and a segment of
Kenya, within the broad expanse of lands around Kenyas Lake Turkana and within the Ilemi Triangle/South Sudan.
The Transboundary Character of Emerging Crisis in Eastern Africa
The Omo River is an international river that flows from its source waters in the western highlands of Ethiopia to its
terminus at Kenyas Lake Turkana. Lake Turkana is Kenyas largest freshwater body and derives about 90 % of its
waters from the river. Prior to emptying into Lake Turkana, the Omo River meanders through a broad, semi-arid expanse of
lowland plains. The Omos annual flood delivers a major pulse of freshwater, sediment and nutrients to the Lake Turkana
vital contributions to the physical and biological integrity of otherwise saline waters.
The transboundary character of the Omo River stems from recent expansion of the Omos delta into Kenyas Lake Turkana
placing the rivers terminus and much of the delta well within Kenyas national boundaries (Fig. 1.2). In less than a half
century, the active Omo delta has grown from a birdfoot prole to an area of over 500 km2a major biodiversity area of
wetlands and a mosaic-like pattern of other vegetation types.
The lower Omo River basin and Lake Turkana region is one of Sub-Saharan Africas most culturally diverse areashome to at
least thirteen distinct ethnic groups speaking languages of Cushitic, Eastern Nilotic, Omotic and Afroasiatic origin (Fig. 1.3).
Those indigenous groups nearest the tri-nation border areathe Dasanech, Nyangatom and northern Turkanaare primarily
pastoral or agropastoral by tradition (Figs. 1.4 and 1.5) and have remained so for centuries, although with many adaptations.
The harsh, semi-arid environment in which they reside has contributed to their complex and flexible survival strategies for
coping with changing environmental and social conditions.
The Omo River and Lake Turkana are core components of the survival systems for much of the regions indigenous
groups, most of whose livelihood systems are transboundary in nature. The survival of more than 500,000 of the
regions pastoralists, agropastoralists and shers requires access to adequate water and living resources from the
Omo River or Lake Turkana.
The regions ethnic groups most heavily dependent on the Omo River or Lake Turkana are the Mursi, Bodi,
Kwegu, Suri, Kara, Nyangatom, and Dasanech, in the lower Omo River basin, and the Turkana, El Molo,
Rendille, Samburu, Gabbra (and some Dasanech) along the shores of Lake Turkana (Fig. 1.3).3
Transboundary ethnic groups are linked together by a network of interethnic material and social exchange relations
a system essential to the survival of each individual group (Fig. 1.6). In recent years, however, nearly all trans-
boundary groups have had to cope with a sharp decline in their capacity to sustain a pastoral life. This stress has reverberated
to all groupsfriends and enemies alike. The precipitous decline of the herding economy and pastoral lifevirtual collapse
in some areasis largely the product of dispossession of resident groups at the hands of powerful external economic and
political forces. Although they have sustained complex and flexible strategies for coping with periods of prolonged drought,
3
Considerable literature has generated over the past half century regarding the environment and ethnic groups in the lower Omo basin, northern
Turkana region and the borderlands of the Ilemi Triangle. Numerous selections are noted in later chapters.
The Transboundary Character of Emerging Crisis in Eastern Africa 5
Fig. 1.1 Location of the Gibe III dam on the Omo River in the tri-nation transboundary region
Fig. 1.2 Omo River delta expansion from 1973 to 2006 with the rivers terminus in Kenya. Source original images from National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA). National borders and contested Ilemi Triangle section are added
Fig. 1.3 Ethnic groups in the tri-nation transboundary region

Fig. 1.4 Indigenous Dasanech and Nyangatom residents in the lowermost Omo River basin. Top left Dasanech elder woman (pastoral
village). Top right Dasanech man at major ritual (dimi). Bottom left Young Dasanech girl. Bottom right Nyangatom man (agropastoral village
at Omo River)
Fig. 1.5 Turkana villagers at Lake Turkana. Top left elder woman along northwestern shoreline. Top right shing family near Kenya-Ethiopia
border. Bottom Young boys on non-motorized sailboat
Fig. 1.6 Interethnic exchange network in the transboundary region

disease epidemics social conflict and other hardships for centuries, the regions ethnic groups no longer have the conditions
necessary for recovery from these major stress periods. For individual groups, these conditions center on access to sufcient
land, pasturage and water resources in order to implement long-term livestock herd diversication, overall production
diversication, and maintenance of strong internal reciprocity relations, among others.
Whole segments of these indigenous groups have been forced to migrate to lands along the Omo River and around the shores
of Lake Turkana in recent years. Tens of thousands of Dasanech and Nyangatom residents have settled along the Omo River,
where they rely primarily on different combinations of flood recession agriculture, livestock raising, shing, wild food
gathering and hunting. Thousands of other Dasanech have migrated from their Ethiopian lands to join Dasanech settlements
along the extreme the northeastern shores of Kenyas Lake Turkana (Fig. 1.3), so the group is clearly cross-border in extent.
In Kenya, hundreds of thousands of central and northern Turkana have coped with herd losses by moving toward Lake
Turkana where they take up shing, shing/herding and a variety of secondary activities.
For many of the poorest pastoral and agropastoral households, livelihood activities that once served as temporary measures
for example, as a means of recovery after major livestock or crop losses or as secondary productionhave become their
principal means of survival.4 These activities include shing, wild food gathering, chicken raising and household commodity
production. Livelihood activities of the Dasanech Nyangatom and Turkana ethnic groups include those in Figs. 1.7 and 1.8.
To a large extent, these production activities reflect major environmental variations created by the punctuation of the arid
region by the Omo River, Lake Turkana, ephemeral streams, volcanic rock and tuffaceous outcrops, ancient beach ridges and
floodplains, salt springs and other anomalous features (Fig. 1.9).5
The transboundary region was long an area of little concern to policy-makers in Ethiopia, Kenya and distant capitals,
other than for determining national boundaries and securing borders. Recently, it has recently become the focus of
major hydropower development, dam enabled irrigated commercial agriculture and oil/gas exploration. These
developments either necessitate regulation of the Omo River or at least benet from it in terms of infrastructure building and
securing the region in political and military terms.
Oil and gas concessions are active throughout much of the transboundary region. Ethiopian and Kenyan governments
frequently announce new oil and gas discoveries through their national media. In reality, exploration began decades ago as
part of a broad cooperation program among government, corporate and aid sectors. Systematic exploration has been
underway for a half century in the eastern portion of Africa, from the Red Sea to southern Africa. Exploration activity in the
transboundary region has recently escalated, both in geographic extent and activity level. Oil company work parties in the
region are highly visible to indigenous communities, with some local groups vigorously opposing their incursionfor
example, in Turkana lands.6 Appendix A of this book, written by J. Dimon with this writers assistance, is a brief description
of oil industry exploration in the transboundary region.
The Gibe III Dam and Linked Agricultural and Power Export Developments
The Gibe III dam represents a milestone project in Ethiopias energy development. It was planned as the nations rst
megadamboth to double the nations power generation for domestic development (mostly urban and industrial) and to
launch the export of Ethiopian hydrodam generated electricity to surrounding countries for a planned East Africa energy
network supported by international aid. The Gibe III dam is part of a planned cascade of hydro projects along the Omo
(Fig. 1.10). The relatively small Gibe I dam was completed and is operating, while the associated Gibe II power generating
project has been under extensive repair following two tunnel collapse disasters. The Ethiopian government and international
planners are planning two additional damsthe Gibe IV and Gibe V.
4
Hunting was one of these opportunistic or temporary means of food-getting. Recent depletion of wildlife in both the lower Omo basin and the
Lake Turkana region, particularly with the pervasive use of rearms, has eliminated this option, for all practical purposes.
5
See the geological, geochemical and geomorphological studies by Brown et al. (2006), Bruhn et al. (2011), Cerling (1986) and Butzer (1970,
1971).
6
For the most part, only a small number of local residentsmostly young men who have traveled among South Sudanese military groups and later
returned to their home areasare familiar with oil development within South Sudan, including its effects on local communities and as a cause of
conflict.
Fig. 1.7 Major livelihoods in the transboundary region. Top left Turkana shing boat departing for expedition. Top right Dasanech pastoral
village milking time. Center left Drying sh catch in a lakeside Turkana village. Center right Young Dasanech boy herding goats at Omo River
with flood recession agriculture on nearby riverside flat. Bottom left Cattle grazing in annually flooded Omo delta wetlands. Bottom right Dasanech
girl in flood recession farm plot
The Gibe III Dam and Linked Agricultural and Power Export Developments 13
Fig. 1.8 Peoples of the tri-nation border region. Top left Dasanech agropastoral family at the Omo River. Bottom left Turkana children near
shing village at Lake Turkana. Top right Nyangatom woman at hand-dug well along seasonal Kibish River. Bottom right Turkana pastoral
women in upland plains
Fig. 1.9 Habitat variation in the transboundary region. Top left Meandering Omo River section in the lowermost Omo basin with forest and
recession agriculture on the rivers inside bend. Top right Salt springs with doum palms along the river. Center Upland plains with complex
vegetation/soil patterns and volcanic highlands. Lower left Modern delta at the Omo Rivers inflow to Lake Turkana. Lower right Lake Turkana
with extremely shallow western shoreline
Fig. 1.10 The Gibe cascade of hydrodam and electricity projects along the Omo River. Source GOE (2009a)
At 243 m heightwhen completed, the Gibe III would rank as one of the tallest dams in the world. It is located in a
deep gorge of the Omo River in Ethiopias highlands, 464 km southwest of Addis Ababa (Fig. 1.11), with the coordinates
6.8472N 37.3014E. Until the 6000 MW Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) on the Blue Nile is completed, the
Gibe III would be Africas largest dam. Initially designed as a rock-lled structure, this ill-advised Gibe III plan was later
replaced by its present roller-compacted concrete (RCC) gravity design.7 The dams reservoir is 150 km long, with an area
of 210 km2 and a storage capacity of 14,700 cm3a volume equal to about two years of the Omo Rivers flow at the dam
site. (According to GOE data, even the reservoirs live storage of 11,750 million cubic meters is greater than the second
largest lake in EthiopiaLake Abaya).8
The dam is designed to generate 1870 Megawatts (MW) of electricity (6500 GWh per year) from ten turbines, each
with 187 MW capacity. From the beginning, the Gibe III dam was planned for power production geared to both the
domestic Ethiopian market and export markets in the eastern Africa region (see Chap. 2)primarily by direct transmission
to Kenya. By 2005, this export plan was explicitly viewed as key to the formation of the Eastern Africa Power Pool (EAPP)
a system designed to link the electricity grids of East African countries. A 2006 Inter-Governmental Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) formalized this export agreement when it was signed by the ministers of energy of both Kenya and
Ethiopia (KETRACO 2006).9 The international development banks have played the key role in these arrangements,
including through the signing of the MOU.
The ofcial cost of the Gibe III dam is variously stated as EUR 1.47 billion to EUR 1.7 billion, with subsequent
unofcial estimates of well above EUR 2 billion. A Chinese loan of USD 500 million accounts for a substantial portion
of this cost, with government and investor funding making up the difference, after international development banks
backed away from funding due to violations of their required procedures for project support (see Chaps. 2 and 10, where
fungible funding to the Ethiopian government from the international development banks is described). The dams stated
cost excludes those of major infrastructural construction costs for the dam and dam enabled agricultural and other
development, as well as the cost of loans to the GOE for domestic and international power transmission systems. This
cost also excludes the inestimably huge costs of disastrous human and resource consequences of the project as well as the
GOEs alleged mitigation and management plans.
Although the Gibe III dam is clearly regarded by the Ethiopian government as primarily for power production, it is also
publically described as essential for the elimination of excessive floods that are destructive of human life and prop-
ertystatements dealt with in Chap. 6.
The World Bank, African Development Bank (AFDB) and European Investment Bank (EIB) have been major
contributors to the Omo River basins commercial development planning, feasibility, and early dam construction.
Their internal operational policies for funding projects have by all reports prevented them from funding the Gibe III dam
directly, however, because of the GOEs no-bid contracting, its failure to establish impact assessments prior to project
inception and other violations of procedural requirements. The Chinese are widely viewed to have rescued the project,
however, with their major loan approval.
Other development bank support for the Gibe III and Omo basin development include:
Funding, coordination and encouragement of support for Ethiopias bureaucratic apparatus spearheading this
development.
Funding for the GOEs establishment and maintenance of the political and economic context for dam and irrigated
agricultural developmentcommonly dubbed basic services provision, and most prominently.
Funding for the major power transmission line from Ethiopia to Kenya for an East African energy highway programa
system widely known to be planned for the inclusion of Gibe III generated electricity despite an approximately 50-km
gap between the transmission line and the dam for which Chinese funding was secured.
7
A consultant to the African Development Bank issued the rst major criticism of the rock-lled structure (Mitchell 2009) and a subsequent
assessment by a European Investment Bank consultant raised similar criticism (EIB 2010). Insurance coverage for the rock-lled version was not
forthcominglikely a factor in Gibe III planners shift to RCC construction (Hathaway 2008).
8
Lake Abaya is recorded as having a live storage of 8200 million cubic meters.
9
The other signatories were of Burundi, DRC, Egypt, Rwanda, and Sudan.
Fig. 1.11 Gibe III dam site and construction. Top Contour map indicating steep slopes/topographic features at the Gibe III dam site and
components of the project complex (GOE 2009a). Bottom left dam in progress, with access road. Bottom right Idealized version of Gibe III plan.
Source www.gibe3.gov.et
Longstanding plans for export of Gibe III generated electricity contributed to signing of a power purchase agreement
whereby Kenya will buy approximately 400 MW of electricity from Ethiopia for a period of twenty years (beginning
in 2017).10 The plan for export of Ethiopian power, the details of which are outlined below, is part of the multi-billion dollar
10
Among many reports of this agreement is that by Kenya Power and Lighting Co., Ltd. in its Kenya (2011/2012) Annual Report and Financial
Statements.
East Africa Power Pool (EAPP), spearheaded and largely funded by the World Bank and African Development Bank
(AFDB). GOE ofcials and numerous aid ofcials have described the Gibe III dam as the rst step in this program.11
The World Bank and the African Development Bank (AFDB) have both disclaimed any connection between the
Gibe III dam and the major transmission line for power export from Ethiopia to Kenya that they are funding. These
assertions are in line with the banks internal regulations precluding their funding of the dam. This claim is not
supported by the reality of the development, however, since the effects of these developments are cumulative and
synergistica matter detailed in Chaps. 6 and 10. The same situation exists with regard to the AFDBs claim of no
relation to the irrigated agricultural development along the Omo River, since the Gibe III and major dam enabled
agricultural enterprises also have cumulative and synergistic effects.
The Gibe III dam and the irrigated agricultural enterprises it enables would usher in massive scale indigenous livelihood
and natural resource destruction in the lowermost Omo basin, Kenyas Lake Turkana region and overall in the
tri-nation border region. The dam would radically reduce the Omo Rivers downstream flow volume by at least 6070 % and
cause a precipitous decrease in inflow to Lake Turkana during the reservoir-lling period and beyond.12 Such loss of river flow
volume would destroy critical sh reproductive and life cycle conditions and desiccate riverine and Omo delta habitats for flood
recession agriculture, livestock watering and last resort grazing. It would also eliminate the pristine Omo riverine forest, which
is the last of its type in Sub-Saharan Africa and one of the richest remaining wildlife areas of Ethiopia. Figure 1.12 indicates the
rich forest development bordering the Omo River in the semi-arid lowland portion of the riveras well as lowlying locales for
recession agriculture along annually flooded riverside sand spits and waterside flats. These environments are vital to the survival
of indigenous residentspastoralists, agropastoralists and shers. This destruction would be greatly worsened by dam enabled
large-scale irrigated agricultural enterprises planned along the Omo River, many of which are already under construction.
The radical decrease in Omo River inflow to Lake Turkana would cause major lake likely retreatmost prominently in the
shallow northern and central portions of the lake. The northern shoreline of the lake would recede by around 810 km, for
example, with multi-kilometer retreat of lake waters throughout much of the lake (see gures in Chaps. 4 and 5). Such retreat
would cause the desiccation of near shore sh reproductive habitat leading to destruction of sh stocks that are essential to
the survival of hundreds of thousands of shing and pastoral/shing indigenous residents, as well as destroy access to
adequate and potable water by that population and the regions watering and lakeside grazing resources for untold the
regions livestock.
Catastrophic level human destruction would have already occurred by even the end of the dams closure for reservoir
llingitself a multi-year process. The GOEs articial flood programespoused as a solution after the lling period
would be entirely inadequate to prevent massive human destruction among Ethiopian and Kenyan communities residing
below the dam. As detailed in Chap. 6, such programs are frequently promised but never implemented in large dam
development within Africa. The Ethiopian government itself has noted the real possibility of no such articial flood
program or one of limited duration. Even the increased flood level suggested by a development bank consultant (EIB 2010)
would be entirely inadequate for the bare survival of the regions resident population and the obstruction of remaining river
waters by irrigated agricultural plantations would only worsen the crisis.
The destruction of pastoral, agropastoral and shing livelihoods would swiftly produce a major humanitarian disaster,
with widespread conditions of starvation, disease and spiraling interethnic armed conflict in the tri-nation border
region as groups desperately compete for vanishing resources. Policies to effect the Gibe III dam and its attendant
irrigation agriculture violate the U.N.-recognized human right to adequate water and its associated right to livelihood
for hundreds of thousands of indigenous residents.
11
Impact assessments and related studies, produced by global consulting rms and individuals through their contracts with governments and aid
agencies (GOE, GOK, World Bank, AFDB, EIB, etc.) are referenced in this book to the contracting government or agency, not the global industry
consultants. Exceptions to this are documents with multiple contracting agencies or non-agency documents produced by GCI rms or individuals.
12
This period is dubiously dened by the GOE (2009b) as requiring one to three yearsa length of time highly unlikely to be sufcient, according
to Africa Resources Working Group (ARWG) physical scientists working in the area. This is due to the fractured nature of the reservoirs rock
walls providing for major leakage from the reservoir. This matter is outlined in Chap. 3. No data has been recorded by the GOE for downstream
Omo River flow volume or lake inflow prior to initiation of Gibe III dam construction, or in ensuing years.
Fig. 1.12 Meandering section of the lower basin Omo River. Top Sand spit with indigenous flood recession agriculture along (annually flooded)
waterside flat and forest on higher (not flooded) natural levee. Bottom Well-developed forest (trees to 27-m height) on inside bend of meander
versus semi-arid vegetation along the outside bend
A major earthquake occurrence of 7 or 8 magnitude is predictable for the Gibe III dam portion of the Ethiopian Rift
Valley within the next fty years (see Chap. 3). According to available documents, dam collapsewhether caused directly
by an earthquake or by a seismic event combined with landslides or sediment buildup behind the damis certainly plausible
and would produce cataclysmic destruction of human life both in the lowermost Omo basin and around Kenyas Lake
Turkana. In addition to unprecedented human destruction from such an event, the nancial costs of a major dam disaster
would add incalculable burden to the citizens of both nations. Chapter 3 details this threat to the peoples downstream in
Ethiopia and Kenya.
The Ethiopian government is already implementing its plans for an extensive system of dam enabled, large-scale
irrigated commercial farms along the lower Omo River accompanied by GOE evictions of tens of thousands of
indigenous residents. As detailed in later chapters, hundreds of thousands of hectares are allocated by the GOE for these
state owned and private enterprises which are being constructed on the traditional lands of multiple ethnic groups. Massive
land areas and resources essential to the livelihoods of these groups are being expropriated, with accompanying eviction of
tens of thousands of villagers.
Major abstraction of river waters for these irrigated large-scale commercial farms along the Omo would both multiply
and indenitely extend the radical reduction of Omo flow volume and lake inflow during the Gibe III reservoir-lling
period. In combination, these two major sources of water denial to the downstream system and the elimination of the
rivers annual flood which is vital for sustainment of downstream survival systems would create catastrophic losses for
hundreds of thousands of pastoral, agropastoral and shing residents.
Large-scale irrigated farm enterprises along the Omo are dependent on the Gibe III dams regulation of the rivera
fact ignored or directly misrepresented in government and development bank assessments of 2009 and 2010 (see
Chap. 6). The xed irrigation systems and high-value crops of these large-scale farms necessitate a predictable and
calibrated abstraction of river water in order to maximize agricultural productivity.13
Widespread Ethiopian government expropriation of indigenous villagers for the establishment of irrigated commercial
private and government plantations has been underway for at least ve years in both the higher altitude Mursi portion and
the Dasanech/Nyangatom portion of the lower Omo basin. This process is documented by international human rights
organizations for the traditional lands of the Mursi and their neighbors (Fig. 1.3). To the extent possible, SONT
researchers have documented the expropriation process in the less accessible Dasanech (and Nyangatom) lands in the
lowermost Omo basin (see Chaps. 7 and 8).
Most of the Dasanech communities that have been expropriated from their traditional lands along the lowermost Omo
have no option but to take refuge within (or nearby) the modern Omo delta. This involuntary movement into the delta
region greatly worsens the already crowded conditions there for agropastoralists and shing communities already settled
there.14
The Ethiopian government forces respond with repressive measuresoften, with brutalitywhen Dasanech or Nyan-
gatom communities resist expropriation from their riverine lands. Fear among villagers throughout the region is inten-
sifying. Such political repression and the GOEs denial of residents access to river waters essential to their survival
constitute human rights violations, as dened by the United Nations and other international bodies. A culture of fear
pervades villages throughout the region where communities are already desperately searching for a means of survival.
The response of the Kenyan government (GOK) to the survival plight of indigenous pastoralists and shers around Lake
Turkana indicates a predominant attitude of indifference. This view is reflected in World Bank statements in internal
documents, for example, citing the high likelihood of the GOK overlooking impacts of lake retreat on its indigenous
population in favor of Gibe III dam electricity generated that is contracted for export to that power decit nation.
13
A large sugar plantation already under development (the Kuraz plantation) in traditional Mursi lands (Fig. 1.3) has a regulated water source
through a weir already constructed in that locality.
14
Some households with remaining livestock relocate to degraded grazing lands around the northeastern shoreline of Lake Turkanarisking major
hostilities with Turkana pastoralists.
Resistance among Turkana communities to the Gibe III damand other developments in the regionmet with increasing
militarization by the GOK. Community leaders report government warnings to activists and threats of reprisal for protest of
GOK policies.
The matter of violation of U.N. dened human rightsespecially the human right to adequate water with its accompanying
rights to livelihood, health and freedom from political repressionis outlined in Chap. 10.
Literature Cited
Brown, F.H., B. Haileab, and I. McDougall. 2006. Sequence of Tuffs between the KBS Tuff and the Chari Tuff in the Turkana Basin, Kenya and
Ethiopia. Geological Society of London 163(1): 185204.
Bruhn, R.L., F.H. Brown, P.N. Gathogo, and B. Haileab. 2011. Pliocene volcano-tectonics and paleogeography of the Turkana Basin, Kenya and
Ethiopia. Journal of African Earth Sciences 59(23): 295312.
Butzer, K.W. 1970. Contemporary depositional environments of the Omo delta. Nature 226: 15.
Butzer, K.W. 1971. Recent history of an Ethiopian Delta. University of Chicago Department of Geography Papers No. 136.
Cerling, T.E. 1986. A mass-balance approach to basin sedimentation: constraints on the recent history of the Turkana basin. Palaeogeography,
Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 54: 6386.
Ethiopia, Government of, Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (EEPCO). 2009a. CESI, Mid-Day International Consulting Engineers (MDI),
Gibe III Hydroelectric Project, Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, Report No. 300 ENV RC 002C Plan.
Ethiopia, Government of, Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (EEPCO). 2009b. Agriconsulting S.P.A., Mid-Day International Consulting,
Level 1 Design, Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, Additional Study of Downstream Impacts. Report No. 300 ENV RAG 003B.
Ethiopia, Government of, Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (EEPCO) n.d., A. Samuel, The rst hydro power station in Ethiopia. www.eepco.
gov.et/corporationhistory.php.
European Investment Bank (EIB). (2010, Mar). Sogreah Consultants, Independent Review and Studies Regarding the Environmental & Social
Impact Assessments for the Gibe III Hydropower Project, Final Report, 183 pp.
Hathaway, T. 2008. What cost Ethiopias dam boom? A look inside the expansion of Ethiopias energy sector. International Rivers. http://www.
internationalrivers.org.
Hinshaw, R.E. 2006. Living with Natures Extremes: The Life of Gilbert Fowler White. Johnson Books, 338 pages.
Kenya, Government of 2011/2012, Annual Report and Financial Statements.
Ketraco (Kenya Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd.). 2006. Eastern Africa Interconnector (EthiopiaKenya). http://www.ketraco.co.ke/projects/
ongoing/ethiopia-suswa-k.html.
Leslie, J. 2005. Deep Water. The Epic Struggle Over Dams, Displaced People and the Environment. Farrar, Straus and Gireau, New York.
McCully, P. 2001. Silenced Rivers. The Ecology and Politics of Large Dams. New York: Zed Press.
Mitchell, A. 2009. Gilgel Gibe III dam Ethiopia: technical, engineering and economic feasibility study report. Presentation transcript, submitted to
African Development Bank. Personal communication, manuscript.
St. Petersburg Times. (1945, Sept. 7), Ethiopian Emperor Grants Sinclair Oil Concessions.
United States, Government of NASA Johnson Space Center Collection. 2009. Earth observation of Omo River Delta, Lake Turkana. http://www.
nasaimages.org.
World Commission on Dams (WCD). 2000. Dams and Development. London: Earthscan. 198 pages.
Open Access This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 International License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/), which permits any noncommercial use, duplication, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any
medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license
and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the works Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the
credit line; if such material is not included in the works Creative Commons license and the respective action is not permitted by statutory
regulation, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to duplicate, adapt or reproduce the material.
The Persistent Paradigm for Modernizing
River Basins: Institutions and Policies 2
in Ethiopia
Abstract
In view of the nearly unprecedented level of destruction of human life and natural resources
from dam development, the question arises as to how such a policy could come into play
without major questioning and challenge. The following is an effort to answer this question,
by tracing the trajectory of the river basin development policy involving the Ethiopian state
and international development forcesfrom its beginnings to the Gibe III dam. Citing
alleged priorities of the national interest, and programs for economic growth and
transformation, the Ethiopian government and international development banks, together
with Kenyan government cooperation, have for decades actively pursued Omo basin
hydrodam and dam enabled agricultural development. The nexus of institutions most
central to the design, implementation and legitimation of major hydrodams and their
associated river basin development is structured in such a way as to prioritize macro
economic and political objectives with the externalization of the well-beingin the
Ethiopia case, the very survivalof local residents who are among the most marginalized
and vulnerable to destruction from this development.
Early River Basin Development in Ethiopia
Plans for the Gibe III dam and Omo River basin development emerged from decades of Ethiopian government efforts
to develop its water resources along with major involvement on the part of international aid and investment
institutions. Focus on large dam and dam-enabled enterprisesespecially hydroelectricity and large-scale irrigation agri-
cultural projectspersisted throughout the post WW II period, with continuity of purpose and approach, from the years of
Haile Selassie rule with major western nation support, through self-proclaimed socialist authoritarian rule by the regime
commonly referred to as the Derg, to the current centralized EPRDP-dominated government with its return to market-driven
modernization.
As early as 1912, Emperor Menelik II constructed the rst hydropower plant on the Akaki Rivera tributary of the Awash
River, in order to power the palace and a group of small factories in Addis Ababa (U.S. Government 1916). Following his
accession to the throne of his uncle, Menelik, Haile Selassie continued the interest in developing Ethiopias water resources,
including hydropowerdevelopment likely facilitated by his consolidation of power in the monarchy with the Constitution
of 1933 (Habte Selassie 2013). He reportedly authorized a redevelopment of the Akaki River, in 1932, for example, where
the Ethiopian air force, radio communications and other developments were established. His plans were interrupted,
however, by Mussolinis brutal invasion from Italian controlled Eritrea and Somaliland in 1936, with bombing of the Akaki
and other areas (Nicolle 1997)followed by the years of Italian occupation.
Having made the mistake of putting his trust in the 1928 Treaty of Friendship between his monarchy and Mussolini of Italy,
despite both nations being members of the League of Nations, which mandated non-aggression among its members, Haile
Selassie was exiled. After a failed plea for help from the League of Nations, the emperor began a ve year residence in

24 2 The Persistent Paradigm for Modernizing River Basins
England. With the beginning of World War II in 1930, the exiled monarch was catapulted onto the world stage and for many,
almost instantly became a prophet. Habte Selassie wrote, in 2014, For people in the African Diaspora, particularly in the
United States and the Caribbean region, his name became a talisman for Africas liberation. The Allied powers resounding
counter to the Italians in Ethiopia and the rest of the Horn ultimately restored Haile Selassie to power via his passage to
Sudan and the actions of liberation forces, bolstered by the British (Vestal 2011). Meanwhile, the monarch had established
strong ties with the Americansconnections that were to lead to a major U.S. role in Ethiopia in the years to follow.
During their years of occupation, the Italians built some generators and extended the power supply to some major towns as
one dimension of infrastructure and commercial development. Almost immediately after their occupation of Ethiopia, the
Italians began building the Aba Samuel dam/power plant on the Akaki River, with a 40,000 m3 reservoir. Although initially
relatively small (6 MW), the power plant was expanded (in the 1950s. The Italian dam thus initiated the harnessing of a
tributary of the 1200 km Awash River, which was to become the centerpiece of hydropower development in Ethiopia during
the early period of post-WW II modernization under Haile Selassie.1
Reinstated to the throne in Ethiopia, Haile Selassie began negotiating with the allied powers for Ethiopias full sovereignty
and became a signatory of the Peace Treaty concluding the war. The monarch then brought Ethiopia into membership at the
United Nations in 1945the rst African head of state to do so. Despite his highly popular and revered image abroad, the
emperor faced considerable unrest at home and needed major assistance to stabilize his position. This suited the allies and
particularly the U.S., which Haile Selassie viewed as less threatening in imperialistic terms (Habte Selassie, op. cit.). For
their part, U.S. foreign policy analysts regarded Ethiopia as an excellent entre point to the still largely colonial African
continent. Moreover, Ethiopia was perfectly situated for U.S. geostrategic interests in the early years of the Cold War.
Indeed, in subsequent years Ethiopia became a major recipient of U.S. military and economic assistance in Africa and fully
embroiled in the regional strategies of Cold War superpowers. These factors combined to bring about major modernization
efforts in select regions of the empire and the beginning of a virtually permanent presence of western aid and investment
institutions.
The World Bankactive for only a few years since its creation as a Bretton Woods institutionwas already engaged
in economic planning in many African countries. Ethiopia became its rst African member (and client) state with an
ofcial Bank mission established and loans issued. From the beginning, the Banks key planning and coordination of the
modernizing effort within Ethiopia were done in concert with U.S. involvement. A U.S. Technical Mission, for example,
carried out detailed study of Ethiopias potential economic development prior to the World Banks rst mission to the
country in 1950, contributing to the Banks issuance of its rst loans to Ethiopia that very year.
The rst World Bank loans to the monarchy were in fact the rst loans by the Bank to Africa. Two loans issued in
1950, following the Banks rst mission to the country, were for the establishment of an Ethiopian Development
Bank. These were mostly to promote agricultural and industrial enterprises, and road construction, including feeder roads
to the Imperial Railroad from Addis Ababa to neighboring Djibouti, Ethiopias only shipping outlet at the time (World Bank
2013).2 Built during Meneliks rule by the French, the railroad traversed the broad, semi-arid Awash River basin in
northeastern Ethiopia (Fig. 2.1) that was soon to be the focus of major water, power and irrigated agricultural investment and
development. Additional funding in the 1950s included nance for telecommunications and road construction.
Following the 1960 establishment of the Banks soft loan window, the International Development Association (IDA),
the Ethiopian monarchy received loans on a consistent basis and the World Bank continued its dominance in
Ethiopian development policy.
Generally speaking, the World Banks early prominent role in economic planning and nancing for the monarchy
during the early post-war yearsclosely coordinated with U.S. assistance and Haile Selassies own enthusiasm for
establishing Ethiopia as a modern state in economic and political termseffectively set the conditions for major river
basin development in the empire.
1
The dam became non-functional in the early 1970s. Recently, the GOE (EEPCO) began plans to refurbish the Aba Samuel.
2
Haile Selassies disregard for the U.N. mandate for a popular referendum in Eritrea to determine its possible autonomy or afliation with Ethiopia,
following its liberation from Italian occupation, led to his brutal actions to annex Eritrearegarded as a critical shipping outlet at the Red Sea, a
source of resource appropriation and of major interest to the Cold War focused U.S. for new military installations and surveillance of the Soviet
Union.
Early River Basin Development in Ethiopia 25
Fig. 2.1 Awash River basin in context of all Ethiopian river basins. Note Omo River basin to the southwest. Source Ministry of Water Resources,
Government of Ethiopia
Establishment of an administrative apparatus for river basin development began early in Ethiopia, with the 1956 formation of
the nations rst agency to promote hydrodam developmentthe Ethiopian Electric Light and Power Authority (EELPA).
EELPA was charged with responsibility for planning and implementing hydrodam and dam enabled, large-scale agricultural
and other industrial development. This included overseeing the generation, distribution, and sale of electricity, with emphasis
on commercial and industrial sales.
Ofcial relations between Ethiopia and the United States actually dated as far back as 1903. A U.S. mission headed by
Robert P. Skinner was sent to Ethiopia in order to negotiate a commercial treaty with Emperor Menelik (Skinner 2003). The
mission ended on a positive note with establishment of a personal relationship between Menelik and U.S. President Teddy
Roosevelt.3 Ethiopia offered a unique opportunity for U.S. presence in Africa since it was not under colonial domination
from Europe (Vestal op.cit.)
Relations between the two countries remained positive and in active during the early to middle 1930s and again in the 1940s.
In 1935, more than half of Ethiopia was deeded to the Anglo-American oil corporation. According to news reports, the
emperors calculation was that this action would block a feared Italian invasion failed (St. Petersburg Times 1945).
Following the defeat of the Italians and Haile Selassies reinstatement in Ethiopia, the emperor rmed up a nothing short of
colossal new oil arrangement with the American oil company, Sinclair, whereby Sinclair was granted a long term concession
over the entire nation of 350,000 square miles, with the right to explore, produce and remove oil from the empire in return
3
The good will aspect of the U.S.-Ethiopia connection established was symbolized by Meneliks gift of some lions and ivory to Roosevelt. In a
sense, this good will was sustained and once again emerged under U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1940s.
for royalties and certain specied development projects (ibid.). The upshot of this was that U.S.-Ethiopia political and
economic relations were moving forward.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt offered support to Haile Selassie to resist domination by Britain following the emperors
reinstatementa position welcomed by the monarch, who met the President in Egypt in 1945. At that meeting, Roosevelt
invited Haile Selassie to the U.S. following the war and offered nancial support for the monarchfollowed by a loan and
U.S. advisors as well as support for Ethiopias joining with Eritrea (Habte Selassie 2014). Roosevelt died, events changed
and the emperor wasnt able to visit the U.S. until 1954but it was to be a visit that marked an important milestone in his
commitment to large scale river basin development.
Somewhat enamored with U.S. technical levels of development, particularly in agriculture, Haile Selassie invited a leading
university in agriculture, Oklahoma State University (OSU), to come to Ethiopia and consider agricultural assistance there.
According to an OSU participant in and chronicler of, relations between the two parties, the cooperation emerging from this
interaction became an early component of President Harry Trumans Point Four technical assistance program. A subsequent
1952 agricultural team from Oklahoma eventually led to the establishment of an agricultural college, Imperial Ethiopian
College of Agriculture and Mechanical Arts at Alemaya, near eastern Ethiopias Harar town (Vestal 2011). Thus the birth of
modern agriculture in Ethiopiaarguably including large-scale irrigated agriculturean endeavor poised to be applied to
development in the regions Awash River basin.
The monarch was nally able to visit the U.S. during President Eisenhowers administration, when he had become an
esteemed gure in international and African politics (Vestel 2011, Habte Selassie op. cit.), as well as admired by many in the
U.S. The predecessor to USAID had provided only relatively small funding to Ethiopia prior to that visit. Haile Selassies
Washington D.C. tour was complemented by a six state tour of the U.S. that included a visit to the Grand Coulee dam, an oil
renery in southern California, and a circling of the Hoover Dam. The visit also included a momentous visit to Oklahoma
State University.
The Awash River basin provided an ideal starting point for combined dam and large-scale irrigated agriculture
construction within Ethiopia, setting precedence for such endeavors for decades to come. The third largest river in
Ethiopia in terms of the catchment area, the Awash River flows from the central Ethiopian highlands eastward through the
open, semi-arid lowlands of the Middle and Lower Awash Valley, where it dissipates in the Afar desert. The Awash basins
outstanding potential for large-scale irrigation agriculture and its proximity to the developing commercial and industrial
enterprisesincluding the railroad to the seaport in Djiboutiwere all attractive qualities to both the monarchy and western
agencies.
Haile Selassie himself took a personal interest in developing the Awash Valley. By then, he had proclaimed that Ethiopia is
the water tower of Africaa phrase welcomed by development ofcials bent on developing the region and viewing
Ethiopias potential for aiding that process with its abundant water resources. The extensive prior U.S. agricultural assistance
in the eastern region as well as the World Banks continual promotion of development, were important forces promoting the
Awash development, as were technical contributions by United Nations.
Events moved quickly and the government began construction of the Koka dam in 1957in Oromo lands, about 75 km
from Addis Ababa. Completed in 1960, the dam was viewed as a large dam at the time (43 MW), with a height of 48
meters (compared with over 240 meters planned for the Gibe III dam), a power generating capacity of 43 MW and a
reservoir of 180 km2. Beyond the rationale that the construction of the dam was being paid for by Italy as part of war
reparations, the Koka was rationalized as a major means of fostering economic growth, thus reducing Ethiopias glaring
poverty through electrication and provision of water for all who needed it in Addis Ababa and several other major towns.
In reality, electricity generated by the dam was overwhelmingly allocated to industry around the capital, along with
agribusiness and enterprises in the Awash Valley. The cost of the dam was covered by Italy as part of its war reparation
agreement, and construction was awarded to Italian contractors.4
In 1962, the monarchy, with aid agency advice and funding, established the Awash Valley Authority (AVA) as the
ofce responsible for the development and management of the river basin. The AVA was fashioned after the Tennessee
Valley Authority in the U.S. and was the forerunner of successive river basin development authorities in Ethiopia. It had the
4
The Italian war reparations payment for the dam was pointed out to me by Elias Habte Selassie, former senior legal ofcer at the Awash Valley
Authority.
contradictory responsibilities of promoting irrigation and commercial agricultural development in the Valley, on the one
hand, and administrating the indigenous groups in the Valley for their welfare, on the other.5
The structure and function of the AVA largely paralleled river basin authorities being established in other developing
countries during these years. Like them, it attempted to preside over political protest generated by the radical reduction of
river flow volume, dispossession of major indigenous populations, and inevitable interethnic conflict increase as groups were
forced to compete for shrinking resources.
The AVA regarded the Awash Valley to be largely unoccupied and underutilized, and developers tagged the peoples
of the Middle and Lower Valleyincluding Afar, Somali and Oromo pastoralists and agropastoralistsbackward
and primitive. The vast majority of government and development specialists shared this perspective. Hence, the livelihoods
and survival strategies of the pastoralists were of no consequence in the rush to develop hydropower and major commercial
agriculture.6 There were implementing partners in the formation of the AVA, including the Victoria Water Resources Com-
mission of Australia, contracted by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the U.N. to help implement water resource
development and agribusiness development. As per their Terms of Reference (or scoping specications), consultants for
feasibility studies took no account of the Valleys indigenous populationassessing only irrigation agriculture and water
resource development potential. Despite multiple volumes of feasibility studies for agricultural development that this writer has
inspected, none contain any substantive treatment (even identication) of the indigenous populations in the regionlet alone
their settlements, livelihood needs, or resource dependency on riverine or other resources in the Awash basin.
The Koka Dam and its accompanying large-scale irrigated commercial agriculture caused major economic decline
among the Awash Valleys indigenous Oromo, Somali and Afar pastoralists and agropastoralists residing there for
centuries. Numerous reports of these effects have been produced over the years, including by Bondestam (1974), Emmanuel
(1975), Carr (1978) and Kloos (1982). These groups depended on Awash River resources for grazing and watering their
livestock, for food gathering and hunting during times of severe drought, and in some instances, for flood recession
agriculture. Sharply increased vulnerability to malnutrition and disease among the indigenous population brought both
heightened and new diseases (Kloos 1982), especially those accompanying the commercial farms (for example, tuberculosis,
malaria, and schistosomiasis).
The monarchy continued with its planning and construction of hydrodams and agribusiness development, with strong
international support. The monarchy built two additional dams along the Awash: Awash II (32-MW) in 1966 and Awash III
(32-MW) in 1974 (along with transmission facilities)both well downstream along the 1200 km river, in traditional Afar
lands, and both with nancing by the World Bank. These too have produced intense conflict with local residents, since they
were directed primarily to corporate-style irrigated agricultural enterprises (World Bank 1969).
In the Middle Awash Valley, Ittu and Kerrayu Oromo pastoralists lived side by side. Both experienced major economic
decline from the Koka dam and new irrigation agricultural enterprises along the Awash River. This writer conducted a U.S.
National Science Foundation funded socioeconomic study among the Ittu Oromo in 197576, documenting the impacts of
both the dam and the major sugar cane plantation (H.V.A., or Hangler Vondr Amsterdam) established on traditional Ittu
lands and with a major plantation along the river since 1966 (Carr 1978). Middle Awash Valley pastoralists were expro-
priated from their riverside Awash Valley lands by large foreign-owned, irrigated commercial farms (Carr 1978; Bondestam
1974); Afar sultanates, however, controlled signicant areas of irrigated agriculture in the Lower Awash Valley following
the construction of the Koka Dam. The biggest losers from these agricultural developments were the pastoralists and
agropastoralists, since their livelihood depends on access to the riverine zone for livestock watering and last option grazing
especially during prolonged drought periodsas well as for flood recession agriculture, wild food gathering and on
occasion, hunting. The pastoralists were essentially cut off from their traditionally available resources along the Awash River
and had to risk hostility and violence from the plantation workers in order to gain access to the highly polluted (with
5
I am grateful to Elias Habte Selassie, former senior legal ofcer at the AVA, for his insights regarding the roles and impacts of the AVA on the
Awash Valleys population.
6
There were exceptions. One FAO consultants report detailing the land tenure crisis for the pastoralists, for example, was suppressed by the U.N.
agency and the AVA. A senior staff member of the Land Reform Ministry in the middle to late 1970sduring the Derg periodproduced a
second report on the plight of the pastoralists, but this too was suppressed. The director of the legal division of the AVA also raised the issue of
Afar and neighboring ethnic group expropriation by the governments concessions to irrigated farming interests, although marginalization of these
peoples continued. This writer acquired these reports with AVA and Ministry personnel and discussed the problems of dissent during research in
1975 in the Middle Awash Valley (see below).
pesticides and fertilizers) and stagnant plantation waters in order to obtain water for their own household use.7 Government
repressive measures were commonplace, along with increasing militarization of the region and periodic flare-ups of violence
between the disenfranchised pastoralists and the farm laborersmost of whom had been transported from politically volatile
regions in the highlands.8
By the early 1970s, 37 % of Ethiopias labor force was in agriculture, and of this, 70 % were employed at H.V.A. facilities
(Araia 1995)many of whom were at the Metahara farm in the middle Awash Valley. The expulsion of the Kerreyu and Ittu
pastoralists and agropastoralists from their Awash lands in favor of large-scale irrigated commercial farms generated major
indigenous resistance.
Only one more relatively large dam was constructed during that periodthe 134-MW dam in the Abay River (Blue Nile)
basin of western Ethiopia. Like the Koka and later dams along the Awash River, the Finchaa dam was planned with
large-scale agricultural enterprises in mindespecially sugar. The Finchaa dam was nanced by the World Bank as well, after
arrangements between the monarchy and USAID deteriorated over the matter of tied aid for U.S. contractors and suppliers.
By the end of the 1960s, the World Bank had functioned as the key force in planning, coordinating or funding hydrodam,
road, telecommunications and power production in Ethiopia. The combined (IBRD and IDA) Bank loans extended for these
developments in Ethiopia between 1950 and 1969 totaled USD 84 million (World Bank 1969; 1969 currency values).
Following the overthrow of the monarchy in 1974, the military regimeor Derg9was consolidated under Mengistu
Haile-Mariam and derived support primarily from the Soviet Union, until the late 1980s. What is less well-known,
however, is that the vast majority of aid to Ethiopia during this period came from the West, including virtually all of the relief
aid to the countryespecially during but not limited to, the crisis level hunger years of the mid-1980s. The World Bank, for
example, produced numerous economic reports and missions during these years of the Soviet-backed Mengistu regime.
From 1981 on, the Bank extended several hundred million dollars of loans to the Soviet-backed regime and turned a blind
eye to Mengistus repressive policies. It also allocated USD 39 million to Ethiopias Ministry of Agriculture, for example,
while the Ministry was directing a massive program of evictions and forced relocations throughout the country. The Bank
had adopted a strategy of continued presence in the USSR-backed, so-called socialist state of Somalia since 1969a
strategy that it considered successful toward building the western powers agenda. It again utilized this strategy in Ethiopia
during the Mengistu socialist period.
One large dam was completed under the Dergthe 153 MW Melka Wakena dam on the Shebelle Riveralong with a
variety of water management schemes and small dams, mostly in the Gambella area of western Ethiopia. The Shebelle is a
transboundary river, originating in eastern Ethiopia and flowing through semi-arid Somalia to its terminus at the Indian
Ocean. The Somali government (then headed by U.S.-backed President Siad Barre) viewed the Melka Wakena and its
accompanying irrigation agricultural development with hostility since it radically reduced the rivers downstream flow to
Somalias primary agricultural areathe Lower Shebelle Valley.
Mengistu initiated one giant agro-industrial project, the Tana-Beles developmentan endeavor that failed entirely and
produced widespread hunger, disease and death among project settlers. The Tana-Beles plan was for more than 200,000 ha
of farming land and a resettled (by force) population of 75,00080,000. The construction company for this EUR 150
million project was Salini Costruttoria family owned and globally active company engaged in Ethiopia since Haile
Selassies time.10
7
This writer held a number of discussions with the manager of the HVA sugar plantation. In these discussions, the manager frankly stated that the
protection of local residents access to the river or to water, as well as the prevention of pollution in the plantations open irrigation channels was
nowhere in the companys agreement with the GOE and that these matters were none of their concern. Heavy government police presence in
the region prevented effective protest, although on occasion, the Ittu and Kerrayu resisted. One dramatic instance of this involved a 200 km march
by Ittu Oromo elders and their supporters to the Parliament building in Addis Ababa.
8
In recent years, some Kerreyu and Ittu pastoralists in the Middle Awash Valley have initiated small irrigation agriculture on available lands along
the riverpartly in defense of further expansion of the commercial farms. The human ecological and survival strategy relations of these Ittu
communities and the impacts on them by these developments are described in this writers 1978 report.
9
The Derg (or Dergue), a short name for the Coordinating Committee of the Armed Forces, Police and Territorial Armylater retitled the
Provisional Military Administrative Council, ruled Ethiopia rom the overthrow of Haile Selassie until 1987. In 1987, it was then dissolved by the
its head, Mengistu Haile Mariam, who held on to power until his government was defeated in 1991.
10
Salini became the primary construction rm contracted by the GOE for the series of Gibe dams (described below).
Tensions between Ethiopia and Egypt were increasing during the Derg period over Ethiopias stated intention to dam the
Abbay River (Blue Nile), which Egypt viewed as a dire threat.11 Ethiopia had, in fact, been insisting on its sovereign right
to develop its rivers at a number of international meetings, (including a major United Nations international water conference
in 1977)an insistence continuing until the present.
There was in fact international development bank support for this dam undertaken by the Derg. While the Soviets and
Ethiopians progressed with plans to implement the project, the development banks were conducting feasibility studies for the
damming of the Abbay River. The African Development Bank (AFDB) was reportedly intending to fund Mengistus project
until Egypt successfully maneuvered its blockage in 1989.12
Ethiopia remained at least formally identied with the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)established in 1955 in Bandung
and attended by Haile Selassies government at the rst Summit in 1961. The Derg continued to actively engage in NAM,
but with the approaching fall of the Soviet Union and major need of economic and other support, the Mengistu regime
became more disengaged.
By the late 1980s, Soviet aid under Gorbachevs perestroika was waning and the Ethiopian regime faced continued
economic decline. Mengistu began shifting policies to adopt a series of Western economic reforms. The new policies
included lifting price controls, privatizing farms, and allowing free marketing of some goods.
An important institutional change at this time was the formation of a new agency to oversee river basin and power
development. The government, under international agency advice, restructured the Awash Valley Authoritywidely
considered to be a failureto form the Ethiopian Valleys Development Studies Authority (EVDSA) in 1987. The EVDSAs
mission to identify development projects, including their irrigation potential, and to ensure environmental protection for
all Ethiopian river basins was a component of Mengistus interest in continuing hydrodam development with Western
support. Like the AVA, the new agency did not take into account the livelihood needs of indigenous peoples who resided
throughout the lowlands downstream from the dams already built or under consideration. The regimes massive scale
relocation of highlanders onto pastoral lands in eastern and southwestern Ethiopia, coupled with its repression of populations
resisting these actions, were evidence enough of such disregardactions that remained unchallenged by the Soviets and the
western banks.
The African Development Bank (AFDB), meanwhile, was continuing the plan for modernizing Ethiopias river
basins by funding the countrys rst comprehensive Master Plan for river basin development in 1990.
The AFDB sponsored plan for Ethiopian river basin development, entitled Preliminary Water Resources Development
Master Plan for Ethiopia, was released in 1990. This was a multi-volume desk study produced by WAPCOSa public
sector Indian water, power and infrastructure global consulting rm that was formed in 1969.
The Master Plan identied and detailed the hydrodam and irrigation agricultural development potential for all major
Ethiopian river basins, including the Omo River basin.
As with feasibility studies for the Awash River basin development, no account was taken of the indigenous populations
within these river basins, including the predictable dam and irrigated agriculture impacts on their livelihoods.
Given the fact that the GOE had already begun construction of the dam almost three years prior to any downstream
impact assessment, the development banks and their contracted consulting industry analysts complete the three-way
system of collaboration and complicity that illustrates the institutional nexus for river basin development policy.
11
The conflict building between the two nations was more complex, including Ethiopias objection to Egypts plan to allocate water to the Sinai
New Lands project.
12
This writers personal communication with an African Development Bank ofcial in Dhaka, Bangladesh, in 2001an individual previously
stationed in Ethiopia.
The Resurgence of Western Dominance in River Basin Development
The Ethiopian Peoples Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF)a coalition of opposition forces led by the
Tigrayan Peoples Liberation Front (TPLF) chairman Meles Zenawioverthrew the Mengistu regime in 1991.
Reversing Ethiopias prior socialist orientation, the EPRDF relied on Western powers for political, military and economic
support.
The EPRDF governments emphasis on economic growth and export-oriented development suited western interests. The U.S.,
for example, has viewed Ethiopia as a key factor in its geostrategic interests within eastern Africa, especially after the collapse
of Somalia. Together with its European allies, the U.S. has considered Ethiopia to be not only a partner in anti-terrorism and
security activities, but also a main source of power for economic development and western investment in eastern Africa
(including oil and gas industry expansionsee Appendix A). These interests have reinforced their turning a blind eye
approach to the EPRDFs policies of political repression, land expropriation, and other types of human rights violations.
Under the EPRDF, development bank hydrodam planning continued, with large-scale infrastructure projects, including
railways and major roads. The GOE consistently proclaimed (as it continues to) that large dams are a necessity for Ethiopias
national security and bring economic progress for all. GOE and aid agencies alike quote low levels of electrication
including in the poorest rural areasas supporting this development element, even though large dam electricity primarily
benets urban industry, large-scale irrigation agriculture (when it accompanies dam construction) and export marketing. As
in the Haile Selassie and Derg periods, the EPRDF omitted consideration of the impacts that the planned dams would have
on indigenous peoples in the lowlands downstream from the projects. Funding and procedural requirements of international
nance organizations, however, necessitated more sophisticated efforts to legitimize these developments.
Soon after the EPRDF came to power, a major turning point occurred regarding the development potential of the
Omo Rivers hydropower. Hydrodam constructions in the lower Omo basin quickly became a central concern in GOE and
development bank planning. The hydroelectricity generating potential of the Omo River was deemed outstanding, based on
exceptionally high flow volume measurements in a deeply gorged section of the riverthe present site of the Gibe III dam.
This potential had, in fact, been assessed years earlier, under the Derg, by both World Bank consultants and North Korean
specialists.
In 1993, the African Development Bank (AFDB) contracted the U.K.-based global engineering consulting rm, Richard
Woodroofe & Associates to prepare a Master Plan Study for the Omo-Ghibe River basin. This lucrative contract of USD 6.4
million specied a broad range of issues for consideration, including baseline description of the basins physical and social
character, water and irrigation agriculture potential. The nine- volume Master Plan recommended future development to the
year 2030, considering the basin in two [administrative] parts (Woodroofe & Associates 1996).
The AFDBs Terms of Reference limited the study and Master Plan to Ethiopiadespite the transboundary nature of the
Omo River and the obvious implications of dam building for the Kenyan economy and environmentand excluded
consideration of downstream indigenous peoples livelihood systems. The economies, resource dependency patterns, and
vulnerability of populations to the impacts of dam and irrigated agricultural development were treated as externalitiesan
approach that has largely persevered to the present. The Woodroofe & Associates Master Plan noted the importance of
further study of these issues, but it did not question basic GOE plans for major dam and irrigated agricultural development.
Acres International Ltd., a Canadian consulting rm long associated with the international banks and Ethiopias government,
produced a Power System Planning Study for EELPA in 1996. Acres prepared an Ethiopia Power System Expansion Master
Plan for EEPCO in 2000, and yet another update of the plan in 2005the latter with the objective of tripling Ethiopias
power supply in ve years, to 2842 MW. The planned increase in power generation far exceeded projections of domestic
needs, with the surplus of at least 50 % likely to be exported to neighboring countries. In 2004, Acres International engaged
in consulting on the Gibe dam developments but was debarred by the World Bank, based on corruption charges.
In order to rationalize and promote the aggressive new hydro development, in 1997 the GOE established the
Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (EEPCO), to promote and coordinate hydrodam and electricity projects.
Ethiopias top executive ofce issued regulation No. 18, corporatizing EEPCO for indenite duration and conferring it with the
duties and powers of the previous Ethiopian Electric Light and Power Authority (EELPA). With its huge budget of ETB 6.1
billion (about USD 890 million in 1997), EEPCO took the lead in developing and managing electricity, including its trans-
mission and distribution within Ethiopia, as well as overseeing the development of electricity export to neighboring countries.
The Resurgence of Western Dominance in River Basin Development 31
Energy export, with Ethiopia as the tower of energy in Africa, was substantially advanced by this institutional
changeone that had been planned for years but with ominous implications for hundreds of thousands of indigenous
residents in the lower Omo.
As one of Ethiopias most prominent parastatals, EEPCO has enjoyed a central role in the highly politicized arena of
hydropower development. A stalwart of Ethiopias major privatization and economic growth and development at all costs
approach, EEPCO has been far stronger than its predecessor, with an large budget and more than 12,000 employees (only
exceeded by the Ministry of Education). It was dened to be directly accountable to the Prime Minister, who appoints its top
executive. As part of their responsibilities to implement the policies of the Prime Ministers ofce. EEPCO ofcials have
handled many of the governments responses to international critics of the Gibe III dam.
Immediately after its creation, EEPCO engaged in planning the rst dam in the Omo-Gibe River basinan effort on
the agenda of the government and the international banks since the comprehensive Master Plan of 1990/91.
Other small GOE agencies were established to have responsibility for regulation and oversight of energy and
environmental issues: the Ethiopian Electricity Agency (EEA), Environmental Monitoring Unit (EMU), and Envi-
ronmental Protection Authority (EPA). These were created largely in response to international aid organization procedural
requirements for consideration of funding. All are subordinated to the agencies they are allegedly overseeing and are clearly
controlled by the Prime Ministers ofce, where all major energy policy is formulated or approved.
The Ethiopian Electricity Agency (EEA) was created at about the same time as EEPCO, with responsibility for review of
EEPCO policiesnotably, tariffs. However, the EEA had no enforcement powers and was reduced to a purely advisory role,
with some political legitimation value to the GOE and the international banks.
An Environmental Monitoring Unit (EMU) was established in 2002 by the GOEs Proclamation for the Establishment of
Environmental Protection Organizations. This occurred while the Gibe I dam was already under constructionyet it was to
oversee any problematic impacts of the project. However, the EMU has shown no divergence from the policies or practices
of EEPCO, and it is structured to act in an advisory capacity and to prepare technical reports for EEPCO. These included the
2009 Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for the planned Gibe III-Sodo 400 kV Power Transmission Lines
Project. Signicantly, Sodoa town about 50 km from the Gibe III dam siteis a hub for the planned Power Pool or
Energy Highway between Ethiopia and neighboring countries.
Since the internal procedural requirements of the AFDB and World Bank precluded them from supporting the Gibe III
dam, the 50 km power line from the Gibe III dam to Sodo was arranged to be funded largely by the.13 The falsity of
the banks claim of non-involvement in the Gibe III dam is a matter revisited in Chaps. 6 and 10.
The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) was established as a monitoring and regulatory agency in 2002, by
Proclamation 295largely at the behest of international funding agencies. It replaced a predecessor body embedded
in a Ministry. Although it is designated as an autonomous or independent agency, the Authority is directly responsible
to the Prime Ministers ofce (the Prime Minister designates the EPA head or Environmental Council member and those
from the regional governments, as well as reviews its policies). Among the 26 Powers and Duties of the EPA are its
establishment of a system for environmental impact assessment of public and private projects, as well as social and
economic development policies, including hydroelectric and other major capital projects. The Authoritys responsibilities
largely mirror those in major donor country governments and include shaping environmental legislation, preparing the
GOEs State of the Environment reports, and ensuring that environmental policies are implemented by:
13
Contrary to statements by later independent development bank consultants that they were unaware of the plans for major energy export, rather
than water releases for downstream small-scale irrigation projects for social development in the pastoral and agropastoral lowlands of the Omo
basin, the GOE and development banks intentions were fully evident throughout the 2009 report and other accessible technical reports.
Overseeing environmental impact assessments.

Issuing or withholding approval on EIAswith timely receipt of them for review.
Guaranteeing participatory environmental management.
The gap between EPA rhetoric and reality has remained starkly evident in the case of large dam development.
Although all dam projects are legally required to undertake a full review and license approval by the EPA prior to
construction, in practice, this directive has been ignored and in any case, the Authority remains under esssential control
by the Executive.
Fast Track to the Gibe III Megadam
The combination of the GOEs disregard for pre-project impact assessment or project outcomes beyond its narrow
objectives, the turning of a blind eye to the GOEs procedural violations on the part of international nance agencies,
and the complicity of the global consulting industry has produced a fast track approach to the Omo River basin
development which ignored the impending dam impacts.
This approach to Omo River basin development has set the downstream Omo region with its major indigenous population
along with Kenyas Lake Turkana area and its communities on the road to a social catastrophe and major environmental
destruction. This destruction would be paid for by the citizens and taxpayers of Ethiopia and Kenya.
The GOE heralded the Gibe I and Gibe II projects in the Omo River basin as the beginning of a Gibe cascade of dams
all widely represented by the GOE and development agencies as in the national interest. This cascade includes the Gibe I
(184 MW), the Gibe II (420 MW), the Gibe III (1870 MW) being completed, and the planned Gibe IV (1472 MW) and
Gibe V (560 MW) dams.
The Gibe I dam initiated the cascade of dam development (Fig. 1.10) in the Omo, or Gibe-Omo River basin. It was
constructed on the Gilgel Gibe River (little Gibe River) which originates in the highlands around Jimma, Ethiopia. The
river flows northward from the Gibe I dam for about 25 km until it joins the larger Gibe River (from the highlands of
Wollega) flowing southward. Downstream from this confluence, the Gibe River is referred to as the Omo River. The Omo
River then continues southward to its terminus at Lake Turkana.
Construction of the Gibe I dam had begun much earlier, with a GOE contract to a North Korean engineering rm. The
project was abruptly halted, for political reasons, until Meles government reactivated it. The World Bank provided the
major funding (USD 331 million) for the Gibe I dam with additional support from the European Investment Bank (EIB) and
the Austrian government. Construction of the Gibe I was contracted to Salini Costruttoria company long familiar to GOE
ofcials and well regarded by them for its timely completion of projects. Salini is a multi-billion dollar, privately owned,
global corporation with close ties to Ethiopia, dating back to its contracted building of the Legedadi dam and treatment plant
on the Akaki River, east of Addis Ababa, during the Haile Selassie era.
The EEPCO issued an Engineering Procurement Construction (EPC) contract to the Italian-based Salini Costruttoria
turnkey contract for a completed project, eliminating any oversight during the construction period. By a special clause in
the contract with the GOE, Salini also had no nancial liability for the project. EEPCO repeated its turnkey contracting
disregard for bidding process and project oversightin successive Gibe dam contracts with Salini.
While Salini was the main construction contractor, the rms frequent partnersStudio Pietrangeli (also long involved in
Ethiopian water projects) and ELC-Electroconsult (with Coyne et Bellier), designed the structures. As with Salini, none of
the Spanish and German rms contracted for joint ventures or services were subject to external oversight.
Several international non-governmental organizations investigated the process of Gibe I dam guidelines compliance with
international requirements and presented detailed accounts that squarely contradicted the World Banks assertion that the
project had satised all required safeguarding of the environment and local human communities. Most detailed among
Fast Track to the Gibe III Megadam 33
these reports is that by the Rome-based non-governmental organization, Campagna per la Riforma della Banca Mondiale
(CRBM), as part of its investigation of the European Investment Banks funding procedures (CRBM 2008). The CRBM
pointed out, for example, that the Ethiopian EPA did not produce an environmental or socioeconomic impact report
(EIA) prior to the development, despite GOE and international bank requirements to do so.
The GOE also signed a no-bid EPC (turnkey) contract with Salini for the Gibe II projectagain without open
bidding and oversight. The Gibe II power station was a continuation of the Gibe I project and did not involve dam
construction. Instead, water was to be transferred from Gibe I through a 26-km tunnel passing under Fofa Mountain to the
Gibe II power plant. Studio Pietrangeli planned the overall scheme on behalf of Salini, according to EEPCO, as part of the
ELC-Electroconsult contract. Salini also contracted its long-term partner, S.E.L.I. S.p.A, for EUR 37 million to perform the
tunnel excavation.
EEPCO contracted the Gibe II project in 2004, the same year that Gibe I began operation. Funding for this 420 MW project
was EUR 375 million: EUR 50 million from the European Investment Bank with additional funding approved by the Italian
Directorate General for Development Cooperation (DGCS). Major controversy arose in the Italian government over serious
irregularities in the contracting process. The nancial and political complexities of this situationexemplied by the
Prosecutors Ofce in Rome ling criminal charges against the Gibe II project contractorscomplicated the involvement of
Italian agencies in funding the Gibe enterprises (CRBM 2008).
Three different tunnel disasters occurred at the 26 km Gibe II tunnel projectin 2006, 2007 and 2010. The rst
project breakdown occurred in October 2006 when an intake portal hit a fault that spewed mud under high pressure, causing
an entire section of the tunnel to collapse.
A second failure occurred in June 2007, when a section of a secondary tunnel collapsedlling a substantial section of
the main tunnel.
Yet a third breakdown came about in 2010, when high pressure from a geologic fault caused a major break with mud and
rock flowing into the tunnel.14
Evidence points to these disasters being linked to seismic occurrences. ARWG physical scientists working in the region
for decades described the seismically active character of the region (ARWG 2009), and this has been substantiated by the
research of Kinde and associates (see Chap. 3). This interpretation is bolstered by the geological prole of the Gibe II
project, as well as the seismic record in the region. Salini reportedly had overseen poor seismic studies of the region, and
without external oversight. Hence, conditions were ripe for such collapse. Of equal concern is the fact that Salini itself was in
charge of repairing the tunnels and remedying the failures. According to its EPC contract terms with EEPCO, Salini bore
no responsibility for these breakdowns in the tunnel.
These failures by Salini and the design/construction engineering rms underscore the ominous situation regarding
seismic and landslide danger at the Gibe III dam.
The formation of the Gibe III dam project reflected the conflicts of interest at play and the lack of oversight, as well as
disregard for the environmental and social impacts of the Gibe I and Gibe II projects. The sequence and timetable of
GOE (EEPCO) dealings with Salini about the Gibe II illustrate the procedural violations of Ethiopian as well as international
aid providers.
Shortly after Salini began construction on the Gibe II project, EEPCO was negotiating with the company to conduct a
technical feasibility study of the 1870 MW Gibe III project, even though Salini was obviously a contender for the
construction contract. The GOE signed a feasibility agreement in October of 2005. Salini presented a preliminary design
document in mid-January of 2006. Two weeks later, Salini and EEPCO signed a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) for a full feasibility study.15
14
See Chap. 3 for more detail. These breakdowns are detailed in the Tunneltalk Forum (www.tunneltalk.com).
15
The timing of these phases is outlined at the EEPCO website (http://www.eepco.gov.et).
After only ve months (in July 2006), the EEPCO signed a no-bid Engineering Procurement Construction Contract
(EPC) with Salini for construction of the Gibe III dam, with no provision for external oversight. On both counts, the
arrangement contravened both Ethiopian regulations and international development bank procedural requirements for
project funding. EEPCO justied the no-bid award by citing Salinis past performance, particularly its record of
completing projects on time.
The Gibe III dam contract was for EUR 1.47 billion. This gure excludes expenses for constructing the energy trans-
mission and distribution system, as well as the assured mitigation and other measures to cope with negative socioe-
conomic and environmental impacts. Funding for the Gibe III dam continued with difculty, as the GOE applied for
support from a variety of multilateral and bilateral aid and nancial agencies.
Construction of the dam began in December 2006, despite no environmental or socio-economic impact
assessment. Ethiopian law requires that the assessment be approved prior to major capital projects being undertaken.
Clearly, the GOEs insistence that required procedures were adhered to in the case of the Gibe III dam is incorrecta
fact well known to the World Bank (WB), the AFDB, the EIB, and major bilateral agencies.
Three years after Gibe III construction began, EEPCO released two environmental and socioeconomic impact
assessments (ESIAs), both of which were fundamentally flawed.The rst impact assessment, entitled Gibe III Hydro-
electric Project, Environmental & Social Impact Assessment, 300 ENV RC 002C, was released by EEPCO in January 2009
(GOE 2009a). The contract for this assessment was awarded to the Italian engineering rm, Centro Electrotecnico Speri-
mentale Italiano S.p.A (CESI) by Salini and EEPCO. As per its Terms of Reference, CESI addressed only the vicinity of the
Gibe III dam under constructionomitting the entire downstream impact zone in both Ethiopia and Kenya. Even with this
limited scope, the report contained major false assumptions and misinformation, as pointed out by numerous international
critics (mostly non-governmental organizations and researchers, including those from the ARWG and Oxford University).
EEPCO released its second environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) later in 2009this one produced by
another Salini partnering rm, Agriconsulting of Italy, in association with MDI Consulting Engineers. This report,
entitled Gibe III Hydroelectric Project: Environmental Impact AssessmentAdditional Study on Downstream Impact (GOE
2009b), is riddled with omissions, misrepresentations, and fabrications. Details of its failings are located in Chap. 6 of this
book, and in Carr (2012).
The GOEs exclusion of transboundary impacts was clearly done with full awareness by the international development
banks, which have taken the same approach in their Terms of Reference with consultants. There was clear precedence for
this dismissal of transboundary effects of the planned Gibe III dam. The World Banks (2004) statement on the matter is
clear and must be regarded as both irresponsible and in violation of its own prescribed principles.
The Omo basin in the southwest should be an early candidate for large-scale development. It produces an annual flow
of some 17 BCM of water with considerable irrigation potential, estimated at 348,100 ha, mainly in Kolla (lowland
zones). The Omo River flows in southern Ethiopia into Lake Turkana, most of which lies in a sparsely inhabited
region of northwestern Kenya. The Omo River is particularly important, both for its large annual flow and its
irrigation and hydroelectric potential, and its being one of the principal basins where there is unlikely to be any
objection by downstream countries. [Emphases added]
The GOEs no-bid contracts and lack of oversight for the Gibe III dam presented a challenge for the development
banks, since these actions violated the banks regulations for project funding. This problem necessitated only indirect
means of support for the project. The World Bank and African Development Bank have engaged in multiple types of
backdoor support, including:
(i) Coordinating funding and related support among multiple development agencies.
(ii) Funding independent environmental and social impact assessments (EIA, SIA) of the dam project. As noted earlier,
these are lucrative contracts issued to consultants whose past performance provides assurance of basic acceptance,
with suggested improvements such as further studies and possible (optional) mitigation components.
(iii) Funding for government services, including technical capacity-building, local governance efforts, basic services
support by the state and unspecied expenditures that can bolster the Gibe III projectthrough dam and electrical
Fast Track to the Gibe III Megadam 35
power related infrastructure development or strengthening of police presence for quelling dissent or evicting and
expropriating the resources of residents in the project area.
(iv) Funding for downstream phases of the hydrodam developmentespecially power transmission and distribution
systemsespecially those serving bank plans for regional economic integration in eastern Africa.
While these indirect funding pathways of backing the Gibe III may satisfy internal requirements of the banks and the
scrutiny of policy-makers in major governments, they do not exempt them from responsibility for the impending
human rights catastrophe produced by the dams operation. The same can be said for global consulting industry rms
and individuals.
In the face of growing opposition to mega-dam projects throughout developing countries, the continued legitimation
of mega-dam projectsespecially controversial ones like the Gibe IIIrelies heavily on the work of allegedly
independent impact assessment consultants. Like the Ethiopian government, the World Bank, EIB and AFDB (along
with major bilateral agencies) require the services of trusted consultants to produce these reviews. The reality of the
bidding process is that only those consulting rms and individuals with a history of tacit support for large water development
projects and a demonstrated understanding that any serious reservations about a project in question will be raised only as
concerns or suggestions for mitigation, monitoring or further study, are generally awarded the lucrative contracts.16
Following the Ethiopian governments request for funding from the European Investment Bank, the Bank contracted
Sogreah Consulting for an independent review of the GOEs environmental and social assessment. Sogreah had produced
the feasibility study for water resource development, and irrigation agriculture in Ethiopias Awash Valley. Founded in
1923, Sogreah is a global engineering, development and management rm supporting worldwide projects, including billions
of dollars of hydrodam, energy and electricity developments. Other Sogreah contracts in the region had included feasibility
and design of dams on the Atbara and Setit rivers in Sudan.
The AFDB contracted a consultant who had held a senior position for twenty-six years at Gibb Africa for assessment of
Gibe III dam impacts on Lake Turkana. Gibb Africa was originally Sir Alexander Gibb & Partners, rst active in Ethiopia in
the 1960s. Sir Alexander Gibb & Partners became a limited partnership in 1986 and joined the U.S.-based Jacobs Engi-
neering Group in 2001contracting for water resource projects, including coordination of multi-investor projects for the
World Bank that totaled hundreds of millions of dollars.
Both the EIB and AFDB assessments failed to challenge the most serious omissions, misrepresentations and fabrications of the
GOEs downstream impact assessment (GOE 2009b). The GOEs failures included its dismissal of the major seismic threat to
the Gibe III dam region, denial of the transboundary nature of the Omo River and its effects, misrepresentation of basic
hydrological and ecological features of the region, and misrepresentation of the livelihoods and vulnerability of the indigenous
population, and fabrication of disaster for local populations from floods (particularly the 2006 Omo River flood).
While the AFDB and EIB 2010 assessments of Gibe III impacts on Lake Turkana and the lower Omo River basin,
respectively, did identify some major problems with the GOEs preparation and specic plans for the dam, their comments
and conclusions primarily took the form of suggestionsgenerally, for further study or for new mitigation components.
Moreover, most of their suggestions and reservations about the dam and its effects were embedded in lengthy technical text
that few would read, so these qualications were sidelined by the development banks and the GOEand they remain so.
Much of this failure rests with the original bounding or scoping agreement between bank and consultant, as well as the
absence of any accountability other than to the banks themselvescertainly not to the populations most affected by the
development. Chapter 6 details these failures for both GOE and development bank assessments. The AFDB and EIB impact
assessments fail to explicitly address the transboundary nature of the impact systeminstead, only noting the limitations of
their Terms of Reference, or scoping agreement, for example. They also failed to explicitly treat the cumulative and
16
Since the late 1980s, global consulting industry rms from India have remained active, WAPCOS key consulting role in 19881990 The head of
EEPCO encouraged Indian companies to invest in his country at a business meeting in March 2008, when the Indian NHPC and others expressed
interest in power project related roles (Thakkar n.d.). Indian investors have also invested in the irrigated plantations on expropriated lands in the
lower Omo basin.
synergistic effects of the Gibe III dam and the dam enabled large-scale irrigated agricultural enterprises, despite full
knowledge of the importance of irrigation system planning by the GOE.17 Since the 2010 release of the two reports, GOE
Executives, EEPCO and development bank ofcials continue to cite them as basically endorsing the Gibe III project
particularly in the case of the AFDB report regarding Lake Turkana.
Given the fact that the GOE had already begun construction of the dam almost three years prior to any downstream
impact assessment, the development banks and their contracted consulting industry analysts complete the three-way
system of collaboration and complicity that illustrates the institutional nexus for river basin development policy.
A Nexus of Public Policy Institutions for River Basin Development: Collaboration with Complicity
A nexus of institutions engaged in public policy for river basin development emerged early in the post-World War II
periodin Ethiopia, as well as elsewhere in Africa and other developing countries. These institutions are central to the
decisions regarding the formulation and implementation of policyincluding its rationalization, promotion and evaluation.
The three central components of this policy nexus are:
i. The client recipient nation state(s) primarily executive ofces. These ofces of the state generally oversee all
phases of the development.
ii. International aid and nanceprimarily international development banks. Other multilateral organizations (re-
gional development banks, U.N. ofces), as well as and major donor country bilateral aid agencies, export credit
associations, and related organizations.
iii. The global consulting industry (GCI). Within this multi-billion dollar industry, dominant rms and individuals
operate transnationally, though sometimes focused in particular regions. In river basin programs, engineering and water
resource rms predominate. Independent oversight agencies for large basin development programs vary widely
including those rooted in scientic, multilateral development and academic organizational contexts.
Numerous ancillary institutions and individuals are engaged in formulation, implementation and evaluation phases of river
basin development projects. These include a variety of technical ofces, local administrative ofces, police and military
agencies, sub-contracted company consultants and others. Companies meet frequently and often informally with develop-
ment bank and other key aid agency and government ofcials, where much of the decision making actually occurs regarding
the basic character of the new or expanded projects plannedgenerally long before any information is released to the public
or even to related professional circles. Such gatherings and informal relationships established are often key determinants of
the projects or entire programs being shaped, including the scope of specic contract arrangements. This is particularly
evident in the African context, where contract awards are frequently informally arranged and details are only nominally
available.
Much of the policy discussion in the pages of this book concerns the roles of eastern African and donor states as well as the
international nance institutions in river basin development. Some attention to the third component of the policy nexus as
outlined abovethe global consulting industry (GCI)is essential to an understanding of the processes unfolding in the
tri-nation transboundary region from the Omo River basin development.
Within Ethiopia, the global consulting industry (CGI) was evident by the 1950s, when some members were essential to
Ethiopias rst large river basin developmentin the Awash River basin. Two of the emerging consulting industry rms that
were most active in the Awash basin projects were Sogreah Consultants SAS and Sir Alexander Gibb & Partners. Both were
well known in the contract bidding process for major engineering and water projects, and both grew to handle hundreds of
millions of dollars worth of development projects.
17
As detailed below, cumulative and synergistic effects between the Gibe III dam and the electricity transmission systemplanned well before the
GOE, EIB and AFDB impact analysesare also necessary, yet were excluded.
A Nexus of Public Policy Institutions 37
Sogreah Consultants, the France-based, international engineering consulting rm, signed a contract to survey available
resources for irrigation agriculture in the Awash Valley, under the auspices of the FAO/UN Special Fund. They produced
multiple volumes from this work in 1965but these were released ve years after the Koka dam construction. The Terms of
Reference in Sogreahs contract limited the survey to soil, climatic, geomorphic and other physical factors deemed suf-
cient for estimating the potential of irrigated agriculture. In subsequent years, Sogreah would remain active in Eastern
Africa, and it reemerged as the European Investment Banks consultant for an independent review of the GOEs down-
stream assessment of the Gibe IIIs environmental and social impacts (GOE 2009b).18 No substantive attention was given to
characterizing the indigenous peoples in the Valley with respect to their resource needs.
Another major contract for Awash Valley development work was awarded to Sir Alexander Gibb & Partners, a U.K.-based
multinational engineering rm that formed a key associate rmGibb Africa. As with Sogreah, Gibb Africa won numerous
contracts for dam-related development within Eastern Africa. As indicated at the companys website, Gibb Africa has
secured more than 1000 contracts for the region. Among these was the controversial Victoria dam in Uganda. A former
associate partner of Gibb Africa later contracted with the African Development Bank to produce its assessment of the
Gibe III dams impacts on Lake Turkana (AFDB 2010).19 Gibb Africa has its headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya.
As the hydro industry has constricted in many developed nations, many consulting (and construction) companies began
increasing their roles in developing countriesparticularly through relationships with international aid organizations
spearheading massive scale dam, river basin and related water resource developments. The strongest take-off period for
global consulting industry (GCI) expansion was during the 1970s and 1980shastened by environmentalist actions in the
developed countries which curtailed further expansion of the hydropower industry. In a sense, the major upswing in water
resource and river basin development in developing countriescertainly including Ethiopiasaved the industry from
possible demise. In a market economy and industry where a growth imperative prevails, consulting rms had little recourse
but to operate with complicity relative to the content of work performed for the expanding hydrodam and agribusiness
industries in developing countries.
The nexus of institutions spearheading and rationalizing much of the major river basin development within Africa
and elsewhere in the developing world constantly adapt to changing political and economic circumstances, including
opportunities to initiate, implement or evaluate major capital projects in river basins.20
International development banks, major bilateral aid and other nance agencies simultaneously fashion their relations in this
major transformative sphere of river basin projects to suit their geostrategic or investment interests within the region.
Similarly, global consulting rms and individuals pursue avenues of technical specialization and geographic focus that
maximize their revenue from contracts with South states and international nance organizations.
Global consulting industry rms are a critical component of the rationalizationor legitimationof development projects
and programs, including through scientic and allegedly independent feasibility studies, baseline studies, environmental
and socioeconomic impact assessments (EIAs or ESIAs), evaluations of impact assessments, formulation of management or
monitoring plans and other contracted efforts. Contract amounts for these different consulting efforts in river basin devel-
opments 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 megadams and major linked developments are
involved. Even fractions of river basin developments can amount to such large sumsor larger. For example, the tender
extended by the European Investment Bank (EIB) for the independent assessment of the Gibe III dama contract awarded
to Sogreahwas announced with a contract amount of up to EURO 300,000. Other contracts, including for eastern Africa
hydrodam and river basin related development studies (for example, of major irrigation works) produce similarsometimes,
even multi-million dollar contracts. Considering that many of these are primarily desk studies, the protability levels are
obviously attractive to competing GCI members.
18
The EIB review was conducted after the GOE requested funds for the Gibe III dam construction.
19
The AFDB impact assessment for the Gibe III dam was conducted just after the Gibb Africa senior ofcer left the rm to form a new consulting
group, the Nairobi-based Water Resource Associatesalso with numerous experienced global industry consultants.
20
Some of these rms, notably Salini that was to become so prominent in the Gibe sequence of dam-building, became both construction and
consulting corporationssometimes combining planning, impact assessment, construction and project oversight through self-monitoring.
The reliability and consistency of international consultants fullling these roles is a key factor in the establishment of a
contract treadmill, with a circle of complicity whereby the planning and implementation of major river basin projects
with preferred consulting rms and individuals playing a crucial role.
The consequences of this circle of complicity are profound in developing countries, including in eastern Africa. In the
service of major river basin developments, the institutional nexus skews the assessment (or evaluation) process,
toward the following:
An efcient transformation of entire regions to suit the objectives of developing country Executive ofces, international
aid organizations, and private investment rmsobjectives frequently diametrically opposed to the most basic survival
needs of local residents, particularly those of highly marginalized populations.
A net positive or at least unchallenging assessment of the megadam or major river basin development plan in question
with suggestions such as (later) additional studies, slight modications of a technical nature, or mitigation concerns.
A closed system of information, assessment and safeguards and, consultations, with local populations (stake-holders)
as a means of satisfying donor-required procedureswithout truly independent evaluation or real accountability to the
populations most directly affected by the development.21
The composition of the institutional nexus for a large dam and associated river basin development within Ethiopia is outlined
in the table below. The specic institutions of such a nexus vary from one country to the next within eastern Africa and the
continent more broadly.
What is effectively a revolving door of contract signing between rms and individuals of the global consulting industry
(GCI), on the one hand, and governments, international aid22 organizations and transnational corporations, on the other,
extends well beyond hydrodam and river basin development. GCI members are commonly able to successfully bid on
lucrative contracts for major infrastructural projects, such as roads, ports and communications, as well as extractive
industriesnotably the petroleum industryin Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere. Of the global consultants iden-
tied in Table 2.1, for example, Lahmeyer and Sogreah are actively engaged in oil and gas industry consulting in Africa and
elsewhere; Gibb Africa is also engaged in oil work and major infrastructure consultingthe latter with an AFDB contract for
the international highway project between Nairobi, Kenya and Addis Ababa, and the AFDB (2010) impact assessment
author is reportedly a prominent consultant with one of the two main oil companies active in the Lake Turkana region
Tullow Oil.
The Peoples Republic of China basically came to the rescue of the Gibe IIIs nancing gap in 2010 when the
state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) signed an agreement for a USD 459 million contract
Dongfang Electric Corporation, backed up with a USD 420 million loan. The World Bank and the AFDB were reluctant
to directly nance the Gibe III dam electricity transmission systems, owing to Ethiopias violation of their internal pro-
cedural requirements for funding. Instead, they have approved more than a billion dollars in funding for the Energy
Highway between the two nations but only from Sodo, Ethiopiaa distance of slightly over 40 km from the Gibe III
distributing station. As later chapters of this book detail, there is no way to separate denitively the Gibe III dam project
from the transmission line extending from Sodo to Kenya, since Gibe III electricity would be entering the system at Sodo.
While the international development banks were hampered by their internal funding requirements, the Chinese government
again came to the assistance of the GOE. China agreed to a USD 96.7 million loan from its Export-Import Bank (EXIM) for
the construction of the missing connectionthe 50 km, 400 kV electric transmission line from the Gibe III dam to Sodo.
This arrangement left the GOE with only USD 13 million of additional nance needed for the projectan amount easily
manageable from other credits (see Chap. 10).
21
The socioeconomic consultants for a preliminary 2009 AFDB report on the Lake Turkana region stated that they had been instructed by the Bank
to inform local communities about the strong benets of the Gibe III dam (see Chap. 6).
22
Contract procurement data is often inaccessible or obfuscated within government and development bank public documents. For all practical
purposes, such information remains out of view for the general public, or for that matterfor parliamentary or congressional oversight committees,
not to mention the communities being impacted.
A Nexus of Public Policy Institutions 39
Table 2.1 Three key components of the institutional policy nexus for major river basin development, with selective list of participants. Ethiopia,
19552013
ETHIOPIAN STATE* INTERNATIONAL GLOBAL CONSULTING

AID/FINANCE INDUSTRY**

Sogreah
Including governments of Multilateral Development Studio Pietrangeli
Monarchy Derg Banks: World Bank Gibb Africa/Sir Alexander Gibb/Jacobs
Present: AFDB Richard Woodroofe & Associates
EIB
AVA Acres
EDVSA Bilateral Agencies: Lahmeyer
EELPA USAID, DFID, AFD ... Coyne et Bellier /Tractebel
EEPCO Centro Electrotecnico Sperimentale-
EPA*** European Commission Italiano (CESI)
MME Agriconsulting of Italy, associated
MOFED United Nations with MDI Consulting Engineers
MOWR Water Resource Associates
SELI
WAPCOS
MWH Global
BRL (Ingniere)
Power Grid Corporation of India
*
Government agencies identied in above text sections
**
Individual consultants and Chinese rms not included
Although competitive with Western investment in hydrodam, major infrastructure, and extractive industry development
within eastern Africa, Chinese nance is sometimes adaptive to development bank policies within the region. Chinese
funding for the Sodo-Gibe III transmissions lines (and the Gibe III dam itself) is a case in point. The AFDB and World Bank
claim that they are not involved in the Gibe III dam project, while Chinese corporations benet from contracts for
construction of the energy transmission system.
Chinas funding for the Gibe III projectboth the dam and transmission linesadds an extra dimension to its complex
relationships of cooperation and competition with Western nations regarding power development in eastern Africa. Chinese
nancing of highly controversial dams within Ethiopia, including the Grand Millennium dam, continues this complex
relationship. Its loans are typically extended without conditionality such as requirement of environmental and socioeconomic
assessment or inclusion of safeguardsa laxity no doubt welcomed by the GOE. China is already a major force in extractive
industry development, especially oil and gas, throughout much of eastern Africa where it has made major inroads into the
system of leases and construction contracts (see Appendix A).
As part of its continuing economic liberalization, the GOE has modernized some important government structures
related to river basin development. EEPCO was divided into two divisions in late 2013: a construction division (for
building and managing power generating stations) and a utility division (for managing transmission and distributionwith
marketing outcomes). EEPCO was then acclaimed as more efcient and reliableassertions that were likely true from
the sole standpoint of the management of dam construction, power generation, transmission, distribution, and international
as well as domestic electricity marketing. The General Manager of the Gibe III project has recently been appointed as
Director of the new Construction Division, to meet what the GOE, World Bank, and African Development Bank anticipate
will be rapidly expanding energy import demand in Kenya and other eastern African countries (see Chap. 10). EEPCOs
long-term director was escalated to the position of Energy Advisor to the Prime Minister.
The EEA (newly termed the Ethiopian Energy Authority) was assigned to oversee private power companies newly
permitted to invest in Ethiopia. However, the EEA remained largely in a review position (e.g., around tariff proposals),
subject to the Council of Ministers. The EPA was upgraded in 2013, from a proposal by the Prime Minister ofce, to
become the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Forestry. The former head of the EPA became an advisor to the new
environment minister. The former heads statement to Reuters News in August of 2013 illustrated the EPAs misinformation
and lack of concern for human life and environmental conditions downstream from the dam when he asserted that major dam
projects on the Omo River will not cut off water supplies downstream nor worsen living conditions for local people.
In the present advanced phase of the Gibe III controversy, the situation regarding accountability of the GOE and
development banks policies with respect to the lower Omo River basin remains unchanged.
Reaction by civil society to the Gibe III project was swift and has expanded in recent years. Critics rst emerged
following the GOEs initiation of the project without any account of the downstream human population and environment,
and stepped up their criticism after the GOEs release of two allegedly objective, or scientic impact assessments released
two years after construction began (GOE 2009a, b). Criticisms and analysis emerged from a variety of non-governmental
organizationsprimarily international ones, given the politically repressive policies of the GOE. Among these organizations
were Campagna per la Riforma della Banca Mondiale (CRBM), Survival International, International Rivers, a Kenya-based
civil society organization closely afliated with International RiversFriends of Lake Turkana, Human Rights Watch and
the Oakland Institute.
Other critics emerging were researchers and policy focused individuals with established familiarity with the region. These
included the world-renowned paleontologist and conservationist, Dr. Richard Leakey, Professor David Turton at the
University of Oxford (and founder of www.mursi.org), this writer at the University of California, Berkeley, and other
members of the Africa Resources Working Group (ARWG) in Africa, Europe and North America. Numerous organizations
and individuals within Kenya, as well as in the Ethiopia diaspora have also questioned the project. Overt opposition to the
Gibe III dam within Ethiopia is not politically feasible, given the high level of repression and retribution.
Numerous reports by these organizations have detailed the major procedural violations and the dire consequences of the
Gibe III dam for half a million indigenous people residing downstream from the dam, within Ethiopia and Kenya. Gradually,
these concerns have percolated through international policy circles and have been raised periodically by government
representatives in Kenya, Europe and the United States. U.S. and European nations diplomatic support and international aid
to the Ethiopian and Kenyan governments, however, have effectively precluded effective examination of the humanitarian
and human rights disaster looming on the horizon.
Literature Cited
African Development Bank (AFDB)., Kaijage, A.S., Nyagah, N.M. 2009. Report, socio-economic analysis and public consultation of Lake
Turkana Communities in Northern Kenya. Tunis.
African Development Bank (AFDB). (2010, Nov) S. Avery, Assessment of hydrological impacts of Ethiopias Omo Basin on Kenyas Lake
Turkana Water Levels, Final Report, 146 pages.
Africa Resources Working Group (ARWG). (2009, January). A Commentary on the Environmental, Socioeconomic and Human Rights Impacts of
the Proposed Gibe III Dam in the Lower Omo River Basin of Southwest Ethiopia. http://www.arwg-gibe.
Bondestam, L. 1974. Peoples and capitalism in the Northeast Lowlands of Ethiopia. Journal of Modern African Studies 12: 428439.
Carr, C.J. 1976. Plant ecological variation and pattern, In: the lower Omo Basin, In: Earliest man and environments in the Lake Rudolf Basin, eds.
Y. Coppens, F.C. Howell, L.L. Isaac and R.E.F. Leakey. University of Chicago Press.
Carr, C.J. 1978, The Koka Dam, agribusiness and marginalization of the Ittu Oromo Pastoralists in the Awash Valley of Ethiopia. Report to
National Science Foundation, 170 pages.
Carr, C.J. 2012. Humanitarian catastrophe and regional armed conflict brewing in the border region of Ethiopia, Kenya and South Sudan: The
Proposed Gibe III Dam in Ethiopia, Africa Resources Working Group (ARWG), 250 pages. https://www.academia.edu/8385749/Carr_
ARWG_Gibe_III_Dam_Report.
Campagna per la Riforma della Banca Mondiale. 2008. The Gilgel Gibe Affair. http://www.crbm.org/modules.php?name=browse&grpid=60.
Campagna per la Riforma della Banca Mondiale, Ministry of Water Resources (MOWR). 1996. Woodroofe, R. & Associates with Mascott Ltd.,
Omo-Gibe River Basin Integrated Development Master Plan Study. Vols. IXV.
Campagna per la Riforma della Banca Mondiale, Federal Negarit Gazeta. 2002. Proclamation No. 295/2002. http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/
ELECTRONIC.pdf.
Literature Cited 41
Campagna per la Riforma della Banca Mondiale, Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (EEPCO). 2009a. CESI, Mid-Day International Consulting
Engineers (MDI), Gibe III Hydroelectric Project, Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, Report No. 300 ENV RC 002C Plan.
Campagna per la Riforma della Banca Mondiale, Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (EEPCO). 2009b. Agriconsulting S.P.A., Mid-Day
International Consulting, Level 1 Design, Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, Additional Study of Downstream Impacts. Report
No. 300 ENV RAG 003B.
Campagna per la Riforma della Banca Mondiale, Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (EEPCO) n.d., EEPCO origins, A. Samuel, The rst hydro
power station in Ethiopia. www.eepco.gov.et/corporationhistory.php.
Kloos, H. 1982. Development, drought, and famine in the Awash Valley of Ethiopia. African Studies Review 25(4): 2148.
Mitchell, A. 2009. Gilgel Gibe III Dam Ethiopia: Technical, engineering and economic feasibility study report, Presentation Transcript, submitted
to African Development Bank. Manuscript, personal communication.
Nathaniel, R. 2004. 50th Anniversary of his imperial majesty Haile Selassie I: First visit to the United States (19542004). Trafford Publishing.
Nicolle, D. 1997. The Italian Invasion of Abyssinia 193536. Osprey Press.
Norconsult. 1957. The Koka project, Hydroelectric development in the Awash River, Conditions and specications. Oslo, Norway.
Thakkar, H. n.d., Indias Dam Building Abroad: Lessons from the experience at home? http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/les/India%
20dam_0.pdf.
United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 1965. Report on Survey of Awash River Basin, Vol. IIII.
United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 1994. Studies for integrated irrigation systems-Ethiopia-project ndings and
recommendations. Terminal Report of UNDP/FAO project ETH/88/001. www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/agricult/aquastat/Ethiopia.htm.
United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2014. Committee Decisions 37 com 7B.4 Lake Turkana National Parks (Kenya).
N 801 press release. http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/5023/.
United States, Government of, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce. 1916. Supplement to Commerce Reports: Review of Industrial and
rade Conditions in Foreign Countries in 1914 by American Consular Ofcers, Vol. II. Accessed through University of Chicago Library.
Vestal, T.M. 2011. The Lion of Judah in the New World. Greenwood Publishing Group.
WAPCOS. 1990. Preliminary Water Resource Development Master Plan for Ethiopia. Vol. III, Annex A, Hydrology and hydrogeology; Vol. V,
Annex J, Hydropower.
Woodroofe, R. & Associates, with Mascott Ltd. 1996. Omo-Gibe River Basin Integrated Development Master Plan Study, Final Report. Vol. I
XV.
World Bank. 1970. Economic Growth and Prospects in Ethiopia, Vols 15, Eastern Africa series: no.AE9. Washington, DC: World Bank http://
documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/.
World Bank. 2004. Ethiopias Path to Survival and Development: Investing in water infrastructure, concept paper, Background Note for
FY04 CEM. http://siteresouces.worldbank.org/INTETHIOPIA/Resources/PREM/CP-WaterMila01.pdf.
World Bank. (2013, Feb). Report No. 75145, Republic of Djibouti, Final report, Transport and logistics in Djibouti: Contribution to job creation
and economic diversication, Policy note.
The Seismic Threat to the Gibe III Dam:
A Disaster in Waiting 3
Abstract
The Gibe III dam is located near the Main Ethiopian Rift (MER), the seismically active
northern arm of the East African Rift (EAR), which is capable of producing large
magnitude, destructive earthquakes. The United Nations Ofce for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs Regional Ofce for Central and East Africa estimates there is a 20 %
risk of 7 or 8 magnitude earthquakes occurring within the next 50 years in the MER.
Earthquakes of these magnitudes pose signicant threat to dams, through direct collapse or
landslides triggering collapse. Collapse of the Gibe III dam would result in catastrophic loss
of human life, livestock, wildlife and environments in the downstream riverine and Lake
Turkana regions, exceeding the worst known dam failure in historythe Vaiont disaster in
Italy. Even more moderate seismic events, combined with highly probable major
landslides, sediment buildup and pressure from impounded water behind the dam threaten
dam stability. The GOE discounts the seismic danger to the planned Gibe III dam, ignoring
key geological information. The international development banks and bilateral agencies
engaged with feasibility and impact studies as well as funding of the projectdirectly and
indirectlyalso ignore available data pointing to major seismic risk.
High Seismicity in the Gibe III Dam Region
The East African Rift (EAR) is a fault-bounded, long series of depressions extending about 5000 km from the Afar
Depression in the Horn of Africa, southward through eastern Africa. For at least 40 million years, the African tectonic place
has been splitting into two different plates (the Nubian and Somali). As a consequence, the rift has widened and
down-dropped to form wide valleys, where rivers flow down from the bordering highlands to form lakes, including in the
western and northern branches of the EAR (Fig. 3.1)including Lakes Malawi, Victoria, Tanganyika, Albert and Turkana
the largest of eight Kenya Rift Valley lakes. This process is ongoingcontributing to the separation of the Main Ethiopian
Rift (MER) portion of the EAR by 25 mm per year and driving the high levels of seismic activity in the tectonic province of
the MER, the Afar Depression and the northern portions of the EAR eastern and western branches. An updated U.S.
Geological Survey version was issued in 2014.
This tectonic province is the appropriate geographic scale for assessing earthquake probability at the Gibe III dam site.
Almost all seismicity in eastern Africa is associated with these major tectonic boundaries. The abundance of recent
earthquakes along the complete length of this tectonic margin demonstrates that these boundaries continue to be active zones
of spreading and it is likely that large earthquakes will continue to persist along these zones (Fig. 3.2).

44 3 The Seismic Threat to the Gibe III Dam: A Disaster in Waiting
Fig. 3.1 The East Africa Rift System with Main Ethiopian Rift (MER). Source Map adapted by ARWG from U.S. Geological Survey 1999
(2012)
High Seismicity in the Gibe III Dam Region 45
Fig. 3.2 Earthquake risk in Africa: Modied Mercalli Scale. Source U.N. OCHA-ROCEA (2007)
There is a 20 % chance of at least a magnitude 7 (M7) or 8 (M8) earthquake happening within the next 50 years in
the MER region, in which the Gibe III dam is located (Fig. 3.2). This estimate is based on data from the United Nations
Ofce for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Regional Ofce for Central and East Africa (OCHA-ROCEA) map of
earthquake intensity zones (based on the 1956 Modied Mercalli Scale/MMS). No part of the MER has a predicted
magnitude of less than M6 within 50 years. The OCHA report is a result of the rst global earthquake assessment, and is the
most comprehensive assessment of risk in the region to date.
The vicinity of the planned Gibe III dam is itself an active fault zone. Woldegabriel describes the walls of the Omo
Canyon as fault controlled. The topography is developed along a structural grain parallel to a rift that is developed along a
system of faults in the area. The canyon contains several Pliocene units, including the Moiti Tuff that is *4 Ma old and a
volcanic rock of approximately the same age. Woldegabriel and Aronson (1987) describe this part of the rift system as
failedthat is, a system partially formed but interrupted through migration.
Early cataloguing of Ethiopias historic earthquakes reveals that large and damaging events have occurred in the Ethiopian
Rift. Gouin (1979) has produced the most complete accounting.1 Records compiled by Gouin were both written and oral and
covered a six-century period (through 1977), with 30 years of his own empirical observations.
Contrary to the GOEs assertion that the dam locale is not an active seismic zone of the MER, at least 10 earthquakes
between 5 and 6 magnitude have occurred in the last 50 years along the MER between Addis Ababa and Lake Turkana.
Six of these occurred in a single decadethe 1980s (Advanced National Seismic System, or ANSS).2 In fact, the MER is largely
dominated by clusters of seismic activity rather than consistent seismic risk (Figs. 3.3 and 3.4). Examples of this include the
1906 cluster in the MER itself, including two M6 earthquakes, and the 1960 cluster of earthquakes south of Lake Langano,
150 km south of Addis Ababa. Regarding the 1906 earthquake swarm. Gouin identied the magnitude of the main shock as M
6.75with a shaking intensity of M 8. He placed the epicenter 100 kilometers south of Addis Ababasquarely within the Main
Ethiopian Rift (MER). Gouin also noted a foreshock of M 6.6 and the very strong shaking intensity of 7 (ibid.). The cluster in
1906 actually included eleven separate shocks, at least four of which were greater than M6, and three of which were nearly M7s.
Additionally, Gouin includes reports from witnesses near Lake Langano that placed the magnitude of the main quake at M9
that is, a ruinous level, should any main structures have been present. As a result of this quake, a major hot water Geyser
developed on an island at the north end of Lake Langano, with two pulses a minute that produced water heights of 30 m. The
geyser continued in reduced volume and periodicity for more than 20 years. Cumulatively, fourteen earthquakes greater than
M5 have occurred within 300 km of the GIBE III dam site during the last century (Gouin op. cit.; ANSS Database).
According to Steven Walter of the U.S. Geological Survey:
The signicance of the 1906 is twofold: 1) It demonstrates that earthquakes capable of producing destructive to ruinous
shaking intensities can occur within the rift zone, and 2) it demonstrates that like the Juba, Sudan swarm, areas along
the rift that had been relatively quiet prior can produce large earthquakespresent activity is no guarantee of future
activity, as it were.3
Even one moderate (magnitude 5 to 6) earthquake every ve years in the zone of the Gibe III dam would be reason for
concern, and the fact that the zone is subject to bursts of seismic activity poses an even greater risk, as there would be
little time to repair damages to structures between one earthquake and the next. The cumulative impacts of these
clusters would be greater than any individual M5 earthquake.
Even so-called quiet zones of rifts can experience large-magnitude quakes and thus cannot be trusted to remain
quiet (Table 3.1; Figs. 3.3 and 3.4). This is evidenced by a 1990 cluster of earthquakes near Juba in South Sudan, a
previously quiet rift area (Gouin op. cit.).
Investigations of the recent disasters of tunnel collapse at the Gibe II (termed GG II) project by Kinde and Engeda (2010)
pointed to seismic instability as an underlying cause. The investigators stated that the failures reported in GG II always
1
Gouin was founder of the Geophysical Observatory in Addis Ababa and served as its primary seismologist until just before his 1979 book,
Earthquake History of Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa.
2
Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) of the U.S. Geological Survey.
3
See report in Carr (2012). Several of the public documents referenced here were introduced in Walters report.
High Seismicity in the Gibe III Dam Region 47
Table 3.1 Earthquakes within 300 km of the Gibe III (3) dam since 1906
Date Magnitude (NEIC) Magnitude (Gouin) Distance from Gibe III (km) Distance from Plate boundary
25 Aug 1906 6.6 185 35
28 Oct 1906 6.? ? ?
14 Jul 1960 6.3 134 23
23 Jan 1968 5.1 5.1 207 152
2 Dec 1983 5.1 145 40
20 Aug 1985 5.4 196 42
10 Jul 1987 5.3 89 11
25 Oct 1987 5.6 171 19
28 Oct 1987 5.4 137 3
8 Jun 1989 5 63 15
13 Feb 1993 5 274 11
20 Jan 1995 5 130 17
19 Dec 2011 5.1 95 59
Sources Gouin (1979), Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) database, Walter (in Carr 2012)
occurred near faultseven when no seismic event occurred, further highlighting the dangers these projects face in actual
seismic events (Kinde and Engeda 2010). Their report continued with the conclusion:
[T]the region around the project area has a recorded history of signicant seismic events. The outcome of our study
shows that projects such as GGII, GGIII, and GG IV should consider seismicity into the design and construction
processes. Neglecting the risks posed by seismic hazards in such a region with [sic], we believe, has tremendous
negative consequences in the future usefulness of these projects. [Emphasis added.]
Reservoir Seepage and Landslide Danger at the Gibe III Dam
According to geologists working in the dam region for several decades, reservoir lling is likely to extend for years,
due to heavily fractured volcanic rock throughout the Gibe III dam site, including in the reservoirs natural walls.
Woldegabriel and Aronson (1987) also document these fractures for the region. Basalts, particularly those from volcanic
flows that cooled unevenly, can form both vertical fractures (vesticules) and large-scale lava tubes capable of transporting
large volumes of water. Basalt is especially vesiculated and highly fractured at the top and bottom of individual flows, where
cooling occurs more quickly. These factors can make basalts highly permeablesome of the most productive aquifers there
areeven akin to karst. (ARWG geologist, personal communication).
Basalts dominate the geology of the MER. This is due to three dominant eras of volcanic activity: the rst during the Eocene,
3545 Ma ago; the second a series of flood basalts erupting 2931 Ma ago; and the third, more recent shield volcanic
eruptions of more alkaline basalt. The basalts that dominate the MER are composed of transitional tholeiites, are more alkalic
and contain more sodium than potassium (Rogers 2005).
Even if the roller compacted concrete (RCC) construction of the proposed Gibe III performs wella challengeable
assertionthe fractured and jointed volcanic rock at the dam location would produce seepage conduits. Ongoing
seismic activity will likely open up more fractures over time, so seepage from the fractured rocks in the reservoirs walls
would likely slow down lling and early retention of waters in the reservoir by multiple years, according to ARWG
geologists. This is especially true because of the high hydrostatic pressure from impounded water behind the dam that will
promote reservoir seepage.
The resultant extended period of radically decreased river flow below the damalready a disastrous situation from even the
up to 3 year reservoir lling period predicted by the GOE and accepted in the AFDBs 2010 assessmentwould be
disastrous for indigenous communities downstream along the Omo River and around Lake Turkana. This major reduction in
Fig. 3.3 Seismic activity within 1600 km of the Gibe III dam: 1963 to present. Indicated by magnitude of earthquake. Source data from the
Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) World Wide Catalogue (U.S. Geological Survey). Graphic by ARWG
Omo River downstream flow due to the Gibe III dam is greatly magnied by the radical abstraction of Omo River waters by
major irrigated agribusiness enterprises the GOE is promoting throughout much of the lower Omo basin (Human Rights
Watch 2012).
Even if the dam itself remains intact after a seismic event, it is highly plausible that springs, leaks and seepage
developing in the adjacent rock abutments could cause a dam failure. This danger stands despite the design of the
Gibe III dam calling for grouting fractures within the native rock around the dam.
Reservoir Seepage and Landslide Danger at the Gibe III Dam 49
Fig. 3.4 Seismic activity within 700 km of the Gibe III dam: 1906 to present. Indicated by magnitude of earthquake. Source data from Gouin
(1979), Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS), World Wide Catalogue (U.S. Geological Survey). Graphic by ARWG
Hot springs occur within the Lower Omo basin region and these are most likely generated by deep circulation along
faults. The well known forty springs of Arba Minch result from fractures in volcanic rocks contiguous with those at the
proposed dam site. These hot springs are most likely generated by deep circulation along faults. Similar springs have been
documented in the Ugandan portion of the rift valley as caused by extremely high ltration of rainfall in the mountains
through basaltic fractures to the base of the mountains.
Filling of the reservoir and early dam operation would promote the probability of a major landslide, particularly as
within the context of the inherent instability of the steep, highly fractured natural walls of the reservoir.
Impoundment at Gibe III will change the base level of the river in the immediate area: local aquifers are fracture controlled,
and it is possible that some slip surfaces (landslide soles) may become lubricated so that rock masses are more likely to slide.
Saturation of clay-rich soils along the canyons exacerbates the risk of swelling and landslides, as well.
Landslides in articial reservoirs can be triggered by the buoyancy of permeable layers of rock in the surrounding slopes,
and by structural breaks between geologic layers in those slopes, particularly when divided by thin layers of clay or other
potentially lubricating material.
The high probability of landslides, along with highly likely buildup of sediment behind the Gibe III dam - even with
mild to moderate earthquake occurrence, let alone a major seismic eventpresents a risk to the dams integrity.
Sedimentation is promoted, for example, by soil erosion upstreamexacerbated by deforestation and overexploitation
of soils for agriculture.
As was evident with the Vaiont landslide dam disaster in northern Italy in 1963, initial geologic testing of the slopes
surrounding the reservoir did not nd evidence of potential problems because the clay layer between the top geologic layers
of the dolomites was only *1 mm thick in many places. The Vaiont event is discussed in detail by Semenza and Ghirotti
(2000), Genevois and Ghirotti (2005), and Massironi et al. (2013).
The 1963 disaster of Vaiont illustrates the signicance of dam failure.
In Vaiont, more than 2600 people were killed when 260 million cubic meters of a slide block moved suddenly into the
newly lled Vaiont Reservoir behind a very tall dam that blocked a deep valley. The intensive landslide occurred
within seconds and displaced more than half of the reservoirs water, generating a giant wave that reached a height of
250 meters which then created an enormous wall of water that swept into nearby villages and towns, destroying
everything in its path. The dam itself remained intact. In the Vaiont case, the rockslide and ensuing flood could have
been readily foreseen by logical consulting. The cause of the landslide may also be pertinent to a consideration of the
Omo situation. The sedimentary rocks of the Vaiont River Valley include layers of shale, a clay-rich rock. And the
rocks comprising the nearby mountain (Mt. Toc) tilt steeply toward the reservoir. When the dam was nished in 1960,
lling of the reservoir introduced groundwater into the shale layers, causing them to swell and become unstable. At
rst, the mountainside began slowly creeping down slope at a rate of half an inch per week. As lling continued and
more groundwater seeped into the mountain, the rate of slippage increased to eight inches per day, and ultimately to
30 inches per day, just before the 1963 disaster. [ARWG earth scientist, personal communication]
Gibe III dam failure would be catastrophic for the Ethiopian and Kenyan populations in the entire downstream Omo
basin and Lake Turkana region: tens of thousands of people would be obliterated and hundreds of thousands more
could face calamity. The essentially permanent destruction of livestock and environmental resources in both nations from
such an event is of such magnitude as to be inestimable.
Failed Government and Development Bank Seismic Review
The seismic threat, along with the related dangers of landslides, sediment buildup and seepage are entirely discounted
by the GOE in both of its major impact assessments (GOE 2009a, b). By adopting this approach, including with omission
of available information and Literature, the GOE ignores the implications of such threat for its own indigenous citizens
living downstream from the Gibe III dam, along with the vast indigenous Kenyan population residing along Lake Turkana.
The governments approach to the seismicity threat is bolstered by a belated and dismissive seismicity report prepared by
the contractor for the dams constructionSalini (see last chapter). Salinis report remains unchallenged by the development
banks although they are fundamental contributors to the long-term planning, nancing and rationalizing of the Gibe III
and/or its linked developments.
The GOEs impact assessments for the Gibe III refer to a GOE Seismic Hazard Assessment (2007) that considers seismic
events only during the past century (GOE 2009b). They conclude that there is no real evidence of present seismic activity
in the project area.
Failed Government and Development Bank Seismic Review 51
The project area (East-North East quaternary trending) does not seem to be active at this time, as illustrated in detail in the
above-mentioned report.
Despite the evidences that a certain seismic activity affected the region in historical times, according to the L1D Geological Report no
evidences seem to exist of present seismic activity in the project area (GOE 2009a).
As evidenced above, both the GOE timeframe and geographic scale are far too narrow to effectively determine seismic risk.
Section 5.13 of the GOEs assessment, by noting only earthquake occurrences within the recorded time, clearly implies that
this narrow window of time is indicative of the (lack) of potential for future earthquake activity. Typical seismic design,
however, looks much further back in time to faults showing activity.
The appropriate geographic zone for assessing seismic risk in the Gibe III region is misrepresented in the GOE
reports. Citing the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD) guidelines for determining seismic risk, the GOE
nevertheless ignores ICOLDs guideline that the tectonic province as a whole be considered when evaluating probabilities of
tectonically linked seismic risk. As noted above, the tectonic province for this region should include the northern portion of
the East African Rift Valley, including the northern ends of the Western and Eastern branches of the rift valley, the Main
Ethiopian Rift, and the Afar Depression. These systems are linked, tectonically, and thus should be considered when
evaluating seismic probabilities.
The suggestion in the downstream GOE impact assessment (GOE 2009b) for a warning system with scattered sirens
throughout the riverine zone downstream from the Gibe III dam, in order to warn of necessary releases of flood pulses from
the damor imminent dam failureis nonsensical in the extreme. The area of impact of a major water release, dam
overtopping or dam failureone encompassing both the lower Omo basin and the Lake Turkana regionis so massive,
with hundreds of thousands of agropastoralists, pastoralists and shers conned to Omo riverside/delta lands, or the level
plains around Lake Turkana, that such a warning system would be useless. Additionally, historically, these systems have
rarely been implemented for other large dams, and sudden releases of water due to impending reservoir overtopping have
often resulted in downstream drownings (for example, Cahorra Bassa in Mozambique).
Such an event would send enough water, sediment, and (in the case of dam collapse) material from the dam itself, into a
massive wave, or series of waves through the lowermost Omo basin and into Lake Turkanadestroying human commu-
nities and biological systems in its path. These matters are essentially discounted in the European Investment Bank and both
African Development Bank impact assessments (2009, 2010). The EIB (2010) report is dismissive of the seismic threat and
responded to Africa Resources Working Group (2009) evidence summarized (in 2009) only with the statement, Some risk
is unavoidable. The AFDB (2010) impact assessment for Gibe III impacts on Lake Turkana offers only inconspicuous
notation that a dam collapse would produce a two meter rise in lake level in the body of the textomitting any reference to
the cataclysmic force and impact of such an event and excluding the subject altogether in the assessments Summary and
Conclusions.
Literature Cited
Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) World Wide Catalogue (U.S. Geological Survey).
Africa Resources Working Group (ARWG). 2009. In A commentary on the environmental, socioeconomic and human rights impacts of the
proposed Gibe III Dam in the lower Omo River Basin of Southwest Ethiopia. http://www.arwg-gibe.
African Development Bank (AFDB). 2009. In Eds. A.S. Kaijage, N.M. Nyagah, Final Draft Report, Socio-economic analysis and public
consultation of Lake Turkana Communities in Northern Kenya. Tunis, 189 pp.
African Development Bank (AFDB). 2010. In Ed. S. Avery, Assessment of hydrological impacts of Ethiopias Omo Basin on Kenyas Lake
Turkana water levels, Final Report, 146 pp.
proposed Gibe III Dam in Ethiopia, Africa Resources Working Group (ARWG), 250 pp. https://www.academia.edu/8385749/Carr_ARWG_
Gibe_III_Dam_Report.
Ethiopia, Government of (GOE), Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (EEPCO). 2009a. CESI, Mid-Day International Consulting Engineers
(MDI), Gibe III Hydroelectric Project, Environmental and social impact assessment, Report No. 300 ENV RC 002C Plan.
Ethiopia, Government of (GOE), Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (EEPCO), Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (EEPCO). 2009b.
Agriconsulting S.P.A., Mid-Day International Consulting, Level 1 Design, Environmental and social impact assessment, additional study of
downstream impacts. Report No. 300 ENV RAG 003B.
European Investment Bank (EIB). 2010. Sogreah Consultants, Independent review and studies regarding the environmental and social impact
assessments for the Gibe III hydropower project, Final Report, 183 pp.
Genevois, R., and M. Ghirotti. 2005. The 1963 Vaiont landslide. Giornale di Geologia Applicata 1: 4152.
Gouin, P. 1979. Earthquake history of Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa. Ottawa: International Development Research Center.
Human Rights Watch. 2012. What will happen if hunger comes? Abuses against the Indigenous Peoples of Ethiopias Lower Omo Valley. http://
www.hrw.org/sites/default/les/reports/ethiopia0612webwcover.pdf.
Kinde, S, and S. Engeda. 2010. Fixing Gibe IIEngineers perspective. http://www.digitaladdis.com/sk/Fixing_Gilgel_Gibe_II.pdf.
Massironi, M. et al. 2013. Geological Structures of the Vajont Landslide. Italian Journal of Engineering Geology and Environment. Presented at
International Conference, Vaiont 19632013, October 810, Padua, Italy.
Rogers, N.W. 2005. Basaltic magmatism and the geodynamics of the East African Rift System. Geological Society London, Special Publications
259(1):7793.
Semenza, E., and M. Ghirotti. 2000. History of the 1963 Vaiont slide: the importance of geological factors. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and
the Environment 59: 8797.
United Nations, Ofce for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Regional Ofce for Central and East Africa (OCHA-ROCEA). 2007.
Earthquake risk in Africa.
U.S. Geological Survey. Walter, S. 2012. Gibe 3 Seismicity review. Report prepared for C. J. Carr
U.S. Geological Survey. Hayes, G.P. et al. 2014. Seismicity of the Earth 19002013 East African Rift: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report
20101083-P, 1 sheet, scale 1:8,500,000, http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/of20101083p.
Woldegabriel, G., and J.L. Aronson. 1987. Chow Bahir Rift, a failed rift in Southern Ethiopia. Geology 15: 430433.
Transboundary Survival Systems: A Profile
of Vulnerability 4
Abstract
The transboundary region is culturally diverse, with indigenous languages of Cushitic,
Eastern Nilotic, and Omotic and Afroasiatic origin. Several ethnic groupsthe Nyangatom,
Turkana and Toposaare members of the Karamojong Cluster of cultures and speak
mutually intelligible languages. The Dasanech, on the other hand, are Cushitic in linguistic
afliation. At the core of the regions indigenous economies are longstanding survival
systems that are highly adapted to shifting environmental and social conditions, with ethnic
groups linked through complex exchange networks. In recent decades, increasing
dispossession and marginalization imposed by powerful external political and economic
powers since colonial times have recently forced much of the regions population
particularly the Dasanech and northern Turkanato settle at the Omo River or Lake
Turkana as a last option means of survival. Despite centuries of resilience from even the
most difcult times, these groups have now been pushed into extreme dependency on these
two major water bodies and they have greatly increased vulnerability, even to stresses once
familiar to them. They are now vulnerable in the extreme to massive scale destruction of
their survival systems, with region-wide hunger and new mortality caused by the Gibe III
dam and dam enabled irrigated agriculture along the Omo.
Indigenous Livelihoods and Survival Strategy Systems
The survival strategy systems of transboundary ethnic groups have emerged from centuries of indigenous knowledge
and highly adaptive survival strategy systems.
The regions ethnic groups most heavily dependent on the Omo River or Lake Turkana are the Mursi, Bodi, Kwegu,
Suri, Kara, Nyangatom, and Dasanech, in the lower Omo River basin, and the Turkana, El Molo, Rendille, Samburu,
Gabbra and Dasanech along the shores of Lake Turkana (Fig. 1.3).1 Numerous neighboring groups also rely on the
1
Some of the most detailed ethnographic information in the region is that for the indigenous Mursi ethnic groupresiding well upstream from
lowermost Omo basin and Lake Turkana region that forms the core of this book. The majority of literature for the Mursi region has emerged from
research by the anthropologist, Turton (1977, 1991, 1995, 2013) and his associates, who have written numerous pieces concerning the changes in
that regionmost recently the major scale land grab underway along the Omo River, for Gibe III enabled commercial scale irrigated agriculture
plantations. This expanding crisis, particularly as it is affecting for the Mursi and Bodi peoples (Fig. 1.3), is relatively well reported and can be
accessed both at the Oxford based website, www.mursi.org, and at a number of non-governmental and other websites web sites, including Survival
International, International Rivers and the Oakland Institute. Other key literature for the Omo River region, near the related Mursi group, is that for
the Suri agropastoralists (Fig. 1.3)with particularly detailed accounts and interpretations of the region produced by Abbink (1997, 2000, 2003,
2009). For the lowermost Omo River basin where the Kara, Dasanech and Nyangatom reside, the literature is less extensivein no small part
owing to the physical and political difculties accessing the region. Critical historical accounts of the Ethiopian monarchys expansion into the
southwestern region are presented in Donham and James' edited volume, The Southern Marches of Imperial Ethiopia: Essays in History and Social

54 4 Transboundary Survival Systems: A Profile of Vulnerability
river or lakeeither for seasonal resource use or through exchange networks. These include the Meen, Hamar, Dizzi,
Chai, Toposa, Arbore and Pokot.
Ethnic groups in the transboundary region have historically been pastoral or agropastoral in emphasis, at least until
recently, when very large numbers of them have had to resort to either strong reliance on agriculture, shing, or
both. Like pastoral peoples throughout semi-arid Africa, their survival systems comprise strategies for both risk mini-
mization and recovery from livelihood setbacks. A striking exception to this is the El Molo ethnic group, a predominantly
shing people, residing at the southern end of Lake Turkana (Fig. 1.3).
Adaptability is key to the survival systems of indigenous groups throughout the region. This is especially true in the
context of the transboundary areas wide range of environments (see Chap. 1 and below) and the periodic major stresses
created by prolonged droughts, livestock and human disease epidemics, severe crop loss from pests, as well as shifting regional
exchange relations and interethnic hostilities. Pressure on each groups capacity for adaptation is heightened by multiple
decades of problematic government policies and especially by changes brought about by the GOE, the GOK and international
nance institutions in anticipation of the Gibe III dam, along with its linked agricultural and energy transmission enterprises.
Livelihood systems of transboundary pastoral groups incorporate strategies for both risk minimization and recovery
from economic losses include these general characteristics(see Figs. 4.1 and 4.2). These are outlined for the Dasanech,
for example, in Carr (1977, 2012) and in much of the pastoral literature referred to above. Key among them are:
Maximum accumulation of capital. Livestock are historically dominant as capitalfor meeting both immediate
subsistence and long-term security needs.
High mobility of livestock herds and village settlement. Complex and flexible seasonal movements between upland
plains environments and riverine or lake zones provide ability to respond to changing environmental and social
conditions.
Diversication of livestock types. Cattle, small stock (goats/sheep), camels, donkeys.
Economic diversication to alternative production activities, including:
Flood recession agriculture (the only agriculture possible in the lowermost Omo basin) on low flats along the Omo
River and in modern delta lands low enough to receive annual flood waters.2
Fishing along the Omo River, in the delta region and along the northern shoreline of Lake Turkana, using primarily
rafts and other minimal equipment.
Strong and pervasive social reciprocity relationships whereby material, labor and other forms of social exchange provide for
precautionary as well as recovery measures. These relationships are generally rooted in age set based authority systems as
well as clan/lineage and afnal (in law) relationships.
(Footnote 1 continued)
Anthropology (1986). The Nyangatom agropastoralists have been studied in-depth by Tornay (1979, 1981), Tornay et al. (1997), Mark and Tornay
(1992), Savary (2003) and Schroder (2003), with recent cultural investigation by Bassi (2011). Dasanech socioeconomy and human ecology has
been the subject of early work by this writer (e.g., Carr 1977), while Almagor (1978, 1992) has produced major valuable ethnographic analysis.
A critical cultural history of the Ethiopia-Sudan lands is provided by Donham and James (1986). Sobania (2011) has recently written about
'Dassanech' history, and Bassi (2011) has extended cultural history understanding by research with the Dasanech and Nyangatom). The Hamar
people residing in the higher lands east of the Dasanech and the Nyangatom and closely interacting with others in the region, are not considered in
this volume. Important accounts of the Hamar, with implications for the region, however, include those by Lydall and Strecker (1979) and Strecker
(1988). While literature concerning the Turkana is extensive, most of it pertains to the southern and central Turkana, rather than the northern extent
of Turkana territory, where the population is most vulnerable to the effects of the Omo River basin development. The works by Gulliver (1950,
1955) Gwynne (1969, 1977), Lamphear (1992), McCabe (2004), Skoggard and Adem (2010), Smucker (2006) and Fielding (2001) and Hogg
(1982) are particularly useful for the purposes of understanding the Turkana in the transboundary region. The history and present crisis in the Ilemi
Trianglea contested area by all three nation states and an area with frequent and marked interethnic shifts in livelihood and territorial patterns, as
well as the predictable center for a major upsurge in armed conflict among groupsis beyond the scope of this book and is the subject of a future
cooperative effort.
2
In large areas, particularly around Lake Turkana, high salinity conditions exist.
Indigenous Livelihoods and Survival Strategy Systems 55
Fig. 4.1 Pastoral life along the Omo River west bank and Kibish River. Top Major Dasanech ritual (Dimi) on Omo Rivers west bank, with
oxen/bull slaughter. Bottom Nyangatom male and female herders with small stock at deep (7 m) watering hole in bed of the seasonal Kibish River
(see Fig. 1.3) during the long drought season
Fig. 4.2 Northern Turkana pastoralists in upland plains. Top left Turkana pastoralists with goats at working well (Oxfam funded). Top right
Young Turkana camel herders. Center Small stock at hand-dug well in dry plainsnear Ilemi Triangle. Lower left Northern Turkana pastoralist
women and child. Bottom right Small stock at hand-dug well in Turkana (with hundreds of other livestock awaiting watering)
From this complex set of pastoral survival strategies, the most common means of pastoral household or village level
recovery from livestock loss due to drought, disease, conflict or other hazards, for example, are:
Temporary movement of herds into peripheral lands with available pasturage and water.
Short-term barter of small stock (goats/sheep) with communities of the same or neighboring ethnic groups, in order to
meet immediate food needs. Exchange or sale of animals, farm and shing products to Somali, Ethiopian and Kenyan
traders and merchants.
Raiding of neighboring ethnic group herding camps and villages for livestock seizure.
Use of social exchange networks (for loans, gifts and labor cooperation) in order to meet immediate household needs and
rebuild livelihood systems.
Temporary strong reliance on subsidiary production activities.
Diversication to new forms of production, including recession agriculture, shing, household commodity production
and most recently wage labor (mostly in Kenya).
Implementation of these strategies requires access to sufcient territory and resourcesconditions that have drastically
deteriorated for the Dasanech, Nyangatom and northern Turkana in the past half-century (Figs. 4.1 and 4.2).
Livelihood activities once secondary or only occasionally engaged in have recently become dominant in much of the
lowermost Omo basin and northernmost Turkana region. Among the Dasanech, for example, some communities have
long been agropastoral, practicing substantial flood recession agriculture in low lying, seasonally flooded areas along the
Omo River or in the Omo delta. There is insufcient rainfall in the lowermost Omo basin for rainfed agriculture, so that
flood recession agriculture is all that is possible in the Omo region. The Kenyan government and a few aid agencies have
funded small rainfall dependent agricultural projects in the dry plans of the northern Turkana segment (including near the
lake), but the vast majority of these have failed.
A small segment of Dasanech have long shed and hunted crocodile, as well (Fig. 4.3). Most Dasanech, however, sustained
traditional pastoral lifeuntil recently, that is, when major pressures on livestock herding necessitated vast numbers of
households shifting to substantial, even major emphasis flood recession agriculture in the riverine zone. By the same token,
agropastoralists, and even some pastoralists, have taken up shing in the lowermost river channels and northern waters of
Lake Turkana. Thousands of Dasanech shers are now locked into intense competition with Turkana over remaining sh
stocks in the lake. This conflict is undoubtedly intensied by the Ethiopian governments encouragement and subsidization
of commercial shing operations in Kenyan lake watersoperations that have far greater shing capacity due to their large
and motorized boats.
In northern Turkana, a parallel set of pressures on pastoral life has also intensied in recent decades. As in Dasanech
territory, inadequate rainfall in central and northern Turkana precludes rainfed agriculture and the shorelines of Lake
Turkanas saline waters are also unsuitable for planting. As declining grazing conditions for livestock in the upland plains of
Turkana have become dire in recent years, major numbers of northern Turkana householdsoften entire villagehave
migrated toward Lake Turkana.
As in the transboundary region more generally, massive numbers of Turkana livestock died during the extended drought
between 2007 and 2010, for example, resulting in a major spike in herd lossesa process initiated years earlier. Increasing
numbers of Turkana stock ownerseven entire villagesbegan migrating from the plains toward the lakes northwestern
shores (Fig. 4.4). Countless thousands of animals died during these treks, due to lack of water and graze. Tens of thousands
of these once pastoral households have taken up shing, whether or not they have retained some livestock (Fig. 4.5).
Hundreds of thousands of Turkana are now dependent on shing or shing related livelihood. They subsist only with access
to sufcient Lake Turkana waters and living resourcesespecially sh. From this general migration pattern (Fig. 4.5), new
shing and shing/pastoral villages have established along the northwestern shores of Lake Turkana, from the
Ethiopia-Kenya border to Fergusons Gulf, and southward.
Fig. 4.3 Riverside settlement and secondary production along the lowermost Omo River. Top left Dasanech boys shing in gathering stream
(Kolon). Top right Nyangatom agricultural village, with granaries, along Omo River. Center left Children at riverside agricultural plot. Bottom left
Dasanech woman after burning small recession agriculture plot (before flood). Bottom right Dasanech villagers cutting up crocodile after
successful hunt
Fig. 4.4 Northern pastoral Turkana dependency on Lake Turkana for watering and grazing. Top left Goats at watering. Top right Young goat in
last stage of starvation/dehydration. Center Large camel herd on watering trek to the lake. Bottom Hundreds of small stock rushing in the last
kilometer of their trek to the lake for watering
Fig. 4.5 Northern Turkana shing villagers at Lake Turkana. Top left Non-motorized sailboats and villagers along the northwest shoreline. Top
right Turkana girl at the lake. Center Bathing and water-getting north of Fergusons Gulf. Bottom left and right Cleaning sh catch on the beach
before transport to the village for drying
Fig. 4.6 Indigenous village relocation (migration) to the Omo River and Lake Turkana: 1960 to present. Major livelihood dependence on lake and
river is at the core of the region-wide exchange network (see Fig. 1.6)
The map of interethnic exchange relations included in Chap. 1 (Fig. 1.6) suggests the critical nature of this system for
the survival of each group. This system of exchange relations is necessary for pastoralists, for example, both for
herd-building and minimizing risks in herd management as well as for recovery from major livestock losses. For
agropastoralists and pastoral/shers too, exchange networks are critical for minimizing risk and recovery from such stressors
as failure of Omo floodwaters to replenish agricultural plots and last resort grazing, decreased sh catch and failed local
markets.
Despite a radical increase in agropastoralism over pastoralism among Dasanech households, and in shing over pastoralism
among many northern Turkanachanges following decades of disenfranchisement of both groupscooperation among
communities with divergent subsistence components remains. In peaceful periods between the Dasanech in the lowermost
Omo basin and the Turkana around northern Lake Turkana, product (and sometimes labor) exchange is commonplace and
involves pastoral, agropastoral and shing communities.
The major food related exchange relations between just two sets of the regions groups are summarized in Tables 4.1 and
4.2. The full set of such relations is exponentially more complex, particularly when the full set of material and social
transactions is considered. These include marriage-based exchange, labor cooperation, gift giving and loans, and political
relations. These exchange relations are often key to economic diversication and the forgoing of new settlement and
seasonal movement patterns among transboundary ethnic groups.
The tables suggest the core food-based exchange among three of the regions groups: the Nyangatom, the Turkana and the
Dasanechthe key exchange relations among them being:
Small stock , Grain Small stock , Cattle
As diversication from pastoral to agropastoral and shing livelihoods has become a primary means of survival for very
large numbers of the regions indigenous people in recent years, new forms are preeminent in some areas, especially:
Fish , Small stack Fish , Grain
Pastoral Dispossession and Rising Dependence on the Omo River and Lake Turkana
In order to carry out their highly adaptive survival strategies, including their complex system of exchange, the regions
traditionally pastoral ethnic groups have depended on access to sufcient territory, including adequate pasture areas
and watering points for livestock, lands for recession agriculture and most recentlyshing locales. These conditions
have been drastically curtailed in recent decades, forcing the pastoralists to depend on Omo River and Lake Turkana
resource for their survival.
A wide range of colonial and post-colonial policies in eastern Africa have produced major dispossession and
marginalization among transboundary indigenous groups. British colonial administrations of Kenya, Uganda, Sudan and
Egypt, along with Ethiopias monarchsMenelik IIU and Haile Selassietook actions that fundamentally altered the
region. All of these governments engaged in border denitions, for example, that profoundly affected the regions
indigenous peoples, while essentially regarding them as externalities.. Major decisions were shaped without regard to the
size, resource needeven the identityof the indigenous groups concerned. This longstanding reality was described by
colonial ofcers interviewed by this writer and in numerous written accounts in Kenyan and Sudanese archives.
Considerable documentation of these policies has emerged as part of the expanding literature for the regionmost of it
addressing one or another ethnic group or type of policy. Chapters 7 and 9 briefly summarize some key points from this
literature, combined with information and perspective recorded from Dasanech and northern Turkana elders during
investigations by SONT.
Pastoral Dispossession and Rising Dependence 63
Table 4.1 Diversied food production among transboundary ethnic groups

Lower Omo Basin & Ilemi Triangle
Kara Flood recession agriculture**/Agropastoral**
Nyangatom Flood recession Agriculture**/Agropastoral**,
Pastoral*, Fishing**
Dasanech (upland, Flood recession agriculture**/Agropastoral**,
riverine) Fishing**, Pastoral*
Suri Agropastoral, Pastoral

Toposa Pastoral, Agropastoral
Hamar Pastoral, Agropastoral, Bee-Keeping
_____________
** Year-round dependence on Omo River or Lake Turkana
* Seasonal dependence on Omo River or Lake Turkana
Lake Turkana Region

Dasanech (Omo delta and Flood recession agriculture**, Agropastoral**,
east shoreline of lake) Fishing**, Pastoral*
Turkana Pastoral*, Fishing**, Pastoral-Fishing**

Gabbra Pastoral *
El Molo Fishing**, Fishing-Pastoral**
Rendille Pastoral *
Samburu Pastoral *
_____________
** Year-round dependence on Omo River or L. Turkana
* Seasonal dependence on Omo River or Lake Turkana
Major Subsidiary Livelihood Activities (groups vary)

Wild Food Gathering/Harvesting** Utensil manufacture
Beekeeping/Honey Gathering** . Fishing gear/net manufacture
Boatbuilding** Firewood/charcoal preparation*
Chicken-raising Fish marketing**
Utensil and tool making
* Recently initiated or increased

** Dependent on Omo River or Lake Turkana
Table 4.2 Major food related exchange: Turkana-Nyangatom and Dasanech-Turkana ethnic groups
Turkana- Nyangatom Dasanech-Turkana
From From From From

Turkana: Nyangatom Dasanech Turkana
(Omo)
Animal Sorghum, Sorghum, Animal

skins/hides Peas, Peas, skins/hides
Beans, Squash, Beans,
Live animals gourds Squash, Live cattle and
(mostly small gourds small stock
stock)
Live small Fishing
Cooking pans stock and cattle nets/gear
(Fish)
In the tri-nation border area, several types of colonial and post colonial policies have impacted all three major groupsthe
Dasanech, Nyangatom and northern Turkana, with differences in timing, intensity and outcomes of specic actions. These
policies centered around:
Redrawing of national boundaries.

Policing agreements, often with nancial subsidies to the administrating government.
Territorial relocation or expropriation of indigenous groups and population segments within themincluding for the
purposes of political control, privatization of lands, settlement programs.
Disarmament of villagersincluding through forceful/brutal campaigns.
Establishment of closed district or no-go zones.
Livestock seizurefor example, as reprisals for aggressive actions, punishment for incursion into declared no-go
zones.
Provision of rearms to indigenous ghting groupsfor protection of a particular group, and/or to establish a proxy
force for governmental agendas.
Taxationhut, population or livestock based.
Increased militarization, with expanding security apparatus.
Imposition of government appointed authority systems, replacing indigenous ones.
Some of these policies have been applied in one area, yet they have impacted the region more generally. For example,
territorial dispossession of a particular pastoral or agropastoral group has occurred both directly, with forcible removal by a
government, or indirectly, through expropriation of a neighboring groupone de facto forced to push into the transboundary
region, intensifying resource competition. Such occurrences have affected the Pokot, Jie Toposa, Hamar, Gabbra, Rendille and
Samburu neighboring groups. To some extent, the complex exchange network among the regions ethnic groups (Fig. 1.6)
reflects such repercussions.
The Ilemi Triangle (Figs. 1.1 and 4.7) forms a critical part of the transboundary regions history of indigenous group
marginalization and dispossession. A disputed area between South Sudan and Kenya and one bordering Ethiopia, the Ilemi
Triangle is named after a major chief (Ilemi Akwon) from the Anuak group that now resides in the Gambella region of Ethiopia/South
Sudan borderlands. The Ilemi covers a vast area: 10,320 or 14,000 km2, depending on the political boundary adopted.
The Ilemiviewed by colonial and post colonial administrations alike as wasteland, unoccupied (by permanent
settlements) and with little if any valuenevertheless demanded certain political decisions since the early twentieth century,
though these have nearly all been informal ones. The national boundaries in the tri-nation border region have remained in
quiet disputeeven following the Italian invasion and occupation of the region, the end of World War II, a number of
Fig. 4.7 Seasonal dependence on Omo River and Lake Turkana resources by pastoral, agropastoral, and shing indigenous communities.
East/west bank (Omo River) Dasanech and cross-lake movements by Turkana shers have sharply increased
modernization efforts, and most recently, public acknowledgment by the respective governments of major oil and gas
reserves there.3 As this book goes to print, there are onconflicting reports regarding possible legal settlement between the
governments of South Sudan and Kenya in this matter.
The signicance of the Ilemi Triangle, and jurisdiction over it, for understanding the present status of the Dasanech, the
Nyangatom and the northern Turkana and their vulnerability to decimation by the Omo River basin development (and now,
extractive industry), is at least ve-fold.
In the rst place, the grasslands of the region, particularly in its central and northwestern portions with rolling plains and
relatively wetter foothills, are superior to nearly all those of the transboundary region. Especially during dry seasons,
countless thousands of livestock from the regions different ethnic groups have flocked to the regionwell prior to the
military and political incursions by the regions colonial (and imperial/monarchy) powers and the shifting political
arrangements among them.
Secondly, the multiple ethnic groups in the region, while periodically engaging in conflict (with traditional weaponsnot
rearms, prior to the 20th century), also sustained complex cooperative and sharing relations with regard to watering
locales, high value grazing areas and other issues, according to Dasanech and Turkana elders.
Thirdly, governments have commonly exploited the indigenous groups pressing need for access to Ilemi pastures by
supplying them with arms and using them as proxy forces in asserting their national territorial intereststhe rhetoric of
protecting indigenous grazing rights aside. This practice is heightened by the extensive arms trafcking within the
region. The proxy character of indigenous ghters has been evident since the 1939 Italian occupation of the Ilemi and the
1941 routing of the Italians by Kenyan British forces. It continues to the present day dynamics in the region, with
traditional weaponry virtually replaced by new brutality and scale of killing among ethnic groups.
Fourthly, as numerous portions of this book suggest, the collapse of indigenous economies in the lower Omo basin and
around Lake Turkana, due to Gibe III dam and linked agricultural enterprise development would catapult Dasanech,
Nyangatom and Turkana into explosive new armed conflictexpanding from existing hot spots (see Fig. 5.4), as all
groups desperately search for rapidly disappearing resources within the Ilemi region.
Finally, extensive oil and gas reserves in the Ilemi and the broader transboundary region, coupled with oil industry
operations underway there, have intensied the boundary claims of Kenya and Sudan, in particluar. However these
national claims unfold, the indigenous groups face yet worsened dispossession and marginalization, precisely when their
circumstances are already at a crisis level.
Considerable scholarly accounts concerning the Ilemi Triangle/national boundary dispute have been produced in recent
years, including that by Collins (2004, 2005), Mburu (2001, 2003), Lamphear (1992) and Blake (1997), as well as a large
number of government and international agency reports. With some variation in specics, these accounts are in general
agreement about the historical trajectory of boundary arrangements.
A series of negotiated demarcations are chronicled from 1902/1907 through 1972, when informal agreement for Kenyan
administration of the Ilemi was reafrmed between Sudan and Kenya, along with Ethiopias position of having no claim to
the region. These boundary shifts are mapped in Mburus (2003) account, for example. As the literature noted above details,
the basic agreements among the regions governments began with Britains 1902 survey of the border between Kenya and
Ethiopia with a border referred to as the Maud linerecognized in 1907, and allocating all of the Ilemi region to Sudan.
This was immediately followed by the Ethiopian emperor Menelik IIs claim of northern Kenyan lands to the southern end of
Lake Turkana and eastward to the Indian Ocean. The British colonials responded with the Uganda-Sudan Boundary
Commission agreement in 1914 that secured Sudans access to Lake Turkana via the dry saltpan locale, Sandersons Gulf
(see Chap. 6). Other than that, the 1914 boundary within the Ilemi remained ambiguous. After some trading of adminis-
trative responsibility between the British of Sudan and Kenya, a Red line agreement was established in 1931ve years
before the Italian occupation of the region. The Red line was drawn under the rubric of protecting the grazing lands of the
northern Turkana. This line was once again reafrmed between Kenya and Sudan in 1938. The effects of these administrative
and policing shifts, combined with the ebb and flow of arms availability to the Dasanech, the Nyangatom and the Turkana,
resulted in major conflicts among the groups.
3
As Appendix A points out, the reserves were actually known to exist for decadesat least, by the oil corporations who had been exploring there,
top ofcials of the governments and the World Bank.
Recapture of the Ilemi in 1941 by British forces, as they pushed into Ethiopia from Sudanpart of the campaign that
reinstated Haile Selassie to the throneonce again led to a shift in boundaries. This time, the Kenyan administration drew a
Blue linefurther north from the Red linethus extending its jurisdiction. In 1950, the Sudan government established a
line relatively far to the west as its patrol linea move that Kenya later argued relinquished the Ilemi land. In reality, none
of these boundary lines were legally binding in international terms. The Kenyan/Ethiopian border denition was reafrmed
by both parties in 1972, as was Ethiopias conrmation that it had no claim on the Ilemi.
Meanwhile, by the 1960s, the Kenyan government designated the Ilemi a closed buffer zone by agreement with the Addis
governmentexcluding even their previously favored Turkana, as well as the Nyangatom and the Dasanech. All three
groups were excluded and only small groups with their herds were able to poach (as the Kenya police viewed it) the
relatively rich grassland resources that they desperately needed, having experienced dispossession from their respective
countries policies and a number of years of extreme drought. Excursions into the Ilemi were extremely dangerous for the
herdersrisking seizure of their livestock by the Kenya police, often with brutal measures.4
This policy proved destructive for the Dasanech, the Nyangatom, and ultimately, the Turkana.
The Dasanech were forced eastward into Ethiopiaeffectively conning them to the area between the Kibish River and
the Omo River, since their hostile relations with the Hamar prevented them from crossing the river.
The Nyangatom were essentially split into two segments: those with villages along the Kibish River and the Omo River
and those remaining near the Toposa (Fig. 1.3), slightly northwest of the heavily policed lands of exclusion. Travel and
exchange between them however, continued.
The Turkana were pushed southward into the harsher upland plains of northern Kenya.
All faced severe hardships from these changeshardships that became crises during severe droughts and high
disease incidence, even epidemics, as this writer experienced in the course of several research periods during the early
1970s.
By the late 1970s, the Kenyan government began encouraging herding and settlement in the Ilemi of Kenyas Turkana. Most
observers interpreted this as a proxy move to reassert Kenyas interests. The Dasanech remained excluded from lands they
clearly regarded as traditionally theirs, so they perceived little recourse but to attack their neighbors. The Nyangatom, while
ofcially barred from the Ilemi by the Kenyans, already had many households living nearby their close relatives, the Toposa
(Fig. 1.3). Although under increased stress, the Nyangatom sustained much of their transhumant movement among their
settlements along the Omo and Kibish Rivers, and in the Ilemi.
Ethiopian border presence remained minimal until the 1980s when the government began increasing its presence along the
lower Omo River. Kenya continued to administer the Ilemi, with police posts at Kibish and several other locales. Kenyan
police frequently seized large numbers of livestock belonging to the pastoralistssometimes even shooting the herders.
The Ilemi continued to be administrated by Kenya. Until the regions oil and gas potential became an active issue in
government circles (oil companies had been exploring the region for years), the contested nature of the Ilemi remained
largely dormant. Oil corporations sharply increased their interest and involvement in the region during the 1980s, and
this process has since accelerated. Land grabs and government issuing of leases and concessions are well underway
(see Appendix A).
Largely due to these major territorial lossescompounded by prolonged droughts, shifting ethnic alliances and
conflicts, and regional government policiesboth people and livestock were overcrowded in numerous areas
throughout the region. Overgrazing by the increasingly crowded livestock initiated a radical decline in herd numbersone
so severe that the long-standing economic recovery strategies were no longer effective. These conditions led to ecological
4
This writer did extensive ecological transecting and study in the eastern Ilemi during the early 1970s (see Chap. 7 and Carr 1977) and personally
encountered a number of small groups of herders and livestock seeking safe places for their animals to graze. Relations with the Kenya police
ranged from poor to atrocious, as evidenced by one Kenya police ofcer who stated that shooting Dasanech is more fun than shooting gazelle.
Kenyan police assigned to the region from the highlands commonly had antipathy for the marginalized pastoralists, and certainly they detested the
extreme heat and dryness of the region.
deterioration throughout much of the dryland plains of the transboundary region, except for the restricted Ilemi lands. None
of the three pastoral groups really recovered from their many years of dispossession in their respective countries and within
the Ilemi. Livestock mortality continued at a high level, as village survey in both northern Turkana and Dasanech areas
indicate (Chaps. 7 and 9). Herd sizes plummeted for the vast majority of households and villages.
The pastoralists longstanding strategies for recovery outlined above have proven insufcient for a massive pro-
portion of the northern Turkana and Dasanech in particular, so tens of thousands of them turned to the only
remaining resource systems available to themat the Omo River and along the shores of Lake Turkana. By the
1980s, the Omo delta had expanded considerably considerably, offering new resource availability for that helped local
communities cope with the effects of earlier territorial losses (see Fig. 1.2).
The general patterns of migration, or relocation to the Omo River and to Lake Turkana are indicated in Fig. 4.6. Households
continue to herd whatever livestock they have leftoften by combining herds and cooperating in labor for stock camps,
including in distant areas where still possible. Along the Omo River, most of the locales for flood recession agriculture are
already spoken for as this large displaced population searches for possible planting land and for livestock grazing and
watering locales. Well-established social and material exchange patterns between the Dasanech and Turkana, like those of
nearby ethnic groups (Fig. 1.6), have altered with these settlement shifts and accompanying changes in mobility and
economy (see Chap. 7 for changes in the traditionally complex strategies for household/village level herd management since
the 1970s).
The Omo River and Lake Turkana are central to the present day seasonal shifts in survival strategies of the
Dasanech, Nyangatom and northern Turkana peoples. Their general seasonal patterns are represented in Fig. 4.7
patterns for herding, planting and shing that are conditioned by major shifts in the character of water and biological
resources of the river and lake, as well as precipitation levels and other conditions in the broader region.
The relatively recent major spike in livelihood dependency on the Omo River and Lake Turkana resources by
transboundary residents leaves them vulnerable in the extreme to radical reduction of river and lake waters. The
precipitous drop in river flow volume and shoreline retreat of the lake caused by the Gibe III dam and dam enabled
irrigated agriculture spell unprecedented disaster for the regions indigenous population.
Environments in the Transboundary Region: From Pristine to Degraded
With the exception of the Omo riverine forest and some volcanic outcrop locales, most of the transboundary regions
pristine habitats have undergone severe environmental deterioration in recent decades (see Carr 1977, 1998; Ebei and
Akuja 2008; Gil-Romera et al. 2011). As noted above, this ecological degradation results primarily from overgrazing due to
overcrowding of livestock and people following the major the territorial losses noted above (also see Chaps. 7 and 9). These
losses have been compounded by prolonged drought periods and other externally generated political and economic influ-
ences, including GOE expropriation of villagers resources along the Omo River.
Only isolated pockets of natural habitat remain, including large sections of the Omo riverine forest (prior to current
government cutting and clearing), certain volcanic highland locales and upland plains areas where watering places for
livestock are absent or where interethnic hostilities preclude herding. Much of the unique biodiversity and ecological
integrity of the region has declined to the point where environmental restoration is required. The destruction of water
resource access and resources in the downstream Omo zone and around Lake Turkana, caused by Gibe III dam and irrigated
agricultural development, would force villagers throughout the region to move into the remaining natural areas in the effort
to avert decimation of their livelihood systems.
The transboundary zones ecological communities are diverse compared with most other semi-arid regions of
Sub-Saharan Africa. This is largely the result of the regions complex geological, depositional and water/soil conditions
(Fig. 1.9). Habitats range among those associated with the Omo River, including annually flooded riverside flats, relict river
meander channels (ox-bows), non-flooded natural levees with variable soil moisture relations, tributaries and numerous
incomplete or relict channels, and the modern delta (now about 500 km2 in area following its recent expansion (Fig. 1.2); the
Environments in the Transboundary Region 69
Kibish River and gathering streams; relict beach ridges. basin pans and relict floodplains; Lake Turkana with its complex
lacustrine and littoral habitats, the Turkwel and Kerio Rivers and numerous small ephemeral channels; scattered volcanic
highland areas, rock outcrops and tuffaceous exposures, and salt springs.
Biodiversity in the transboundary region strongly corresponds with these environmental differences. It is further enhanced by
the regions position as a zone of convergence among contrasting ecological zones.5 These characteristics are strongly
reflected by the results of plant collections made by this writer in the lower Omo region, including in riverine, dryland plains
and volcanic areas (Carr 1977, 1998)species identied are listed in Appendix B.6 Additional plant collecting has been
carried out in the lower Omo and northern Turkana regions by F.H. Brown (summarized in a forthcoming article) with staff
from the Kenya Herbarium in Nairobi. Raymonde Bonnelle has made extensive pollen collections in the northern
Turkana/lower Omo Basin region.
Large wildlife populations have been recorded in recent decades throughout the lower Omo basin, Ilemi Triangle, and
northern Turkana regions. Eland, oryx, topi, Burchells zebra, hartebeest, lion, leopard, cheetah, elephant, bat-eared foxes,
gazelle, and gerenuk have long inhabited the regions grasslands and other dryland environments. Omo riverine (or gallery)
forest and woodland areas support a rich wildlife population including hippo, elephant, crocodile, at least three species of
primates, kudu, bushbuck, waterbuck leopard, and a wide variety of bird species including sh eagle, goliath heron, and
dwarf bittern. These wildlife populations have plummeted in recent years, both from habitat destruction resulting from the
changes outlined above and from the pervasive use of weapons throughout the region.
The Lowermost Omo River Basin and Environs
From its source waters in the highlands of Ethiopia, the Omo River descends gradually through a series of gorges in the
highlands of the northern portion of the lower basin where it is bordered by steep slopes and a mixture of riparian forest,
woodland and drier plant communities. Continuing its southward flow, the river opens into broad semi-arid lowlands where
it forms a strongly meandering pattern and continues to its terminus at the northern end of Lake Turkana (Fig. 1.3).
The low-lying waterside flats along the riverprimarily silt berms and sand/silt bars annually flooded by the Omoprovide
the conditions for vitally important flood recession agriculture by Kara, Nyangatom and Dasanech villagers. The Kara also
plant in ox-bow channels when Omo floods are sufcient. Nyangatom settled along the Kibish River (Fig. 1.3) plant there
when water in that seasonal watercourse is sufcient to flood their plots, and the Dasanech plant throughout much of the
active delta as well as on flats along the lowermost Omo. These patterns are outlined in Chaps. 7 and 8.
Although grasslands predominate throughout this southernmost section of the lower basin (the upland areas are described in
Chap. 7), the region actually supports a mosaic-like pattern of vegetation types, due to its complex soil depositional patterns
and anomalous geomorphic features. Sand and silt-sand relict beaches and clay basins are punctuated by volcanic highlands,
pronounced cracking patterns, salt springs and other features. The oxbow channels with seasonal floodwater inundation by
the Omo River add to the complexity of plant communities.7 Nearly all of the rangelands between the Kibish River and the
Omo River (Fig. 4.7) are highly degraded from overcrowding of livestock.
The forest along the lower Omo is the last pristine riverine forest in Sub-Saharan African drylands. Forest and woodland
dominate the natural levees and the immediate levee backslope along the Omo River except on strong outside river bends,
5
With some notable and important exceptions, the flora and vegetation types in southwestern Ethiopia closely resemble those of the Ilemi region
and eastern Africaa relatively recently determined relationship conrming earlier predictions by the well-known British botanist in East Africa,
Gillett (1955).
6
This writer has completed plant taxonomic studies, along with collection and ecological characterization of more than two thousand plant
specimens. A full set of the collection (prepared in duplicate) is deposited at KEW Gardens Herbarium in London and another at the National
Museum of Kenya, in Nairobi.
7
Arguably one of the least-described regions of eastern Africa, the impressionistic and often subjective accounts by early colonial explorers offer
important clues to early subsistence patterns among the areas indigenous groups. These include descriptions by Vannutelli and Citerni (1887),
DOssat and Millosevich (1900) and Von Hohnel (1938). Butzer (1971a, b) describes a series of expeditions that passed through the Omo delta
during the early twentieth century. With the 1967 beginning of the international Omo Expedition directed by Clark Howell, Richard Leakey and
Yves Coppens, concrete description of the area was undertaken in a number of scientic dimensions over a period of years. This effort included
extensive geomorphology, hydrology and soil studies by Butzer, Brown, Cerling and associates as well as direct paleontological investigations. It
also supported detailed riverine and upland vegetation and soil studies, as well as cultural ecological and land use investigations by this writer.
with drier (xerophytic) vegetation, from Omorate northward along the river (Figs. 1.9 and 4.7). The forest is sustained only
with sufcient saturation, or inltration of the Omos natural levee soils from the Omo Rivers annual flood (generally
between August and December). Overbank flooding does not occur in the forest zone of the Omoa reality misrepresented
entirely by the GOE. This writer has carried out detailed studies of the riverine forest and its development, some key features
of which are summarized in Chap. 8.
The forest and woodland provide resources are of fundamental importance to the survival systems of the regions
indigenous communities. In addition to the recession agriculture along waterside flats and slopes bordering the forest,
transition zone vegetation from forest and woodland (see Chap. 8) provides last resort graze and browse for Nyangatom and
Dasanech livestock and resources for wild plant gathering. Most species in the forest and woodland are limited to that
environment and are key to the biodiversity (both floral and faunal) of the lower Omo basin.
The Omo River does not flood the vast floodplains, or mudflats, lateral to the river throughout much of the
lowermost basin, since these are relict (or ancient) floodplains. Moreover, rainfall in the lowermost basin is insufcient
for rainfed agriculture to be practiced these relict features. The Ethiopian governments misrepresentation of these realities in
its downstream impact assessment (GOE 2009b) is a key reason for the reports invalidity, since the GOE asserts not only
that these lands are flooded (and thus support planting), but also that rainfed agriculture in these lateral plains could
compensate for the loss of flood recession planting lands along the river, due to flow reduction by the Gibe III dam. In fact,
neither survival option exists for the Dasanech and Nyangatom.
Rainfall in the region is inadequate for rainfed agriculture to be practiced in the relict floodplains, despite repetitive
GOE assertions that this practice is widespread. The signicance of this misrepresentation rests with indigenous
agropastoralists and others not having an option of rainfed agriculture as an alternative to flood recession planting.
Since precipitation is low and erratic, ground water recharge is a critical factor in the maintenance of both riverine zone and
floodplain ecosystems. The vegetation in these areasmostly scrub-like grasses and clustered herbaceous ground vegetation
forms a highly irregular pattern, corresponding to micro-level soil and drainage variations as well as irregular distribution
of rainfall and pooling during the rainy season. Vegetation cover is of major signicance in preventing soil evaporation and
large-scale erosion. Soil evaporation and large-scale sheet erosion.
All major dimensions of Dasanech livelihood presently depend on the sustainment of the Omo riverine/delta envi-
ronment. The roughly 500 square kilometer modern Omo delta (Fig. 1.2), detailed in Chap. 7, is flooded annually over large
areas by the Omo River. Its vegetation ranges from woodland (limited in extent) to a variety of grasslands and wetlands,
forming highly complex patterns in response to even small shifts in sediment deposits, nutrients and water conditions
determined by the river.
The major livelihood components of the Dasanech and Nyangatom residing along the river would be eliminated since
most of the Omo Rivers modern delta where last option grazing, flood recession agriculture and settlements occur
would be desiccated by the effects of the Gibe III dam and its linked irrigated agricultural development.
Lake Turkana and Environs
Lake Turkana is the second largest lake in Kenya and the worlds largest desert lake. More than 90 % of its waters
derive from Omo River inflow. The lake is one of the most saline lakes in the Great Rift Valley and the second most saline
in Africa. The lake is only borderline potable for humans, livestock, and many wildlife species.
Both the Turkwel River and the Kerio River flow into Lake Turkana (Fig. 1.1). Inflow from the Turkwel has been
radically reduced from the construction of a hydroelectric dam at Turkwel Gorge, about 150 km from the lake. Lake
Turkana has no outlet since the separation from the Nile basin (Butzer 1971a).Because it is a closed-basin lake,
fluctuations in the level of Lake Turkana are determined by inflow from rivers and by evaporation, which is generally
accepted to be about 2330 mm/year.
Environments in the Transboundary Region 71
Lake Turkana is the most saline lake in East Africa containing a normal sh fauna. Salinity is already at a level
critical for various fauna and at the extinction level for mollusks (Yuretich and Cerling 1983). Citing L.C. Beadles early
work, the authors also note that at a higher salinity, dwarsm of sh occurs. Building on studies by Hopson (1975),
Wood and Talling (1988) recorded a dissolved salt content of 2440 ppmnearly double the safe level in Kenyas Guide
Value. Although lake waters are technically within the range of potability for livestock, herd animals frequently refuse
the saline waters, even after lengthy watering treks (Fig. 4.4). Turkana villagers report numerous health problems
associated with high salinity.
The Omo Rivers annual flood produces an extensive plume of nutrients and sediment-laden freshwater and is key
to the replenishment of Lake Turkanas entire ecological system, including the sustainability of its sheries. This
nutrient and freshwater inflow can reach the central portion of the lake and stimulates sh spawning as well as sh
feeding cycles in the lake. Reproductive areas of sh are mostly concentrated along the northern shoreline, in Fergusons
Gulf, Alia Bay and other shoreline areas (see Fig. 1.3 and Chap. 5).
The major reduction of Omo River overall flow volume and inflow to Lake Turkana during the planned closure of the
Gibe III dam while efforts to ll its reservoir proceed would disrupt the downstream hydrology and ecological systems
of the Omo River and Lake Turkanatransforming the habitats essential to the life cycles of the more than 50 species
of sh identied so far in the lake and delta waters.
Seasonality of the lake and access to shing localities shifting with seasons is a key component of indigenous
communities settled along Lake Turkana. The annual flood pulse from the Omo River, combined with the prevailing
winds and currents in the lake, combine to establish several major seasonal differences. The lake is exposed to strong
winds during certain months, with the prevailing winds from the southeast being a critical factor in the mixing of lake
waters and nutrients. Local shers dene seasons in terms of the combination of changes in winds, lake level, nutrients
and shing conditions.
Although low in sh species diversity, Lake Turkana has about 50 species, 13 of which are important in the economy
of resident shing communities. These species range from pelagic to demersal and their distributions largely conform to the
habitat factors noted above. Tilapia spp. and Nile perch, for example, are central to Turkana shing economy and their
survival depends on the health of the lakes ecosystem. These sh would be severely impacted, if not almost eliminated,
without sustainment of their major reproductive and/or feeding habitats in shoreline or northern lake/delta areas. Fish species
and Lake Turkana habitats critical to the survival of the indigenous people are identied in the section below concerning
Turkana livelihood.
Wildlife at Lake Turkana has been abundant, with parks internationally recognized for their richness and
uniqueness. The lake is home to Nile crocodile, hippos, turtles, and bird species numbering in the hundredsincluding
flamingos, cormorants, ibises, skimmers, and sandpipers, as well as highly threatened populations of turtle, Nile crocodile,
and hippo populationsbut remains essentially unprotected. These include populations in the UNESCO World Heritage
site, Lake Turkana National Park (on the western shore), Sibiloi National Park (on the eastern shore), and island parks (both
Central Island National Park and South Island Park. Most wildlife areas have suffered major degradation and habitats now
face threat of destruction for a variety of reasons, especially from political and economical forces causing overcrowding of
people and livestock, with resultant habitat destruction, the abundance of rearms throughout the region due to arms
trafcking between Kenya and South Sudan, and commercial encroachment.
Several hundred thousand pastoral and shing Turkana live in villages along or nearby Lake Turkanas western
shoreline and are almost entirely dependent on the lake for household water, livestock watering and nearby grazing,
shingor all of these. As described in Chap. 8, this population is particularly concentrated around Fergusons Gulf and
Kalokol (Fig. 1.3) and northward into the Kenya-Ethiopia border. The overwhelming majority of the shing Turkana have
migrated from pastoral lands far removed from the lake, following major herd losses. Many arrive with no livestock at all.
By all accounts, this migration has dramatically increased in recent years for a variety of reasons discussed below. A nearly
rainless period extended for almost three years in much of the lower Omo basin and northern lake region in recent years, for
example, resulting in major livestock mortality and sparking new migration.
The majority of Turkana villages along the lakeshore are oriented primarily to shing, although some retain small numbers
of livestock (small stock). Most households engage in some type(s) of secondary production, and many receive occasional
international food aid. Turkana pastoralists bring tens of thousands of livestockgoats, sheep, cattle and camels from the
upland plains to the lake for watering and grazing during drought months (Fig. 4.4). Recent ecological degradation of littoral
and shoreline environments is a critical problem for both Turkana residents and visiting herders, as noted in Chap. 9. Fishing
communities depend on the maintenance of delicate environmental and biological balances in shoreline habitats, with even
small shifts affecting sh catch levels. Trading relations between shing communities and slightly more removed
pastoral/shing communities are essential to both.
Central and northern upland environments around the central and northern portions of Lake Turkana are similar to those of
the lower Omo basin and those of the eastern Ilemi in terms of rainfall. The region is semi-arid with a mean annual
precipitation of less than 250 mm. Rainfall is unpredictable in the extreme, both in total amount and in distribution
conditions to which Turkana pastoralists have long been adapted (Fig. 4.2). The seasonal movement patterns indicated in
Fig. 4.7 point to the high mobility of the transboundary indigenous population, including the pastoral Turkana.
The radically deteriorated conditions for Turkana livelihood (and that of the Dasanech at the lakes northeastern
shoreline) would advance to disaster level with radical withdrawal of lake waters in the extremely shallow fringes of
central and northern Lake Turkanaan inevitable result even during the planned Gibe III dam lling period (whether
2 years or multiple years), let alone from continued operation of the dam and from the abstraction of river waters for
the large-scale irrigated agricultural works underway.
Cross-Border Conflict and Diminishing Resources: The Ilemi Triangle Ingredient
Localized conflicts in the transboundary region have been escalating in recent years. This is primarily due to worsening
resource deterioration and poverty conditions throughout, continued dispossession fueled by government policies, prolonged
droughts and disease outbreaks. Climate change, while likely to be a major factor of increased vulnerability of the local
population to the impacts of the looming dam and irrigated agricultural development, has not been responsibly studied in the
region. Finally, rampant arms trafcking continually expands throughout the region and contributes to the upward spiral of
violence.
Most destructive among government policies are the Ethiopian governments large-scale, forcible evictions of indigenous
communities along the lowermost Omo River (as well as upstream in Mursi/Kwegu/Bodi territory) in order to make way
for large-scale, irrigated commercial agricultural schemes. Major irrigation infrastructure construction brings further
expropriation and destruction of resources necessary for local residents survival, as well and creates major blockages to
mobility of herd animals.
The Kenya governments present acceptance of the Gibe III dam and irrigated agricultureat least by the time of this
writing, and the Kenyan governments active partnership in the transmission of electricity from the Gibe III to Kenya and
beyond are additional major destructive policies.
Rising tensions over dwindling grazing resources and watering points has intensied long-established interethnic tensions
and conflicts, major locales for which are shown in a map below. These stresses have also weakened the extensive regional
system of food related exchangea system important to the survival of all groups (Fig. 1.6). Similar impacts on social
exchange have been noted for comparable pastoral regions by Abbink (2000, 2009), Teqegn (2003), and Hendrickson et al.
(1998a, b).
The numerous hot spot conflict localities where conflict is already intensifying and can be expected to spike even more
sharply as the Gibe III dam and agricultural enterprises are allowed to operate, are indicated in a map in Chap. 5. The
overwhelming response by governments and the private groups active in the region, notably including Tullow Oil, is
militarization.
Cross-Border Conflict and Diminishing Resources 73
Literature Cited
Abbink, J. 1997. The shrinking cultural and political space of East African pastoral societies. Nordic Journal of African studies 6(1): 117.
Abbink, J. 2000. Restoring the balance: Violence and culture among the Suri of Southern Ethiopia. In Meanings of violence: A cross cultural
perspective, Eds. G. Aijmer and J. Abbink, pp. 77100.
Abbink, J. 2003. The yellow gunsGenerations and politics in Nyangatom (Ethiopia). Africa 73(3): 473474.
Abbink, J. 2009. Conflict and social change on the south-west Ethiopian frontier: An analysis of Suri society. Journal of Eastern African Studies 3
(1): 2241.
Almagor, U. 1978. Pastoral partners: Afnity and bond partnership among the Dassanetch of South West Ethiopia, 258 pp. England: Manchester
University Press.
Almagor, U. 1992. Institutionalizing a fringe periphery: Dassanetch-Amhara relations. In The Southern Marches of imperial Ethiopia, Eds. D.L.
Donham, W. James, and Jean-Pierre de Monza, pp. 96115.
Bassi, M. 2011. Primary identities in the lower Omo Valley: Migration, cataclysm, conflict and amalgamation, 17501910. Journal of Eastern
African Studies 5(1): 129157.
Blake, G.H. (ed). 1997. Imperial Boundary Making: The Diary of Captain Kelly and the Sudan-Uganda Boundary Commission of 1913. Oxford
University Press.
Butzer, K.W. 1971a. Recent history of an Ethiopian Delta. Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Geography Papers, Research Paper
No. 136.
Butzer, K.W. 1971b. The Lower Omo Basin: Geology. Fauna and Hominids of Plio-Pleistocene Formations, Naturwissenschaften 58(1): 7.
Carr, C.J. 1977. Pastoralism in crisis: The Dassanetch of Southwest Ethiopia. Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Geography Papers,
319 pp.
Carr, C.J. 1998. Patterns of vegetation along the Omo River in southwest Ethiopia. Plant Ecology 135(2): 135163.
Proposed Gibe III dam in Ethiopia, Africa Resources Working Group, 250 pp. https://www.academia.edu/8385749/Carr_ARWG_Gibe_III_
Dam_Report.
Collins, R. 2004. The Ilemi Triangle. Unpublished manuscript.
Collins, R. 2005. The Ilemi Triangle. Annales dEthiopie 20:512.
Donham, D., and W. James (eds.). 1986. Southern marches of imperial Ethiopia: Essays in history and social anthropology. Athens: Ohio
University Press.
DOssat, G., and F. Millosevich. 1900. Seconda Spedizione Bottego. Roma: Studio geologico sul materiale raccolto de M. Sacchi, 212 pp.
Ebei, P., Oba, G. and T. Akuja 2008, Long-term impacts of droughts on pastoral production and trends in poverty in north-western Kenya. In
Droughts: Causes, effects and predictions, Ed. J.M. Sanchez, pp. 103138. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Fielding, D. 2001. Turkana Herders of the dry Savanna (Book Review). Quarterly Review of Biology, vol. 76, no. 1.
Gillett, J.B. 1955. The relation between the highland floras of Ethiopia and British East Africa. Webbia 9: 459466.
Gulliver, P. 1950. A preliminary survey of the Turkana compiled for the government of Kenya. University of Capetown.
Gulliver, P. 1955. The family herds: A study of two pastoral tribes in East Africa: The Jie and Turkana. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Gwynne, M.D. 1969. A bibliography of Turkana. Nairobi: Royal Geographical Society South Turkana Expedition.
Gwynne, M.D. 1977. Land use by the southern Turkana, 1618. Paper prepared for seminar on Pastoral Societies of Kenya: Institute of African
Studies, University of Nairobi.
Gil-Romera, G., D. Turton and M. Sevilla-Callejo. 2011. Landscape change in the lower Omo valley, southwestern Ethiopia: Burning patterns and
woody encroachment in the savanna. Journal of East African Studies, pp. 108128.
Hendrickson, D., J. Armon, and R. Mearns. 1998a. Conflict and vulnerability to famine: Livestock raiding in Turkana, Kenya, Drylands
Programme. International Institute for Environment and Development no. 80.
Hendrickson, D., J. Armon, and R. Mearns. 1998b. The changing nature of conflict and famine vulnerability: The case of livestock raiding in
Turkana District, Kenya. Disasters 22(3): 185199.
Hogg, R. 1982. Destitution and development: The Turkana of North West Kenya human nutrition. Disasters 6(3): 164168.
Hopson, A.J. 1975. Preliminary notes on the birds of the Lake Turkana area, pp. 17.
Lamphear, J. 1992. The scattering time: Turkana responses to colonial rule, 308 pp. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lydall, J. and I. Strecker. 1979. The Hamar of Southern Ethiopia. 3 Vols. Arbeiten aus dem Institute fur Vlkerkunde der Universitt zu Gttingen
Bendiz. Hohenschftlarn: Klaus Renner Verlag.
Mark, P., and S. Tornay. 1992. Les Fusils jaunes: Gnrations et politique en pays Nyangatom (Ethiopie). African Studies Review 46(1): 196198.
Mburu, N. 2001. Military decline of the Turkana of Kenya 19002000. Nordic Journal of African Studies 10(2): 148162.
Mburu, N. 2003. Delimitation of the elastic Ilemi Triangle: Pastoral conflicts and ofcial indifference in the Horn of Africa. African Studies
Quarterly (Sprg).
McCabe, J.T. 2004. Cattle bring us to our enemies: Turkana ecology, politics, and raiding in a disequilibrium system. Michigan: University of
Michigan Press.
Savary, C. 2003. Generations and politics among the Nyangatom of Ethiopia. Anthropos 98(1): 278280.
Schroder, P. 2003. Generations and politics among the Nyangatom of Ethiopia. Anthropos 98(1): 267.
Skoggard, I., and T.A. Adem. 2010. From raiders to rustlers: The lial disaffection of a Turkana age-set. Ethnology 49(4): 249262.
Smucker, T.A. 2006. Cattle bring us to our enemies: Turkana ecology politics. Professional Geographer 58(2): 231233.
Sobania, N. 2011. The formation of ethnic identity in South Omo: the Dassenech. Journal of Eastern African Studies 5(1): 195210.
Strecker, I. A. 1988. The Social Practice of Symbolization: An Anthropological Analysis. Monographs on Social Anthropology, no. 60. London.
Athlone Press.
Teqegn, M. 2003. The marginalization of pastoral communities in Ethiopia. Indigenous Affairs 4: 3237.
Tornay, S. 1979. Armed conflicts in the lower Omo Valley, 19701976: Nyangatom Society. Senri Ethnological Studies 3: 97117.
Tornay, S. 1980. The hamar of Southern Ethiopia, conversations in Dambaiti by Strecker, I. Homme 20(2):99108.
Tornay, S. 1981. The Nyangatom an outline of their ecology and social organization in peoples and cultures of the Ethio-Sudan Borderlands,
pp. 137178, Ed. M.L. Bender. East Lansing, Michigan: African Studies Center, Michigan State University.
Tornay, S., K.W. Butzer, J.A. Kirchner, Fuller, G.K., Lemma, A., Haile, T., Bulto, T., Endeshaw, T., Abebe, M., Eshete, S., Petros, G.P. and D.H.
Van. 1997. The growing power of the Nyangatom. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Turton, D. 1977. Response to drought: The Mursi of Southwestern Ethiopia. Disasters 1(4): 275287.
Turton, D. 1991. Warfare, vulnerability and survival a case from Southwestern Ethiopia. Disasters 15(3):254264.
Turton, D. 1995. Pastoral livelihoods in danger, cattle disease, drought, and wildlife conservation in Mursiland, S.W. Ethiopia. pp. 50. Oxfam
Research Paper 12, Oxfam (UK and Ireland).
Turton, D. 2013. Aiding and abetting: UK and US complicity in Ethiopias mass displacement. London: Think Africa Press.
Vannutelli, L. and Citerni, C. 1887. Relazione preliminare sui risulati geograci della deconda spedizione Bottego. Society Geographical Italiana,
Series 3, 10: 320330.
Von Hohnel, L. 1938. The Lake Rudolf region: Its discovery and subsequent exploration, 18881909. Journal of Royal African Society, London
37(1645): 20626.
Wood, R.B. and J.F. Talling. 1988. Chemical and algal relationships in a salinity series of Ethiopian inland waters. Hydrobiologia 158: 2967.
Yuretich, R.F. and T.E. Cerling. 1983. Hydrogeochemistry of Lake Turkana, Kenya: Mass Balance and Mineral Reactions in an Alkaline Lake.
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, vol. 47 (Jun); 10991109.
Components of Catastrophe: Social
and Environmental Consequences of Omo 5
River Basin Development
Abstract
The Gibe III dam and its associated agricultural development would cause radical reduction
of Omo River flow and inflow to Lake Turkana, as well as elimination of the Omo River
annual floodall essential to the survival of a half million residents of the lower Omo basin
and the Lake Turkana region. These major changes would destroy the Omo riverine natural
resource systemseliminating last resort grazing lands for livestock, flood recession
agriculture and shing habitats throughout the lowermost Omo basin. The impending
destruction of indigenous survival systems is heightened by the Ethiopian governments
expropriation of tens of thousands of villagers for large-scale, irrigated commercial
agricultural enterprises, accompanied by political repression of communities through-out
the region. Pastoralists and shers residing near the western shoreline of Kenyas Lake
Turkana also face economic collapseprimarily due to radical lake level drop causing
destruction of sh habitat, lakeside grazing for livestock and potable water. As in the lower
Omo basin, these conditions would produce massive scale hunger along with widespread
disease. Rapid escalation of armed conflict in the cross-border region would ensue as ethnic
groups battle over vanishing food sources.
Radical Reduction of River and Lake Waters by Omo Basin Development
If the Gibe III dam is completed and brought into operation, it will radically reduce the Omo Rivers downstream
flow volume as well as the inflow to Lake Turkana, by at least 6070 %, according to ARWG physical scientists
Fig. 5.1). This does not take into account:
Seepage from the reservoir with a drawn-out, if not indenite, lling perioddue to the highly fractured nature of basalts
and other volcanic rocks at the reservoir.
Abstraction of Omo River waters by the planned system of GOE and commercial irrigation agricultural schemes along
the lower Omo River. Utilizing estimates of the extent of irrigation, including gures from Human Rights Watch and the
Oakland Institute, the consultant for the AFDB (2010) Lake Turkana assessment later estimated that abstraction of river
water for the planned irrigation agricultural enterprises would cause up to a 50 % reduction of Lake Turkanas water
inflow from the river with a lake level drop of 20 m or more (Avery 2012).
Failure to implement articial flooding because of reservoir ll delay and GOE prioritization of electricity generation
over the release of reservoir water for downstream indigenous economies.
The sustainment of an articial flood program is actually disclaimed by the GOE itself (see Chap. 6).
The drop in lake level caused by the 6070 % Omo River flow volume loss during closure of the Gibe III reservoir
and early operation of the dam would be in addition to rather than within the range of the lakes annual
fluctuation. The latter is incorrectly asserted by the GOE downstream impact assessment (2009b) and the two major

76 5 Components of Catastrophe: Social and Environmental
development bank impact assessments (EIB 2010; AFDB 2010). Annual fluctuations in lake level are about 11.5 m, but
longer-term changes in the lake level are much larger. For example, the lake level dropped 10 m between 1975 and 1994.
A drop in the lake level of at least 10 m during the rst years of reservoir lling and operation is a far more likely scenario.
The maximum depth of the lake is 109-m, with a mean depth of 30-m. Its shoreline zone is markedly shallow in most of its
central and northern zones. Figure 7 indicates the progressive retreat of Lake Turkana in relation to water level drop.
An ARWG physical scientist has calculated the probable drop in the level of Lake Turkana during reservoir ll and
operation. The scientists calculations relied heavily on a paper by Cerling (1986) concerning a mass-balance approach to
sedimentation in recent Turkana basin history. Considerations included the following:
The highly fractured nature of the basalt rocks in the reservoir rocks, suggesting a high level of seepage into the rock
structure. By ignoring seepage losses, the ofcial reports estimate a reservoir-lling period of two to three years, which is
unrealistically short.
The hydrology of the Omo River basin is misrepresented in the ofcial reports. GOE and development bank reports
suggest that a greater portion of the Omo Rivers discharge into Lake Turkana comes from the region below the Gibe III
dam than is actually the case. In general, waters from the Hamar mountain range (Fig. 1.3) or the Omo basin lowlands do
not reach the Omo River. Instead, these waters evaporate in flood basins and seasonally inundated pans.
The huge evaporation losses from excessive, or uncontrolled flooding repeatedly asserted in the GOEs down-
stream impact assessment (GOE 2009b)and referred to in the development bank impact assessmentsdo not in fact
occur.
Areas of sub-basins of the Omo River were measured from satellite imagery, with precipitation in each estimated from
available maps and tables. The evaporation rate from the surface of Lake Turkana was calculated.
A 7-m drop is in lake level is likely during the rst years of reservoir ll and operation, depending on the amount of
river abstraction for irrigation, regional weather patterns and other factors. An increase in the concentration of ions in
the lake from about 2330 to about 2800 mg/l is predicted.
Figure 5.1 indicates the relationship between elevation and volume for Lake Turkana.1
Elevation vs Volume for Lake Turkana

2000
1800
1600
1400
Volume (km 3)
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475
Elevation (m)
Fig. 5.1 Elevation of Lake Turkana relative to lake volume. Source ARWG geologist, personal communication.
1
This calculation by the ARWG physical scientist was included as Appendix A in Carr (2012).
Radical Reduction of River and Lake Waters by Omo Basin Development
Fig. 5.2 Progressive retreat of Lake Turkana caused by the Gibe III dam and dam enabled irrigated agriculture (Base map from Hopson 1980)
77
Figure 5.2 indicates the progressive retreat of Lake Turkana relative to reduced lake volume, based on bathymetric measures
by Hopson (1982). The maximum depth of the lake is 109 m, with a mean depth of 30 m. Its shoreline zone is markedly
shallow in central and northern zones.
Even during a realistic reservoir-lling and initial dam closure period, these effects include:
Disruption of chemical balance and biological systemsincluding sheries.
Rapid decline/death of the Omo riverine forest and woodland.
Drying out of riverside flats and the Omo deltaincluding flood recession, grazing and shing areas.
Cessation of the Omos annual pulse of freshwater and sediment into the lake, with salinity increase and radical reduction
of critical nutrients.
Major southward retreat of Lake Turkana with desiccation of its northernmost zone, bays and shoreline areas (Fig. 5.2).
Destruction of major sh reproductive habitat along the river, within the modern Omo delta and in Lake Turkanas
central and northern shoreline areas.
The former consultant for the AFDBs 2010 Lake Turkana impact assessment, in a later report written for the University of
Oxford (Avery 2012) calculated a 7-m drop in lake level of Lake Turkana and a drop of at least 20 m accompanying a
64 % abstraction rate. These estimates are in line with those of ARWG physical scientists (ARWG 2009). The scenario of
creating another Aral Sea disaster is raised in the 2013 Avery reportan image also presented in an article produced by the
U.S. based NGO International Rivers (2013).
Even the predictable 7-m drop in lake level during the reservoir lling period and early dam operation would have
catastrophic effects throughout the region.
The environmental dimensions of this destruction include: death of the riverine forest, desiccation of the Omo delta and
northern end of Lake Turkana, elimination of flood recession agriculture along the river and throughout the delta,
destruction of riverine and lakeside grazing and watering resources, and destruction of sh reproductive and life cycle
habitat.
The livelihood and associated human destruction include major new mortality of livestock with decimation of remaining
herds for countless pastoral villages and households, destruction of the vast proportion of flood recession agriculture and
collapse of shing livelihood around Lake Turkana and in the Omo delta region. As a result, indigenous residents would
face catastrophic conditions of malnutrition and starvation, with major spikes in diseaseeven epidemic levels of
dysentery and cholera since Turkana levels of these diseases are recorded as some of the highest in East Africa.
A regional view of the inevitable expanding interethnic armed conflict in the already heavily weaponized border zone is
indicated in Fig. 5.3. The points of already existing conflict, along with predictable locales and directions of conflict
expansionidentied by this writer and the SONT research team in conversations with community eldersare indicated
in Fig. 5.3.2
A summary of the above impacts in the transboundary region that would lead to catastrophic level human and environmental
destruction, involving GOE and GOK violation of U.N. recognized human rights, is shown in Fig. 5.4.
2
Human casualties would far fewer in the more upstream. This highland portion of the lower Omo basin is relatively removed from the tri-nation
border zone and has sufcient rainfall to support rainfed agriculture. Like the transboundary region, however, land expropriation and displacement
are producing major socioeconomic crisis.
Radical Reduction of River and Lake Waters by Omo Basin Development 79
Fig. 5.3 Expanding armed conflict from effects of Gibe III dam and dam-linked development
Fig. 5.4 Summary of the humanitarian catastrophe and conditions for armed conflict from the Gibe III dam and its linked large-scale irrigated
agricultural development
Consequences for the Lowermost Omo River Basin
1. Omo River flow volume reduction of at least 6070 % during the reservoir lling period and early dam operation, not
including additional river water abstraction/diversion by GOE and private company irrigation agriculture; with elimi-
nation of the rivers annual flood.
2. Elimination of Omo River flooding in the modern delta (about 500 km2) and southward migration of Lake Turkanas
northern shoreline by at least 810 km (Fig. 5.2); desiccation of the modern Omo delta and northern Lake Turkana waters.
3. Cessation of annual flooding of waterside point bars (and sand/silt spits) along the entire lower Omo River, with
elimination of vegetation communities that are adapted to this flood-driven habitat replenishment.
Consequences for the Lowermost Omo River Basin 81
4. Additional downcutting of the Omo River channel in adjustment to the new lower base level of the lake, with channel
scouring, riverbank erosion and disruption of oxygen and nutrient levels in the riverall with major impacts on water
quality in Lake Turkana.
5. Destruction of the livelihood of at least 80,000 residentsprimarily Dasanech and Nyangatomrelying on flood recession
agriculture along the lower Omo River and in the modern Omo delta region, along with tens of other indigenous pastoralist,
shers and others whose survival depends on trade for grain and other agricultural product from farms at the Omo.
6. Elimination of sh reproductive and critical life cycle habitat throughout the modern Omo delta and northern Lake Turkana
waters, as well as in Omo riverine environments impacted by major disruption of nutrient, sediment and oxygen content.
7. Destruction of Dasanech and Nyangatom artisanal shingthe major livelihood for many of the poorest communities.
8. Desiccation of last resort grazing for livestock along the river in response to extended drought periods, intense
overgrazing and other hardship conditionscausing major spikes in livestock mortality and new dependence on the
cultivated areas at the same time that they are being eliminated.
9. Radical decrease in floodwater quantity and moisture residence time (the duration of riverine soil moisture retention) in
Omo River natural levee soils, causing destruction of the riverine forestthe last pristine such forest in semi-arid Africa.
10. Destruction of riverine forest/woodland-based secondary food production for local residents, including wild food
gathering, beekeeping, hunting and other activities essential to the survival of many of the most impoverished
indigenous communities in the lowermost basin.
11. Elimination of ground cover (mostly grasses and forbs) along riverbanks, on natural levee back slopes and in active delta
environmentsvegetation that requires sustained residence time of substantial soil moisture during the rivers annual flood.
12. Lowering of the current limited but critical ground water recharge in the dryland plains lateral to the lower Omo River
channel, causing grassland deterioration, increased susceptibility to overgrazing by livestock and accelerated desertication.
13. Major outmigration by tens of thousands of households in response to their livelihoods collapsing in the Omo riverine
and northern lake regiona process newly impacting neighboring pastoralists who are themselves struggling with
similar radical changes.
14. Sharp increase in malnutrition throughout the region, with conditions of starvation taking hold in both riverine and
regional dry land plains areas. Estimates by U.N. and non-governmental aid organizations for the region presently hover
around 40 %, not including years of extreme stress, and sometimes famine.
15. Major spike in disease incidence and conditions promoting widespread increases in malaria, dysentery and other
diseases, facilitated by large areas of stagnant water along the river, in canals and backup channels or pools, with severe
threat of cholera and other diseases.
16. Major escalation and initiation of armed conflict among ethnic groups, particularly among the Dasanech, Nyangatom,
and Turkana in the Ilemi, Kibish River, Koras Mountain. and Omo delta regions, as well as with the Hamar to the east
(Figs. 1.3 and 5.3).
Consequences for the Lake Turkana Region
1. Initial lake level drop of at least 23 m during reservoir lling and early operation, with continuing lake retreat to at least
7 m within 5 years. This would create:
An extended reservoir-lling period due to seepage through fractured volcanics in the reservoir locale.
Inadequacy of the GOEs planned articial flood and low likelihood of its implementation.
Reduced inflow from Ethiopias major diversion of the river for irrigation agriculture.
2. Southward migration of the northern shoreline of Lake Turkana by about 810 km further into Kenya during the earliest
phase of the reservoir-ll period (Fig. 5.2) with continued shoreline regression likely under reduced inflow conditions.
This ARWG prediction is in agreement with the EIBs (2010) report noting that such a retreat is likely.
3. Desiccation of the modern Omo River delta at the northern end of the lake as well as the entire northern shoreline zone
(see Chaps. 7 and 9) and all shallow areas along the western and eastern shorelines.
4. Elimination of the Omo Rivers annual flood with its pulse of freshwater, sediment and nutrientscontributing to
destruction of major sh reproductive habitats in the modern delta, Fergusons Gulf, Alia Bay and other shoreline areas
(Fig. 5.2).
5. Salinity increase in lake waters that are already borderline in potability (see above). Lake Turkana is one of the most
saline large lakes in Africa. Increased salinity threatens its availability for consumption by hundreds of thousands of
local residents, as well as by livestock and wildlife watering.
6. Collapse of sh stocks critical for indigenous shing communities due to the combination of lake withdrawal and
destruction of reproductive and feeding habitats.
7. Destruction and likely elimination of the northern Turkanas artisanal shing economytheir major last resort means of
survival.
8. Collapse of the exchange system shing, agropastoral, agricultural and pastoral communities, leading to the destruction
of food related reciprocity relations in the region.
9. Elimination of most existing shoreline vegetation essential for last resort grazing/browsing by livestocksparking a
radical increase in livestock disease.
10. Loss of remaining grassland vegetation and increased (often irreversible) establishment on unpalatable invasive species,
with lowered water table in dryland plains adjacent to Lake Turkana. (These species include Prosopis juliflora and other
species toxic to livestock.)
11. Destruction of major portions of the northern Turkana pastoral economy due to elimination of water and grazing
resources, forcing major new migration from upland plains to the lake, just as shing there is collapsing.
12. Southern movement of villages along Lake Turkanas western shorelineconforming to longer term pattern (Fig. 4.6),
as shing and shing/pastoral Turkana desperately search for relief aid or any last option available in towns
(for example, Kalokol and even Lodwar) or at Fergusons Gulf. Likely swelling of villages and population around
Fergusons Gulf, although the Gulf would be rapidly drying.
13. Epidemic-level disease outbreaks at Lake Turkana, including choleraalready well known in the region, especially
around Kalokol/Fergusons Gulf (Figs. 1.4 and 5.2) and other densely populated locales. Susceptibility to new levels of
malaria, schistosomiasis and cholera due to major new areas of stagnant water. All of these health crises would be
heightened by the extreme malnutrition conditions.
14. Region-wide extreme malnutrition and starvation conditions among the Turkana, with large populations attempting to
migrate to towns or internally displaced persons (IDP) camps.
15. Major interethnic armed conflicts, exacerbated by the widespread availability of arms and the upward spiral of
indigenous survival system collapse in the region west of Lake Turkana and in the lower Omo basin (Figs. 5.3 and 5.4).
Consequences for the Ilemi Triangle and the Broader Region
1. Major increase in overgrazing and ecological deterioration throughout the dryland plains of the Ilemi Triangle, due to a
large influx of people fleeing hunger conditions along the Omo River and around Lake Turkana (Fig. 5.5).
2. Immediate escalation of existing patterns of interethnic armed conflict due to overcrowding by ethnic groups and
competition for vanishing pasturage and water. Traditional patterns of interethnic conflict remain, but with greater
inclusiveness as stresses on all groups within the region increase. For the Dasanech, conflicts are primarily with their
Nyangatom, Hamar, and Turkana neighbors, but also with the Toposa in the Ilemi region and the Gabbra along the
eastern shores of Lake Turkana. For the northern Turkana, hostilities most frequently erupt with the Dasanech and
Nyangatom. For Turkana shers camping along the lakes eastern shoreline, hostilities with the Gabbra also occur.
3. Rapid geographic spreading of armed conflict in the cross-border region and internally within the three nations concerned
an inevitable outcome in view of rampant arms availability in the region. AK-47 rifles and other types of weaponry are ever
expanding through Kenyan arms merchants and multiple sourcesmilitary and otherwisein the region. Many of the
regions residents and outside observers regard the national governments as tacitly supporting the arming of their own
ethnic groupsas proxy forces in the contested Ilemi region, where oil and gas exploration is also active (Appendix A).
4. Increased militarization in the region by both the Kenyan and Ethiopian governments. This process accelerates as
governments react to interethnic conflicts and as they, together with domestic and international investors, advance plans
for development, with de facto assertion of control over the regions resources.
5. Cross-border livelihood collapse and conflict (Fig. 5.4).
Consequences for the Ilemi Triangle and the Broader Region 83
Fig. 5.5 Ilemi triangle border area with Ethiopia. Lightly grazed Ilemi grasslands on relict beach ridge to the left; heavily grazed area with
pastoral villages (present and abandoned) to the right
These developments include expropriation of indigenous lands for major scale diversion of Omo waters for irrigated
commercial agricultural schemes with major infrastructure construction including canals, irrigation systems, roads, and
bridge-building. For the region more broadly, they include oil and gas explorationin Lake Turkana and throughout much
of the vast surrounding land areas where petroleum deposits are known or predicted, and land privatization. Within Ethiopia,
these development policies are closely tied to the GOEs policies of political repression and violation of U.N. dened human
rightsthe right to water central among them. Within Kenya, the governments failure to protect its indigenous population
from the effects of the Gibe III dam and its attendant agricultural development also violates a major indigenous populations
human right to water. Although the matter of severe political repression in northern Turkana remains ambiguous, widespread
fear of government reprisals is evident.
Political repression and a climate of increasing hostility accompany militarization in such remote pastoral regionsa
reality strongly in evidence in major pastoral areas in the Horn and East Africa. All indications are that increased
militarization by the Kenyan and Ethiopian governments will only further the destabilization of the region rather than
to promote peace, as the governments and a host of international aid organizations continually assert in public
statements.
Literature Cited
Africa Resources Working Group (ARWG). 2009. A Commentary on the environmental, socioeconomic and human rights impacts of the proposed
Gibe III Dam in the lower Omo River basin of Southwest Ethiopia. http://www.arwg-gibe.
African Development Bank (AFDB). (2010, November) S. Avery, Assessment of Hydrological Impacts of Ethiopias Omo Basin on Kenyas Lake
Turkana Water Levels. Final report. 146 pp.
Avery, S.T. 2012. Lake Turkana and the lower Omo: Hydrological impacts of Gibe III and lower Omo irrigation development, vols. 1 and 2,
African Studies Centre, University of Oxford. 92 pp.
Avery, S.T. 2013. What future for Lake Turkana? The impact of hydropower and irrigation development on the worlds large desert lake. African
Studies Centre, University of Oxford.
Carr, C.J. 2012. Humanitarian catastrophe and regional armed conflict brewing in the border region of Ethiopia, Kenya and South Sudan: the
proposed Gibe III Dam in Ethiopia, Africa Resources Working Group (ARWG) (Dec 2012), 250 pp. https://www.academia.edu/8385749/
Carr_ARWG_Gibe_III_Dam_Report.
Cerling, T.E. 1986. A mass-balance approach to basin sedimentation: constraints on the recent history of the turkana basin. Palaeogeography,
Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 54: 6386.
European Investment Bank (EIB). 2010. Sogreah consultants, independent review and studies regarding the environmental and social impact
assessments for the Gibe III hydropower project, Final Report, Mar 2010, 183 pp.
Government of Ethiopia (GOE), Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (EEPCO). 2009b. Agriconsulting S.P.A., mid-day international consulting,
level 1 design, environmental and social impact assessment, additional study of downstream impacts. Report No. 300 ENV RAG 003B.
Hopson, A.J. 1982. Lake Turkana, a report on the ndings of the lake Turkana project, 19721975, Vols. 16, funded by the Government of
Kenya and the Ministry of Overseas Development, Overseas Development Administration.
International Rivers. 2013. Gibe IIIs impacts on Lake Turkana. East Africas Aral Sea in the making? 10 Jan 2013. www.internationalrivers.org.
The Rush to Rationalize: Public Policies
and Impact Assessments 6
They came to our village and us that there would be a wonderful new development that would bring us
schools and more sh and shillings and a better life. We said that we heard about the dam and that the lake
would go down and that we cannot lose our sh who mostly are at the shore. We dont want the dam. They
said that we were wrong and that the dam would be good for us. Then they went away. We do not know
what they did after that.
[Turkana man in shoreline village following AFDB consultants visit]
Abstract
The common interests of the Ethiopian government, international development banks and
global consulting rms in promoting, implementing and legitimizing the Gibe III dam and
its associated development are starkly apparent in environmental and socioeconomic
studies and impact assessments. None of them address the actual impact area of the Gibe III
dam projectnamely, one including human and environmental effects of the project in the
tri-nation Ethiopia/Kenya/South Sudan transboundary region. The Ethiopian government
(GOE) downstream impact assessment is invalidated by its major omissions, misrepresen-
tations, and fabrications. These failings include false assertions of disastrous Omo River
floods requiring river regulation floods which do not occur; misrepresentations of Omo
basin environmental hydrology and socioeconomy; and exclusion of the impacts of Gibe III
dependent, large-scale irrigated agriculture. Global consulting industry assessments of the
dam commissioned by the European Investment Bank and African Development Bank
(AFDB) do not signicantly challenge GOE failings. Instead they offer primarily
suggestions for future consideration, rather than the identication of analysis that must
be conducted before approval of any impact assessment. They pave the way for the World
Bank and AFDB to violate their own human rights protocols by funding an infrastructure to
allow Ethiopia to export hydrodam generated electricity.
Launching the Gibe III DamAnd a System of Bias

Any environmental consequence has to be recognized early and taken into account in project design. (GOE 2009b)
This statement by the Ethiopian government is directly at odds with the its apparent predetermined decision that
contracting and initiation of construction of the Gibe III dam could disregard the funding procedures and safeguard
requirements of international aid organizations, that the Gibe III dam would be built whatever the cost to the
livelihoods of the nations own indigenous population, and that any impact assessments produced during construction
would basically endorse, or legitimize the project.
The most common statements of justication for the more than $1.7 billion Gibe III project that have been issued
have been the need for electricity by the Ethiopian populationincluding its poorest elementsand the urgency
for regulation of an allegedly uncontrolled and disastrous Omo River. These have been repeatedly issued by the
GOE (including by the Prime Ministers ofce, EEPCO ofcials and Ministers) and by development agencies involved in
various stages of the project. Both statements are based on false premises. In the rst instance, a high proportion of Gibe III

86 6 The Rush to Rationalize: Public Policies and Impact Assessments
power generation has been slated for export since the inception of planning. Moreover, the cost of electricity would
inevitably be far too high for a vast proportion of the population. In the second, no such disastrous floods exist. These
issues are detailed below.
As with the Gibe I and Gibe II projects, the GOE awarded a no-bid, turn-key contract for Gibe III construction
to its long-term global associate, Salini Costruttoriexempting the rm from any oversight. The GOE (with Salini)
contracted two Italian-based global consulting rms for environmental and socioeconomic impact assessments. Both
reports were produced in 2009. They are described below as so fundamentally flawed that they must be considered
unacceptableor invalid.
The Ethiopian government began its construction of the Gibe III dam construction at the beginning of 2007
more than two years prior to environmental or socioeconomic impact assessment. This action was in clear violation
of its own laws and procedures as well as those of the international development banks from which it was to seek
funding. Chapter 2 outlined the political and economic context for river basin development in prior decades within the
country, including as a lead-up to the Gibe III project.
The GOE/Salini initiation of construction and after-the-fact impact assessments were done without oversight by its
alleged regulatory agency, the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)a new agency formed under advice from
international aid agencies. Directly responsible to the Prime Ministers ofce, under whose auspices the project had been
initiated, the Authority was incapable of an independent evaluation. The EPA later stated that it had approved the project
and repeated the Executive Ofces insistence that the Gibe III dam is a matter of national priority and urgency.
GOE violations of required procedures notwithstanding, the GOE requested funding from the European Investment
Bank, the World Bank and the African Development Bank for its approximately USD 1.7 billion project. Despite their
long-term and comprehensive support of such developments (see Chap. 2), the GOEs violation of their required procedures
for consideration of funding placed the banks in a difcult position. The situation was particularly problematic since the
Gibe III dam was designed as an important rst phase of plans for an East Africa-wide energy network and industrial
development program.
The banks continued with their means of supporting the dam, however, in multiple ways:
Support for GOE infrastructure projects.

Funding of Ethiopian executive and administrative agencies, including EEPCO which is directly in charge of the project.
Direct funding for protection of basic servicesa highly fungible type of funding that is directed to the lower Omo
basin, among other areas of Ethiopia.
Funding for construction of a major transmission line (primarily by the World Bank and the AFDB) for electricity export
from Ethiopia to Kenya as part of the initiation of a multi-billion dollar energy highway system for eastern Africa, the
EAPP. Despite declaimers The Gibe III would clearly contribute to this power export system.
The transmission linein handling electricity from the overwhelmingly largest source of power in the Ethiopian
regionthe Gibe III damhas cumulative effects with the hydrodam and therefore must be included in any impact
assessment, including of the transmission line itself. No such comprehensive assessment was produced by the
development banks, nor by the GOE.
EEPCO released the reports from both contracted rms in 2009. The agency released an ESIA for the dam project
area in January of that year: Gibe III Hydroelectric Project, Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (GOE
2009a). This report was prepared by the Italy based global consulting rms, Centro Electrotecnico Sperimentale Italiano S.p.
A (CESI)/Mid-Day International Consulting Engineerscompanies with longstanding connections to both the GOE and
Salini. Scoping stipulations in CESIs contract, however, limited this environmental and socioeconomic impact assessment
(ESIA) to the area proximal to the dam and the impound area for the reservoir. This GOE assessment effectively dismissed
the possibility of serious downstream environmental and social concerns as a consequence of the Gibe III dam.
Launching the Gibe III DamAnd a System of Bias 87
A few of the GOEs caveat statements in its assessment are sufcient to demonstrate its disregard for the downriver impacts
of the damcertainly for the hundreds of thousands of indigenous people residing there, as well as their environs:
There will be negligible impact on livelihood bases of the population.
There are no tribal people in the project area whose traditional lifestyles could become compromised through the
implementation of the proposed hydropower project.
No adverse direct or indirect impacts are anticipated in respect of sensitive habitats.
A second ESIA for the downstream zone from the Gibe III dam was released by the GOE later in 2009. This
assessment is one with extensive major omissions, misrepresentations and fabrications, the dimensions of which are
indicated in Fig. 6.1. Another global consulting rmAgriconsulting of Italy, in association with MDI Consulting
Engineersprepared this assessment, entitled Gibe III Hydroelectric Project: Environmental Impact AssessmentAddi-
tional Study on Downstream Impact (GOE 2009b).1
The omissions, misrepresentations and fabrications indicated in the gure apply to both baseline and empirical information
presented and are detailed in the sections below. They include, for example, the exclusions or gross distortion of:
The transboundary character of the Gibe IIIs impact system, including not only the lower Omo River basin but Kenyas
Lake Turkana region, and the contested Ilemi Triangle Region with the extreme southeastern portion of South Sudan.
Major seismic issues in the Gibe III dam region, including plausible catastrophic destruction from earthquake and
landslide events.
Fundamental hydrologic characteristics of the region, especially the Omo Rivers flow volume and Omo River inflow to
Lake Turkanaand the impacts of their radical reduction from the effects of the Gibe III dam and the large-scale irrigated
agricultural systems planned, the characteristics of multiple watercourses in the lower basin, and the nature of Omo River
flooding patterns.
Hydrologic patterns of Lake Turkana and critical freshwater inflow from the Omo River.
Livelihood systems of pastoral, agropastoral and shing ethnic groups within the lower Omo River basin and around
central and northern Lake Turkana: their customary resource tenure patterns, present economic status, and vulnerability
to radical destruction of their survival systems from river and lake reduction by the Gibe III dam.
The Myth of Flood Disasters as Rationale for Megadam Development
The crisis confronting hundreds of thousands of indigenous peoples struggling to survive along the Omo River and the
shorelines of Lake Turkana is too little flooding, not excessive flooding.
The rush to rationalize the proposed Gibe III dam was starkly evident in the Ethiopian governments reports of
catastrophic losses of human life and property (livestock, particularly) from an alleged Omo River flood disaster
in August of 2006. The GOEs numerous reports and requests for international nancial and material aid for relief efforts
repeatedly declared that at least 3501000 people had drowned (depending on the specic report) and at least 30004000
livestock had been swept away. Hundreds of press releases and declarations from the GOEs information permeated African
and international media.
The GOE has continually asserted that the catastrophic losses of 2006 were just the most recent of such events from the
Omo Rivers alleged excessive and destructive flooding with repeated major losses of human life and livestock. Based
on this fallacious assumption and the complicity of international development agencies and investing corporations, the GOE
proceeded with the clear assumption that the Omo River must be regulated, and that this would occur through Africas
largest hydrodam, the Gibe III. As stated above, construction of Gibe III infrastructure was already underway in 2006,
without any impact assessment.
1
Unless otherwise specied, references to the GOEs environmental and socioeconomic impact assessment (ESIA) refer to the GOEs downstream
impact assessment (GOE 2009b).
Fig. 6.1 Dimensions of invalidity in the Ethiopian governments downstream impact assessment of the Gibe III dam
The Myth of Flood Disasters as Rationale for Megadam Development 89
The GOEs false assertion of disastrous flooding caused by the Omo River is accompanied by its equally false
assertion of excessive evaporation occurring broadly in the region from alleged standing water following overbank
flooding in broad plains adjacent to the riverwith lost waters that would be recovered following Gibe III dam
construction. Two related assertions repeatedly made by the GOE are false.
Firstly, regulation of the Omo River is necessary, making the Gibe III dam an imperative. In fact, no such disastrous
floods have occurred, so there is no imperative for major dam construction.
Secondly, the Gibe III dam will provide recovery of lost waters from excessive floodingcompensating for the
radical reduction of Omo River flow volume caused by the dam. In fact, only relatively small isolated pockets of standing
water occur, including from seasonal rainy periods.2
The GOE maintained strict control over the reporting of the alleged flood disaster and information available to represen-
tatives from a host of national governments, international relief and development agencies, and private foundations per-
sonnel visiting the region. Visitors were situated in Omorate (where the police station and some other structures in the
20-year-old frontier town were flooded)tens of kilometers upstream from the alleged devastationwhere they were
instructed by the GOE in the gravity of the crisis and the urgent need for substantial funds and supplies from international
donors. For some, fly-overs were arranged for an aerial view of what were, in fact, swollen waters in the active Omo delta
region and the Omo Rivers terminus at Lake Turkana.3 Inquiring visitors were told that the absence of visible dead bodies
could be explained by the fact that they had floated down the river and into Kenyas Lake Turkana. No explanation was
offered for the absence of reports of such dead bodies or carcasses around Lake Turkana.
Hundreds of media reports repeated the same GOE newswith no tolerance of dissenting views. In fact, when an
Ethiopian non-governmental organization based in the Omo delta region publicly stated the absence of human life loss, it
was quickly removed from the region and its agricultural aid work was discontinued.
The GOEs misrepresentation of the Omos annual flood rests on its false assumption that massive flood waters spread
throughout the plains extending east and west from the river, and upstream from the modern Omo delta.
There was no calamitous flood in 2006nor have there been repeated disastrous floods, as overbank flooding by the
Omo River occurs only within the active (modern) delta and along the deltas northernmost limit. This fact is
repeatedly misrepresented by the GOE in its general statements as well as its environmental impact assessments. The
absence of such flooding is clear from both abundant satellite data and accounts by indigenous community leaders
throughout the so-called flood disaster zone.
Omo flooding does not occur in what are in fact relict, or ancient, floodplains lateral to the river upstream from the active
delta. ARWG physical scientists estimate these relict floodplains to be at least 10,000 years old. Dasanech elders also
reported that according to their oral history, these lands have not flooded in recent memory. General eld observation and
detailed eld-based studies of soil and vegetation characteristics in these broad relict floodplainsincluding by this writer
and other ARWG researchershave yielded no evidence of overbank flooding.4
Large portions of the Omo delta have emergent vegetation that appears in satellite photos during the highest portion of the
flood. The submerged island described in multiple Ethiopian press releases is an area that was emergent only in recent
years, as the delta has expanded into Kenyas Lake Turkana. Its elevation is about 363 m, so it would normally be flooded
2
The flooding apparent in the highly saline depression of Sandersons Gulf (see Chap. 7 maps) indicated in the USDA satellite photosis most
likely from an ephemeral watercourse, the Kibish River(see Fig. 1.1). Alternatively, a backup of water from the Omos terminus could have
produced these waters.
3
The Ethiopian head of state, the late Meles Zenawi, made a high prole stop-over in the delta region, underscoring the GOEs reports of
calamity in the region.
4
Overbank flooding is a distinctly different phenomenon from small breaks in the natural levee at a few points, allowing movement of Omo waters
at flood stage into small locales here and there behind the levee. This writer has spent weeks in these flats conducting soil and vegetation transects,
as well as conducted helicopter reconnaissance throughout the region.
when the lake reaches that elevation. Rather than spreading beyond the active Omo delta, the flood extended only into the
northern edges of the active delta and the basin-like depression west of the Omo River, known as Sandersons Gulf (referred
to as berar by the Dasanech). The U.S. Department of Agriculture satellite photos (Fig. 6.2) substantiate this assertion, as do
NASA photos from the same period.
Even the actively flooded Omo delta did not undergo the destruction claimed by the GOE. The raging waters
described by the GOE to the media, for example, are fully contradicted by both Turkana and Dasanech shers accounts.
Dasanech and Turkana elders interviewed by this writer and other SONT researchers gave accounts of the 2006 flood and
those of prior years that are contrary to those of the GOE. SONT interviewed community elders from multiple locales in the
alleged flood crisis zone, including: (i) the interior of the Omo delta, (ii) the west bank of the lowermost Omo River,
(iii) Todenyang/Lowarengak villages at the extreme northwestern Lake Turkana shoreline, (iv) the Ileret region at the
northeastern extreme of the lake, and (v) Fergusons Gulf (Fig. 1.3).
The Turkana and Dasanech elders consistently described annual Omo floodsand the 2006 flood in particularin the
following terms:
The August 2006 Omo River flood was extraordinarily large, but not destructive of human life and livestock as the GOE
had portrayed it. The impacts described by indigenous residents in the Omo delta and along the northernmost shores of
Lake Turkana (excluding those in the service of the government) consistently described the flood as very large but not
destructivein fact, useful for their multiplicity of economic activities in ensuing months.5 The flood was not given a
special name by the Dasanech or the Turkana: a clear indication that they did not regard the flood as a crisis.
Large proportions of both ethnic groups have recently been forced by their radically declining pastoral lives to relocate to
the river or the lake, where they have brought their remaining livestock for last option grazing and watering and where
they have often taken up recession agriculture (along the Omo) or shing, or both. They share major dependence on the
annual Omo River flood whose inflow of freshwater sustains Lake Turkana and the shery upon which they depend for
their survival. The Dasanech term for big Omo floodwar gudohais entirely positive for them.
The crisis that all riverside and northern lakeshore communities face is too little flooding, not excessive flooding. They
regard the Ethiopian government to have brought crisis to their areanot the Omo River.
Table 6.1 summarizes the flood history as reported to SONT by 25 Turkana and Dasanech elders from villages in the modern
delta region and along Lake Turkanas northwestern shoreline, who universally described the loss of human life and
livestock during the 2006 flood as extremely smallranging from 4 to 10 people lost and 590 cattle lost. Individual cases
of humans or cattle lives lost were well known among villagers,underscoring these events as special or news to
villagers. When told of the GOEs estimates of lost people and livestock, all informants were either angry or scoffed at such
accounts.
The 2006 flood waters were not even strong enough at the mouth of the Omo River to cause many shers to cease shing or
suffer damage to their nets and other equipment during the approximately ten day high flood waters. Villagers near the
rivers terminus at the lakefor example, at Lopeleledescribe continued active shing by both Turkana and Dasanech at
the time. They also described the Ethio-Fisheries Corporation as remaining in the main channel for shing during the flood.
In other words, all three groups of shers continued their activity throughout the floods duration, while agriculturalists and
pastoralists moved laterally from the river to await its return to a lower level.
Crops were submerged, but this was universally described as an exception from the predominant experience over many
years of Omo flooding, with success in recession agriculture when they were fortunate enough to receive enough water.
5
Individuals typically functioning in service to the government include church missionaries, both the Hiwot mission in Ethiopia and the Catholic
mission at Todenyang, Kenya. Both are partnered or at least complicit with the GOEs policies toward the indigenous communities and the
establishment of the dam enabled irrigated agriculture along the river. During Sont investigations, both missions were charging local residents for
payment of serviceswindmill use in the case of the Hiwot church and repair of church-installed wells (on traditional Turkana land), in the case of
the Catholic diocese.
Fig. 6.2 Satellite images before and after the August 2006 Omo River flood. The photos indicate only limited areas of flooding near the Omo
River and Lake Turkana, not massive scale flooding as described by the GOE. Source U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
One common account among residents was similar to that of one well-known Dasanech man considered to have a
problem, because of two dead cowsone black adult cow and one calf. The health clinics at Loyere and Toltale along
the Omo also took on water, with some boxes of medicines, biscuits and other materials carried away. That is all, local
elders stated.
Residents reported that the GOE made a powerful show of force in military terms during the flood, particularly when
Ethiopias Prime Minister visited the area. Locals described the arrival of many engine boats, moving only a few
people who wanted to be transported. Villagers generally knew to move away from the river with their livestock during
floods. No reliable estimates exist for the population that actually moved, but elders estimate that no more than 6000
8000 people were involved.
Villagers with social ties to villages along the Omos west bank moved thereespecially to Attala, Kalama, Kipercheria,
and Bokom village areas.6 Other Dasanech in the delta went to the east bank of the river, including to Afor (Afewerk) and
Kapusielocales south of Omorate where international observers were based. A small number of these new settlements
Many of these Dasanech had to flee Atalago the following year, due to hostilities with the Turkana.
6
Table 6.1 Recent Omo River flood history from a SONT 2009 survey of village elders
Elders interviewed were from Dasanech villages within the Omo delta and Turkana villages along Lake Turkanas northwestern shoreline.
2009 survey of western omo delta and northwestern Turkana villagers regarding recent flood history (25 respondents) (Terminology used by
SONT interviewers and by respondents are retained in this table)
were perpetuated after the flood. Some of the newly settled villagers were incorporated as paid labor on government farms,
while others attempted to survive on their own or migrated back into the delta region or off to the east bank of the Omo.
Those Dasanech who moved out of the active delta region as the Omo waters rose planned to return to their replenished
lands when the waters subsided, as usual. However, many were blocked by the Ethiopian government from doing so.
Invalidity of the Ethiopian Governments Downstream Impact Assessment
A small selection of prominent statements in the GOEs downstream impact assessment (GOE 2009b) illustrates the
major failures of the downstream assessment. These issues referenced here are addressed below.
(i) Seismic Risk.

GOE Statements:
While the Gibe III dam is located in Ethiopia, in the vicinity (about 70 km) of the eastern branch of the East African rift
system the entire area interested in the project, according to the Level 1 Design Geological Report, doesnt show any
evidences of present existing seismic activity.
There are no conrmed occurrences of geothermal activity in dam area and because of its distance from the major
Ethiopia seismic centres, located in the rift valley; any tectonical [sic] event will have negligible effects on the project
area.
False. Historical records and current geophysical information freely available in the public domain do not support
these statements. As Chap. 3 details, there is a 20 % chance of a 7 or 8 earthquake within the Gibe III dam region within the
next fty years, and there has been signicant seismic activity within the correct geographic unit of concern, as established
by international standards. Moreover, there is clear evidence that earthquakes of a magnitude greater than 5, accompanied by
a long series of foreshocks and aftershocks, have been related to reservoir impounding.
To repeat the statement by an ARWG geologist researching volcanics in river basins for several decades:
In the case of Vaiont, Italy, accelerated mass movement displaced water in the reservoir, the water overtopped the dam,
and a 226-foot wall of water drowned some 26003000 people downstream along the Piave River. Such an event in the
Omo would obviously affect a great many more people, most likely tens or hundreds of thousands of people.
(ii) Elimination of Drought Risk.

GOE Statements:
The main benecial impacts of the Gibe III reservoir operation on the downstream hydrological regime are, therefore,
as follows: Reduction of the extended drought periods (as the 19861987 ones). The [Gibe III] plant will allow the
complete regulation of the river flows reducing the highest peak floods and avoiding extended drought periods
[Articial floods] nearby Lake Turkana will be similar therefore to the monthly average flows of August/September
during the dry years thus avoiding any critical drought event.
Floods that occurred in 2006 (with return period of less than 10 years) caused destructive effects on human and
animal life, private assets and public infrastructure in the river delta, while the extended drought[s] period 19861987
originated a famine crisis for humans and wildlife. The [Gibe III] plant will allow the complete regulation of the river
flows reducing the highest peak floods and avoiding extended drought periods by means of: The reservoir live
capacity of 12,300 mm3 (Comparable to the mean annual inflow volume of 13,800 mm3)
Increase in the Omo Rivers flow volume during the dry season (by dam engineers, following the construction of the
dam), will alleviate the severe drought and associated overgrazing conditions in the lower basin.
False. Droughts are the result of lack of rainfall, not river flow volume. There is no causal relationship between volume
of river flow during the dry (or wet) season, on the one hand, and drought conditions within the extensive rangelands of the
lower Omo basin on the other. The EIAs assertion that there would be a carefully regulated flow that would alleviate grazing
conditions is also unfounded. Overgrazing results from a complex of changes, including territorial restriction of indigenous
groups, causing overcrowding of livestock. The reverse is overwhelmingly likely to occur: precipitous drop in river flow
would radically reduce available pasturage and browse near the river and force major overgrazing and even worse hunger
conditions throughout the region. The following chapters detail these issues.
(iii) Kenyas Lake Turkana Level.

GOE statement:
The Gibe III dam will stabilize, not lower, the present level of Lake Turkana. No appreciable drop in lake level or
constitution will result from the dams construction.
False. Dam completion, reservoir lling and early dam operation, would produce a substantial drop in the level of
Lake Turkanaby ARWG scientists estimate, at least 7 m within 5 yearsor about a 60 % reduction of flow
volume; higher estimates extend to anywhere from 10 to more than 20 m. A 24 m drop in the lake level, calculated
purely from the volume of water required for reservoir ll, is improbable, in view of:
The high frequency of ssures in the basalts at the reservoir, with major potential seepage from the reservoir (which
would take decades or longer to reach Lake Turkana) and
Major abstraction of water for planned large-scale irrigated commercial agriculture and industrial development.
(iv) Excessive Flooding and Evaporation.
The GOEs ESIA makes more than fty references to alleged repetitively occurring destructive floods, including the
supposedly disastrous flood of 2006. Its statements include:
Large and sudden floods (peak flows up to 5200 m3/s, return period 30 years, Gibe III site). Floods occurred in 2006 (with
return period of less than ten years) caused destructive effects on human and animal life, private assets and public
infrastructure in the river delta while the extended droughts [sic] period 19861987 originated a famine crisis for humans
and wildlife.
Huge evaporation losses as a consequence of excessive, uncontrolled flooding [of the Omo river] further contribute to the
current recession of Lake Turkana.
Omo River overflow into the extensive adjacent floodplains, resulting in excessive evaporation, has caused the recent
drop in the level of Lake Turkana and deprivation of vital waters for recessional cultivation.
The Gibe III dam will provide for recovery of these waters, thus compensating for much of the river flow volume
decrease during reservoir lling.
The long-term benets [of the Gibe III dam] will include the reduction of the unproductive evaporation losses taking
place in the floodplains after the floods retreat. These losses largely exceed the expected total evaporation from the
proposed Gibe-3 reservoir.
The Omo River, in fact, provides over 80 % of the lake water resources. By retaining the unproductive runoff surplus
of the extreme high-flow years in the reservoir, and releasing it in the extreme low-flow years, the dam will secure an
overall increased inflow to the Lake.
False. There is no excessive flooding or excessive evaporation in the floodplains, as these broad mudflats are
relict, not active floodplainsthus, there are no such benets of the Gibe III dam. There is no such cause of the recent
drop in the level of Lake Turkana, nor is there any withholding of waters from cultivated lands. Flooding has never been
controlled, yet Lake Turkana has risen and fallen signicantly in the past fty years; the floodplain has played no role in the
lowering of Lake Turkana. The sharp drop in lake levels in recent years results from reduced precipitation in the large upper
Omo basin (more than 200,000 km2). As detailed in the next section, there has been only one major flood within the past
fty yearsin 2006and this flood was not a disaster for humans or livestock.
Invalidity of the Ethiopian Governments Downstream Impact Assessment 95
(v) Indigenous Rationality of Resource Use.

GOE statement:
In fact, technicalities and relevant characteristics, potentials and constraints of practiced Agriculture, Animal Hus-
bandry and Grazing, and Fisheries have evidentiated [sic]a largely backward and primitive concept of land use, in
which natural resources are being utilized at will without much regard being paid to ensure any sustainability to
the utilization process, in most cases simply exploiting the resource to the best of individual capabilities, given the
numerous formidable constraints in terms of adverse environmental conditions in which human beings are forced to
dwell. [Emphasis added]
False. The indigenous communities in the lower Omo basin have evolved highly adaptive and effective strategies for
coping with some of the most difcult environmental conditions on the earth. These strategies became increasingly more
difcult to implement, as powerful colonial and post-colonial economic and political forces caused dispossession and
marginalization within the region. The above statement by the GOE reveals its extreme level of ignorance of the indigenous
socioeconomic systems where at will use of resources and disregard of sustainability to the utilization process are
completely antithetical to their centuries old traditional resource understanding and practice.
(vi) Riverine Forest and Forest Indigenous Livelihood.

The riverine forest in the lowermost portion of the Omo River is a critical settlement area and the source of livelihood
for thousands of indigenous peoplesprimarily the Nyangatom, Kara and Dasanech (see Chap. 8). The GOE document
falsely represents the forest as: (i) not of unique value, since [it is] the same as the highland riverine forest, whereas
the lowland riverine forest is entirely distinct from the higher altitude forest system, and it is therefore signicant in
Ethiopias natural diversity; (ii) stressed by overbank flooding by the Omo River, when no such flooding occurs
upstream from the modern (active) Omo delta and its northern perimeter (Figs. 1 and 3), and (iii) benetting from
Gibe III regulation of the river. For example, it states:
The herbaceous stratum will also benet from more limited flooding, increasing its photosynthesis activity and
establishing itself on the river banks down to the river stabilized water level, thus contributing to limit riverbank
erosion and ltering sediments reaching the river from the interior.
False. In reality, the opposite of all three assertions is true for this last pristine riverine forest in semi-arid Africa, with
its uniquely undisturbed vegetation and rich fauna, which would be destroyed by the Gibe III dam and associated
agricultural development. There is no evidence for overbank flooding, let alone prolonged submersion of the forest. The
riverine forest is described earlier to include a complex flora and ecology described by this writer (Carr 1977, 1998, 2012)
and large fauna including leopard, elephant, buffalo, kuku, monitor lizards, at least three primate species and remarkably rich
bird life. Instead the forest and woodland vegetation is adapted to and depends on soil water retention during the Omo
Rivers annual flood for its survival. Far from benetting, the forest would be destroyed by the elimination of annual Omo
high waters during the flood period since the shallow rooted forest and woodland trees are wholly dependent on soil water
retention (termed residence time) in natural levee soils for their survival (see Chap. 8). With the destruction of this forest
environment, the livelihoods of thousands of riverine dwelling indigenous residents would be dismantled.
Table 6.2 summarizes key failures of the GOE downstream assessment (GOE 2009b) for the region most impacted by the
Gibe III.
Table 6.2 Dimensions of invalidity of the Ethiopian governments environmental and social impact assessment (GOE 2009b)
INVALIDITY OF ETHIOPIAN GOVERNMENT ASSESSMENT OF GIBE III DAM

IMPACTS ON TRANSBOUNDARY INDIGENOUS PEOPLES & ENVIRONMENTS
ASSESSMENT MAJOR ETHIOPIAN GOVERNMENT (GOE) ASSESSMENT FAILURES:

COMPONENT (Omission, Misrepresentation, Fabrication)
Omission, Misrepresentation
1 Transboundary impact Full-scale disregard for transboundary social and environmental impacts of the Gibe III dam and associated irrigation
system assessment: agricultural enterprises.
(Ethiopia, Kenya,
Ilemi/South Sudan).
Omission of impacts of Omo River radical flow reduction on more than 100,000 indigenous (including Nyangatom,
Kara and Dasanech) livelihood systems along the lowermost Omo and within the modern Omo delta, as well as on the
300,000 indigenous population living along Kenya's Lake Turkana in the transboundary zone. All face massive scale
hunger, or starvation.
Disregard for Kenyan sovereignty over Lake Turkana's northern shoreline zone and a significant portion of the Omo
delta; expansion of the delta since the 1970s brought the Omo River terminus and much of the modern delta within
Kenyan national borders.
Omission of impacts on pastoralists of northern Kenyan and the Ilemi Triangle/South Sudan, due to loss of river-based
resources essential to their survival particularly during prolonged drought periods.
Omission of above changes causing major increase in cross-border interethnic armed conflict and destabilization, as
pastoral, agropastoral and fishing groups compete for disappearing riverine, lake and adjoining grassland resources.
2 Seismic Risk at the Gibe
III dam: Earthquake,
Misrepresentation of appropriate geographic unit for seismic analysis (identified by U.N., Ethiopian, USGS and BGS
landslide, dam collapse seismic offices). False claims of "no serious threat," despite a 20 percent probability of a 7 or 8 (Mercalli) intensity
threat. earthquake in the Gibe III dam region within the next 50 years, and plausible dam disaster occurrence with
landslide events.
Omission of available data (e.g., literature, satellite images) indicating frequent major seismic events in the Gibe III
dam locality's geologically defined province. Dismissal of landslide danger, including potential danger of threat to
the dam's integrity. ARWG geologists point to the steep rock faces of the reservoir walls in the gorge, additional
landslide potential from saturation of the volcanic rocks, and seismically induced instability.
Misrepresentation of sediment buildup danger as "not affecting the life capacity of the reservoir before 130 years,"
despite counter assessment that sediment accumulation capacity would reached within a few years, with dam failure.
3 Baseline data for Omo Omission, Misrepresentation

River downstream flow
volume & Omo River Failure to establish baseline data/measurements for Omo River downstream flow volume, with projections of
inflow to Lake Turkana. 'mean flow, instead of direct measurement of Omo flow in the lowermost basin and the river's inflow to Lake
Turkana.
Invalid projections of existing river flow volume for both downstream zone and inflow to Lake Turkana based on
incorrect/misrepresented data regarding precipitation and geomorphic characteristics of lower Omo basin,
including:
(i) Incorrectly identified precipitation regime for rainfall projections between the dam region and the lower Omo
basin);
(ii) False representation of watercourses as Omo River 'tributaries' and thus 'alternative' sources of inflow prior
to the main Omo channel, whereas these channels are not tributaries, as they dissipate prior to intersecting the
Omo River (or Lake Turkana).
(iii) Misrepresentation of the ephemeral Kibish River (Fig. 1.3) as flowing
into Lake Turkana, whereas the Kibish dissipates in a large depression (Sanderson's Gulf) northwest of Lake
Turkana.
Impacts on Inflow from Omission, Misrepresentation, Fabrication
4 Omo River to Lake
Turkana: reduction
Misrepresentation of major components of Omo River inflow to Lake Turkana, based on above failures.
from Gibe III. Fabrication of extensive and repeated Omo flooding, with 'lost' waters otherwise available to sustain Lake Turkana
whereas, in fact, these vast lands referred to are relict (ancient) floodplains not flooded for thousands of years.
Fabrication (based on the above false assertion) of 'excessive evaporation' and vast floodwaters that are
'recoverable' by river regulation (the Gibe III dam) allegedly contributing to the sustainment of Lake Turkana.
Since there are no such waters, there would be no such 'recovery' or sustainment.
Excessive vs. insufficient Fabrication
5 Omo River flooding re:
human life, livestock,
Fabrication of frequent 'uncontrolled flood ' 'highly destructive' of human life and livestock. By GOE accounts,
and habitat. 360 to 900 people drowned, and more than 3000 livestock were destroyed in the 2006 flood. To the contrary,
local elders reported very little loss of human life through drowning (fewer than 10 people and fewer
than 100 livestock, mostly those mired in mud). Satellite data supports local accounts of the 2006 flood. No
such destructive floods as described by the GOE are experienced by the regions indigenous groups.
Residents throughout the lowermost Omo basin/modern Omo delta and northern Lake Turkana shoreline
region insist that the worst problem they face with the Omo River is too little flooding, rather than excessive
flooding.
(continued)
Invalidity of the Ethiopian Governments Downstream Impact Assessment 97
Table 6.2 (continued)
6 Projected Gibe III
reservoir 'filling' period
GOE exclusion of readily available geological literature and field-based information indicating highly fractured
and factors impacts on basalts and other volcanic rocks at the Gibe III dam/reservoir site indicating a high probability of major water
downstream and Lake seepage from the reservoir into fractured rocks, with a major extension of 'filling' period, with sustained radically
Turkana people and reduced Omo flow.
resources. Misrepresentation of water movement in the region - re: seepage water 'returning' to Lake Turkana "in any case"
whereas the alleged 'migration' of seepage waters would require decades, if not a century or more.
Baseline data for Omission, Misrepresentation, Fabrication

7 indigenous livelihood
systems (pastoral, agro-
Omission of available information and investigation of the livelihood dynamics of indigenous groups in the lower
pastoral and fishing) Omo basin; total omission of information regarding indigenous residents around Kenya's Lake Turkana.1 The
failed dimensions of assessment include:
(i) The dynamics of pastoral, agropastoral and fishing livelihood systems.
(ii) The natural resource dependencies of these economies on Omo River and Lake Turkana waters (livestock
raising, recession agriculture and fishing).
(iii) Recent changes in livelihood systems and the causes for these changes.
(iv) Current status (including malnutrition and disease) and key stresses on survival systems.
(v) Exclusion of the content of available literature concerning the ethnic groups and economies in the lower Omo
basin - including Turton, Carr, Almagor, Tornay and Abbink, among others. (Some of this literature is referenced
in the GOEs bibliography but its content is essentially excluded from consideration.)
(vi) Overall extreme vulnerability of indigenous economies to the major resource losses predictable for the
Gibe III dam.
Omission of plans for GOE eviction of tens of thousands of indigenous residents along the lower Omo River in order
to establish private and government irrigated commercial agriculture and major physical infrastructure (e.g.,
irrigation canals, commercial facilities). No account of the impacts of widespread expropriation, evictions
and major infrastructure construction on indigenous survival systems within the lower Omo basin.
Omission of the impacts of large-scale irrigation agricultural development: to indefinitely prolong the radical
reduction of Omo River flow volume and Omo River inflow to Lake Turkana, in turn causing major scale Lake
Turkana retreat and destruction of its fisheries, along with Omo River channel incision and cessation of annual
flooding of grazing and recession agricultural lands.
Fabricated Ethiopian government demographical data and other socioeconomic information incorporated into a
report.2
Fabrication of quantitative data for ethnic groups (demographic, livestock populations, other livelihood
particulars). Quantitative projections from landsat/satellite materials with little if any bearing on actual conditions.
Fabrication of 'planned' agricultural and social development 'for' indigenous communities whereas, in fact, they are
being evicted by the thousands from riverine lands.
Flood recession Omission, Misrepresentation

8 Agriculture: impact
from the radical river
Omission of all information regarding the direct dependence of lower Omo basin indigenous communities
flow reduction on flood recession agriculture as well as information regarding the dependence of tens of thousands of other
indigenous peoples on regional exchange relations involving agricultural produce, particularly as the pastoral
economies of all ethnic groups continue to decline.
Failure to describe accurately the locations, cropping patterns, water requirements and other specifics of flood recession
agricultural production, both along the Omo River's waterside flats and throughout much of the active Omo delta.
As a consequence of the above failures, inability to establish any assessment of the impacts of radical Omo
River flow reduction caused by the Gibe III dam and dam enabled irrigation on this mainstay food source.
Omission of flow reduction issue, northern shoreline retreat of Lake Turkana into Kenya and desiccation of the
lowermost Omo flats and delta thus eliminating flood recession agriculture in the lowermost Omo basin
(and riverine zone last resort grazing for livestock).
Fabrication of the practice of rainfed agriculture occurrence in the Lower Basin (this practice is not possible to have
observed because it does not occur, due to limited rainfall).
Artisanal fishing in Omission, Misrepresentation

9 River and delta:
Impacts of Omo River
Failure to detail and evaluate the importance of fishing - the last resort food source for tens of thousands of
flow volume indigenous people in the lower Omo basin -primarily (but not only) among the Dasanech. Consequently,
reduction failure to establish a baseline for considering the impacts of the Gibe III on this pervasive and increasing form of
livelihood.
Exclusion of bathymetric and other data (available, but shown by ARWG, the EIB and others to indicate that
the Gibe III would cause southward migration of Lake Turkana's northern shoreline at least a retreat of 10
kilometers, but likely substantially more due to major Omo water diversion for the GOE-promoted
irrigated commercial agriculture). Critical fish reproductive habitat throughout the northern lake extremity
and delta locales would be destroyed, with elimination of the fishing livelihood as a means of survival throughout
the lower Omo basin (with parallel destruction of fish dependent communities around Lake Turkana).
Omission of the Ethiopian government subsidized private fishing corporations active in the lowermost Omo River,
including the modern delta waters. Major piracy of Kenyan fisheries in Lake Turkana by the well-equipped and
aggressive commercial Ethiopian vessels with the extraction of resources that are essential to both Dasanech
and Turkana fishers and local residents.
Disregard for artisanal fishing in Lake Turkana - the mainstay of survival for upwards of 200,000 indigenous
Kenyans settled around Kenya's lake, as well as those depending on exchange with them (at least an additional
100,000 people).
(continued)
Riverine forest & forest- Omission, Misrepresentation, Fabrication

10 based survival activities
Omission of available data regarding Omo riverine/forest ecology1 (e.g., Carr 1998) and comparative riverine
environments where forest destruction has followed large hydrodam construction.
No apparent field-based investigation of lower Omo basin riverine forests. Erroneous description of the riverine
and woodland vegetation along the lowermost Omo River.
Disregard for the need to consider the Omo riverine forest structure and dependence on the river's flood regime -
thus its vulnerability to destruction from Gibe III development, as has occurred in all other Sub-Saharan Africa
semi-arid environments with riverine forest development.
Fabrication of overbank floods in riverine forests: no field evidence for such exists. In order to be sustained,
riverine forests require particular 'residence times' of water retention in natural levee soils during the Omo Rivers
annual flood.
No account of livelihood activities in riverine forest (food gathering, hunting, and bee-keeping) critical to the
survival of the most impoverished indigenous communities (Nyangatom, Dasanech and Kara) and tens of
thousands of additional pastoralists who depend on riverine environments for their own and their herds' survival
during prolonged drought. All would be eliminated by radical river flow volume reduction from the Gibe III dam.
Omission of the GOE's major eviction of indigenous communities along the Omo River for clearing of the forest,
construction of canal and irrigation systems and the establishment of large-scale commercial irrigation farms.
Artificial flood: Omission, Misrepresentation, Fabrication

11 efficacy of GOE
'assurances' to sustain
Misrepresentation of GOE's 'planned' artificial flood program as calculated from adequate measures of downstream
downstream ecological river flow volume and lake inflow, when no such measurements have been taken.
and indigenous Misrepresentation of GOE 'planned' (but elsewhere disclaimed) artificial flooding as "sufficient" to sustain
economies downstream ecological systems as well as to mitigate problems that might occur for indigenous economies
as a consequence of sharply reduced river flow volume. Calculations used by the GOE to bolster its assertion of
effective mitigation are shown to be erroneous by the EIB, the Africa Resources Working Group (ARWG) and others.
Omission of the fundamental conflict between the GOE's key objective generating hydroelectric power
at the Gibe III dam and that of releasing water to sustain downstream indigenous communities and their environments.
Fabrication of a GOE plan to undertake controlled flooding along with agricultural development, for the 'benefit' of
indigenous communities, whereas a GOE program of widespread eviction and privatization of indigenous lands, is
well underway.
L. Turkana shoreline & Omission, Misrepresentation

littoral/nearshore zone Omitted from any impact consideration, since GOE denies any significant impact will occur for the level of Lake Turkana
12 impacts (physical, from the Gibe III dam.
biological) of the Gibe
III dam.
Armed conflict and Omission

13 crisis in the While the GOE is fully engaged in trying to quell small scale but mounting armed conflict among ethnic groups in the
transboundary region. broader region, and neither supports or permits various peace initiatives in the region, the GOE assessment indicates no
cognizance whatsoever of the rising armed conflict, - conflict that would move to explosive proportions in a far broader
region if the Gibe III is completed, since hundreds of thousands of indigenous people would be facing the devastation of
their communities from the loss of the Omo River. The 2006 flood, rather than spreading beyond the active Omo delta,
extended only into the northern edges of the active delta and the basin-like depression west of the Omo River, known as
Sandersons Gulf (referred to as berar by the Dasanech). The U.S. Department of Agriculture satellite photos (Fig. 6.2)
substantiate this assertion, as do NASA photos from the same period.
Dasanech and Turkana male villagers strongly assert that when faced with the deaths of their women, children, and
youngsters to hunger and disease they will fight for their survival.
Environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA)additional study on downstream impact

a
Villagers (Dasanech) throughout the west bank communities along the Omo River and within both middle and upper portions of the active Omo
delta reported to SONT researchers that no individuals from the government or other agency had interviewed or questioned them about their
resident populations, settlement patterns, livelihood activities (livestock raising, recession agriculture, shing activities), or their major resource
needs. Respondents described only police and government personnel taking action to move them or evict them altogether (with employment of
only a few individuals), or government/outsider presence to investigate an instance of armed conflict, most frequently with the Turkana (or
Nyangatom)
b
One non-indigenous member of the governmental ofce stated to this writer that he himself had lled out government questionnaire forms for
the local Dasanech population
c
For details of the lower Omo basin riverine forest/woodland floristics and vegetation (see Carr 1998); some summary characteristics are presented
below
The False Promise of an Artificial Flood Solution 99
The False Promise of an Artificial Flood Solution

The GOEs stated plan to begin releasing reservoir waters annually as articial flood (also termed controlled
flood or simulated flood) forms the centerpiece of its alleged mitigation program following the operation of the
Gibe III dam (GOE 2009b), which the government acknowledges wouls cause a 6070 % reduction of Omo River
flow volume. The gap between the rhetoric of the GOEs publically announced program and the reality of its actual
intentions and the economic and political constraints on such a program, however, is extreme.
There is an effectively unblemished record of failure to implement articial flood programs in major hydrodam
development within Sub-Saharan Africa, despite government and development agency assurances. These failures
include the Pongolapoortone of the largest dams in South Africa, the Cahora Bassa dam in Mozambique, the Iteshi Teshi
dam in Zambia, and the Manatali dam in Senegal. The Manatali Dam in Senegal is often cited as an exception to the rule of
failed articial flood programs. But even it was short-lived and ended in failure.
Assurances by governments and development agencies of planned articial flood programs are not difcult to interpret, since
large dams have produced such an abysmal record of downstream problems for indigenous communities and non-indigenous
small-holders, as well as the environments upon which their livelihoods depend. Such promises of mitigation programs have
served as a cornerstone for the argument that although large dams are flawed, they remain necessary for economic
development within Africa and elsewhere in developing countries.
There are clear economic and reasons for the record of failure of these programs.
For one thing, there is a clear contradiction between management of large dams for the maximization of power
generation, on the one hand, and management geared to sustaining downstream livelihoods and riverine envi-
ronments, on the other. This is evident enough in the case of Senegalese floodplain livelihoods that were sustained by
the rivers annual flood for centuriesuntil international nance and the Senegalese government constructed the
Manatali. A report to the World Bank described the severe impacts of the Manatali dam on the regional ecology,
agricultural production, sheries and public health in the downstream zone. The report, by Thomas and DiFrancesco
(2009) points out that inundating the floodplain below the dam:
does require that some amount of power deliveries and revenues be foregone, as well as storage for irrigation
purposes in subsequent drier years. [Articial] flood releases appear to have been provided only on those rare
occasions when they do not result in a reduction in power revenues or irrigation deliveries. They have occurred only
when the flood water could not be retained in storage in order to avoid the risks of overtopping the reservoir and creating
a safety hazard. [Emphasis added]
A newly formed agency, the OMVS (Organization pour la Mise en Valeurdu Fleuve Senegal), was charged with imple-
menting a downstream articial flood. In order to provide the intended 2000 m3/s release of floodwaters (an amount double
that assured by the GOE for the GIBE III project). The Thomas and DiFrancesco report to the World also stated:
the necessity to release water from the sluice gate and bypass the generator, requiring the OMVS members to forego
some amount of potential hydropower generation and revenues. Thus, there remains a serious economic constraint in
order to operationalize the Charters commitment to optimal annual articial flood releasesAs a consequence of these
enduring trade-offs, the Water Charter, and the Operational Manual do not [sic] guarantee that the articial flood will
be provided in the magnitude and frequency that the floodplain needsThis decision is also likely to be influenced by
economic and political considerations.
[Emphasis added]
The massive scale capital outlaystypically, loans to be repaid, with interest and feesnecessitate maximizing nancial
return from dam operations. In Africaespecially in dryland regionsthis objective is hardly met by prioritizing the
subsistence needs of pastoralists, agropastoralists and small-scale shers in the downstream zone, compared with providing
electricity for high energy demand industrial enterprises, whether agricultural, extractive or manufacturing.
Another key constraint on implementing an articial flood program is that rainfall and its related conditions (erosion, land
use, etc.) pertains to the fact that catchment area upstream from major dams are major determinants of reservoir water
potential. Since these conditions fluctuate widely, and in the case of Ethiopia. are largely unpredictable, there is no
possible guarantee of reservoir water release to serve the survival needs of downstream peoples and their environments.
Of many such instances, the Cahora Bassa dam situation provides a good example, as noted by Richard Beilfuss,
hydrologist and present CEO of the International Crane Foundation:
One of the big problems with the management of Cahora Bassa dam is that each year they need to create capacity to
store a possible large flood that could overtop the dam and so in order to do so they often have to release waters
during dry season. Especially in wet years, they have to release waters downstream to make storage capacity
available in the dam and in those dry season floods that have really been a terrible problem for farmers and shers
downstream because they can come at any time of the year. They can come in August or October and they can come
and wash out crops along the lower Zambezi. Its quite a big problem, so not only is there the loss of floods during the
normal time of peak flooding - theres also the potential for floods at any time of year.
There is no evidence to suggest that the Ethiopian government would be the rst African nation to implement an
articial flood program for a large damquite the contrary. GOE spokespeople themselvesincluding the Prime
Minister, EEPCO executives and the General Manager of Ethiopias Environmental Protection Authorityhave asserted the
priority for electrical power generation in the national interest. Even by the most optimistic scenarios set forth by the
GOE, industry consultants and development agencies, such a program would not be feasible for a substantial number of
years, following reservoir ll. But there are direct GOE disclaimers, as well.
There are multiple disclaimers by the GOE of even its intention (or ability) to implement an extended articial flooding
program in its downstream impact assessment (GOE 2009b). These statements are ignored in the 2010 EIB and the AFDB
assessments.
They include the following:
In the event that the annual release is not being implemented as scheduled, some possible adverse impact may occur as
described below.
Further desirable instruments have been considered and may be applied to both integrate the above main measures,
compensate in case planned articial floods are partially withheld due to unforeseen circumstances, and as desirable
condence-building actions to strengthen support of local authorities and populations.
Some of the potential interventions meant to offset possible negative impacts stemming from possible difculties in fully
implementing designed controlled floods as planned.
This may be necessary in case disruption of articial floods may no longer fully contribute, by adequate submersion, to
the rejuvenation of grasses.
In case the annual release does not fully succeed as scheduled, some other compensation measures could be imple-
mented includingconflict prevention and resolution training programs.
Beyond the electrical power allocated for marketing within the national grid system of Ethiopia, the GOE is bound by
contracts for power production for export, a system of contracting fully supported by the international development
banks. As detailed in Chap. 10, the banks and other key aid agencies are in fact engaged in funding the energy highway
system for energy transfer. Moreover, The 2010 EIBs (conservative) estimate of a USD 10 million cost per annum for an
articial flood program conflicts with Ethiopias contracts for export of power and its debt repayment obligations.
Even if the articial flooding plan assured by the GOE were to be actually implemented, it would be wholly
inadequate to provide the flooding necessary for recession agricultural plots, riverside grazing habitat and sus-
tainment of the riverine forestnor would it prevent or compensate for radical retreat of Lake Turkana (see
Chap. 5 and Fig. 5.2). These multi-dimensions of destruction would ensue from the outset of impoundmenta reality
asserted in the 2009 ARWG report and in Carr (2012).
Finally, GOE assurances that its plan for an articial flood program would satisfy downstream environmental and
socioeconomic needs are based on a number of invalid assumptions and calculations. GOE assertions that: (i) its
projections are analytical, (ii) suitable environmental flow and controlled floods have been arranged for, and (iii) the
proposed river hydraulic model and outcomes of the Environmental Monitoring Plan will permit [sic] to optimize the
required controlled flow. All of these assurances are baseless.
The False Promise of an Artificial Flood Solution 101
The EIB stated in its Independent Review that the technical baseline for the estimation of the flood level is extremely
limited and further hydrological and hydraulic investigations are necessary. A similar point was made by the report
when it stated, It is actually not possible to evaluate the effectiveness of such a mitigation measure without a scientic
detailed survey which will determine what is required to obtain successful results from flood recession cultivation.
The GOE suggests a suitable environmental flow from which controlled flow calculations have been designed. According
to EEPCO, The proposed river hydraulic model and outcomes of the Environmental Monitoring Plan will permit [it] to
optimize the required controlled flow.
The value proposed is entirely inadequate for sustaining traditional articial flood systems along the rivers waterside flats
and within the modern delta for the indigenous communities continued survival within the lowermost basin, as the EIB
consultant points out and ARWG physical scientists concur. The necessarily strongly increased gure would be would have
to be based on data not yet even collected or analyzed.
Whatever articial floodwaters the GOE would release from the reservoir would be highly compromised if not
entirely consumed by the large-scale irrigated agricultural enterprises downstream. Since the GOE downstream
assessment omits any account of these enterprises it is not possible to accurately assess the abstraction of waters that
would be required for the commercial operations but it is clear that this would be a massive removal of essential flow.
The EIB inadvertently makes this point in labeling the GOEs planned releases from the dam wholly inadequateeven
though the bank assessment omits consideration of abstraction for the irrigated systems. It is striking that the EIB report,
like the 2010 AFDB assessment, ignores the GOEs own disclaimers of a sustained articial flood program (see below).
Finally, articial flooding even minimally sufcient in order to sustain recession agriculture, grazing and sheries
locales downstream would likely be highly destructive for expensive and xed irrigation works along the lower
Omo River. Hundreds of thousands of hectares of large-scale irrigation systems are involved along the lower Omo River
are planned by the GOEmany of which are already under construction (see above chapters and Chap. 7). This point
was rst raised in the main text of the 2010 EIB assessment. This argument against substantial controlled flood releases is
partially responsible for the failure of implementation of promised controlled floods in much of Africa.
In sum, the bare survival of hundreds of thousands of indigenous people would be destroyeda crisis only worsened
by dam-dependent, irrigated agricultural enterprise abstraction of remaining Omo River flow. This major reality is
acknowledged by the EIB (2010) impact assessment, but only obscurely in the reports text while omitted in its
Summary and Conclusion. These points are emphasized in the discussion of development bank assessments below.
Multilateral Development Banks and the Complicity Treadmill
At its core, the relationship between multilateral development banks and the global consulting industry is one of
reciprocity. In return for basic compliance with development bank interests and parameters for impact assessment, global
industry consultants are rewarded with lucrative contracts and favorable status in future bidding processes. This enables the
development banks to maintain relationships with reliable contractors for subsequent projects and simultaneously satisfy
their operational requirements for open bidding and arms length assessment. Meanwhile, the global consulting industry
rms and individuals concerned can maintain their professional standing as independent analystseven among many
non-governmental organizations critics and the concerned public.
This reciprocal relationship amounts to a contract treadmill that can persist for decades. Chapter 1 describes much of the
basis for this treadmill emerging from the progression of institutions and political relations involved in river basin devel-
opment within Ethiopia.7 The connection between development banks, global industry consulting rms and individuals
involves both explicit and implicit agreements, or understandings, regarding boundaries and approaches for impact
7
Similar reciprocal relationships exist between executive ofces of (African) states and major bilateral aid agencies, on the one hand, and global
consulting rms and individuals, on the other.
assessment. Contract Terms of Reference, or Scoping and Bounding specications, set parameters such as geographic
extent and emphasis onor de facto exclusion ofparticular environmental and socioeconomic impact dimensions in
assessments. Implicit understandings are equally important in shaping of assessment content and conclusions, particularly
in capital-intensive projects such as river basin developments.
Together, these explicit and implicit directives lead to assessments by global consulting industry rms and individuals
that provide complicity with commentlending credibility to the assessment process without fundamentally
questioning the projects in question.
Development bank and other policymakers rely on summary sections of assessments, including Executive Summary,
Conclusions, and Recommendations. It is commonplace that policy-makers and their staff policy ofcers and their staff
only peruse main texts of assessments and key reports in order to conrm their apparent empirical character or for some
highly specic purpose. Consequently, brief mention or notation of major problems embedded in the main text of
assessments, are seldom substantively considered. Even problems mentioned in the summary and conclusion sections are
easily passed over unless their signicance is prominently stated.
Global consulting industry representatives commonly downplay impact problems potentially severe enough to merit delay or
halt of the project at hand. Even the most destructive environmental and socioeconomic impacts predictable for a project are
frequently raised only as suggestions for further study or inclusion in alleged mitigation or monitoring efforts. Finally,
consultants acknowledge major impacts inconspicuously in the often highly technical text of assessments but omit or barely
mention in Conclusion or Executive Summary section.
These different means of minimizing negative impacts are pervasive in the GOE, EIB and AFDB assessments of the Gibe III
damas is the avoidance of the contentious issue of dam-enabled major irrigated agricultural enterprises planned, infor-
mation about which was fully accessible to the consultants.8
The European Investment Bank and African Development Bank, while considering requests from GOE for Gibe III
project funding, each contracted long-established global industry consultants for independent impact assessments of
the dam. The EIB extended a contract for a review (EIB 2010) of the GOEs environmental and socioeconomic downstream
assessmentrelating only to Ethiopia. The contract was awarded to the France-based global rm, Sogreah. For its part, the
AFDB limited (by its Terms of Reference) its impact assessment to Kenyas Lake Turkana region, even though it had
previously funded the most recent Master Plan for the Omo basin (Woodroofe and Associates 1996). The AFDB contracted
for two separate impact assessments for the Lake Turkana regionthe most notable of which was for the dams hydrological
impacts on the lake, including its water level and sheries (AFDB 2010).9 This contract was awarded to a former senior
manager and executive for 26 years with the Nairobi-based global rm, Gibb Africa.10 The second assessment was for the
dams socioeconomic impacts (AFDB 2009).
There was no apparent link between the AFDBs environmental (Lake Turkana) and socioeconomic assessments, nor
between these assessments, on the one hand, and lake level drop caused by the Gibe III dam and linked developments, on the
other. The hydrological assessment (AFDB 2010) is by far the one referred to by government and development agencies.
However, the socioeconomic assessment has been largely ignored in policy statements and documentslikely for reasons
outlined below.
Both Sogreah and Gibb Africa (formerly, Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners) had been engaged in Ethiopian river basin
development since the Awash Valley developments in the 1960s. As outlined in Chap. 2, both rms had received contracts
from international development bank and major bilateral agencies for river basin and related water resource development
projects that totaled hundreds of millions of dollars from major aid agencies.
8
As the earlier sections of this chapter detail, downplaying also occurs as straightforward falsication and misrepresentationboth of which are
described above to be pervasive in the GOEs assessment of downstream impacts (GOE 2009b).
9
Unless otherwise specied, the AFDB assessment referred to below is the 2010 AFDB assessment of Gibe III impacts on the hydrological
conditions of Lake Turkana, rather than the 2009 AFDB socioeconomic assessment.
10
Shortly before signing a contract with the AFDB for the hydrological assessment of the Gibe III dam, this consultant joined a new consulting
group of experienced individuals: Nairobi-based Water Resource Associates.
Multilateral Development Banks and the Complicity Treadmill 103
The fragmentation of the Gibe III dam assessments into separate country approaches basically dened away,
by simple Terms of Reference, consideration of the worst impact zone in terms of human lives at risk, namely,
the transboundary region.
There are a number of shared failings of the EIB (2009) and AFDB (2010) assessments. Beyond the longstanding
contract history with development banks and other key aid agencies and the obvious limitations by Scoping agreement with
their client institutions, many of these failings can be traced to an uncritical view of GOE information and perspective or to
the reality that these assessments were primarily desk studies with brief eld trips, rather than substantial eld-based
investigations.11 The key problems include:
Failure to cite inadequate impact assessment parameters as dened in their own Terms of Reference (or
Scoping/Bounding instructions) agreed upon with their respective clientsthe EIB and AFDB.
Failure to analyze the transboundary region, where the most intensive destruction of human life and environment by
the Gibe III dam and associated development would be inflicted.
Discounting of the major seismic threat documented for the Gibe III dam geological province, despite available data
indicating a 20 % chance of a 78 magnitude earthquake within fty years, as detailed in Chap. 3. The EIB and AFDB
assessments do not challenge the GOEs statements (nor those by the company constructing the Gibe III damthe Salini
corporation) that no evidence exists for a signicant seismic threat to the Gibe III dam. Such statements are indefensible
by any scientic reckoning.
The EIB consultants response to the ARWGs 2009 reporting of data in support of serious seismic threat in the dam region
information expanded in this writers subsequent report (Carr 2012)was simply stated as:
Some risk cannot be avoided.

The 2010 AFDB assessment referenced the EIBs stance, with this added suggestion:
It would be sensible for the EIA studies to evaluate the consequence of a dam-break situation, especially as the dam is
being constructed in a seismically active zone and will store a massive volume of water equal to a depth of two meters
on Lake Turkana.
Failure to challenge the Ethiopian governments false assertions of disasters and uncontrolled flooding by the
Omo River, and particularly the GOEs falsication of catastrophic loss of human life and livestock. As described
earlier in this chapter, no such phenomena have occurred.12This major flaw in the assessments is closely related to the
their failure to address the GOEs false assertions of excessive evaporation from overbank flooding by the Omo into
vast floodplainsevaporation of waters that the GOE maintained contribute to the current recession of Lake Turkana,
and waters that would be recovered following the Gibe III dam, thus providing major water to Lake Turkana. In fact,
no such broad flooding of these lands occurs since they are ancient floodplains, as noted earlier.
Acceptance of GOE and Salini (the Gibe IIIs construction rm) assertions of a brief reservoir lling period,
without risk of water seepage leakage from the reservoir (GOE 2009b).13 Without reference to available literature
contrary, the EIB consultant further contends that even if leakage from the reservoir were to occur, it would migrate
back into the Omo basin and flow to Lake Turkana. Despite the obvious major importance of the issue for the hydrologic
impacts of the dam on Lake Turkana, the 2010 AFDB assessment concurs, stating:
11
Like the 1996 AFDB-nanced Master Plan for the whole Omo basin and the AFDB-supported 1990 Master Plan for Ethiopias river basins in
total, the 2010 EIB and AFDB assessments are primarily document studies, with limited eld-based investigation The EIB, for example, reported
11 days eld investigation between the Gibe III dam site and the lowermost end of the Omo basin.
12
The 2010 AFDB consultant later questioned GOE claims of such destruction in two publication for the African Studies Centre at Oxford (Avery
2012, 2013). This point had been made by the ARWG in 2009 and again in = Carr 2012.
13
The GOE (2009a) notes that food aid will be required for just two years, when no flood will occur. No mention is made that adequate floods for
recession agricultural plots would cease.
In 2009, the reservoir area had not yet been studied due to the challenges of access (Salini et al., 300 GEO RSP 002A,
2007). However, studies have since been reported, and Salini remain of the view that there are no appreciable losses
(Pers. Comm. Studio Pietrangeli, 2010). This view has not been disputed by others conducting reviews, such as
Sogreah (Sogreah, 2010), and if there are any losses, the topography dictates that the losses will feed back into the
Basin and will not be lost.
There is ample geological literature and observation in the Gibe III region (see Chap. 3) documenting the highly fractured
volcanic rocks, including basaltsconditions for strong leakage from the reservoir. Furthermore, statements of no loss of
even leaked waters because of movement back into the Omo basin are meaningless certainly from the standpoint of human
life and ecological conditions in the lowermost basin and Lake Turkana. Seepage waters would require multiple decades
perhaps centuries, according to ARWG geologiststo migrate the hundreds of kilometers to the lowermost basin and Lake
Turkana. This re-balancing would obviously have no impact on the human devastation already having occurred.
Agreement with the GOEs (2009b) false statement that a lowering of Lake Turkanas level by 1.8 m during the
reservoir lling period would be insignicant since this decrease in lake level is within the annual fluctuation
of the lake.14 In fact, the drop in lake level would be in addition to, not within, whatever annual fluctuation occurs. Even
the rst two meters of lake level dropwith its corresponding cessation of Omo River flooding of vast areas along the
lowermost river and within the modern deltawould have disastrous impacts on the human communities already facing
major malnutrition and health crises.
It is possible to cite specic EIB and AFDB (2010) assessment patterns that reflect the widespread practice of complicity on
the part of the global consulting industry (GCI) with their client government and development agency institutions. This
complicity takes some particularly common forms, partially noted above.15 They include:
Agreeing to (sometimes even drafting) Terms of Reference (or Scoping) for assessmentsterms that exclude consid-
eration of possible or even likely major human and environmental impacts: for example, impacts on resource accessi-
bility, local survival systems and preexisting livelihood stresses, as well as the critical matter of cumulative effects of
actionsin the case of the Gibe III dam, cumulative effects of the dam, irrigated commercial agriculture and the
hydroelectricity export transmission system.
Offering critical remarks regarding impacts of projects, but as suggestions for (optional) future study, as consider-
ations for monitoring or mitigation of completed projects or other optional courses of action.
Noting a destructive impact of major proportion without identifying its signicance or the necessity of resolving the
matter prior to inception or continuance of the project in question.
Identifying serious, even life threatening or potentially disastrous impactsin detailed or highly technical text within
reports or assessments, rather than in clear form in Conclusions. Summary or Recommendation sections.
Table 6.3 summarizes these and related patterns in the 2010 EIB and 2010 AFDB reports.
The EIB assessment presents a combination of content ranging from all-encompassing positive statements regarding the
benets of the Gibe III dam to the highly specic criticisms of GOE (2009b) methodologies. This statement in the reports
summary, for example, exemplies the overall positive evaluation of the project by the EIB consultant:
The ESIR Consultant considers the Gibe III project to initiate the economic development of the Lower Omo, one of
the least developed regions of Ethiopia. It is recommended that any nancial support to Gibe III development is closely
linked to the simultaneous socio-economic development of the Lower Omo region, in order to maximize the benets
from the river flow regulation.
14
The rst lling of the Gibe III reservoir will have a limited incremental impact on the lake's natural water level fluctuations. It is expected that
there will be a lowering of the water level by about 1.8 m. This value is close to the annual fluctuations of water level in the lake, which is around
1.5 m, and well within the inter-annual fluctuations observed in the past (EIB 2010).
15
Between the two AFDB assessments, this failing is most evident in the 2009 socioeconomic assessment.
Table 6.3 European Investment Bank and African Development Bank impact assessments
I II III IV V
Suggested Suggested studies or Identification of Identification of Identification of
Bank mitigation or reviews of issues or definite problem critical problem critical issue
Impact monitoring potential problems without analysis of without assertion of threatening major
measures significance urgency re: possible destruction
Report major destruction needing resolution
prior to project
continuance1
EIB 21 16 17 8 0
AFDB 3 19 10 2 0
Information is based on summary sections of both reports (Executive Summary, conclusions, recommendations) in 2010 EIB and AFDB
assessments
a
In the case of the Gibe III dam impact assessments by the GOE, EIB and AFDB, all such efforts were initiated only well after project
The AFDBs assessment of 2009, with Terms of Reference to identify the socioeconomic impacts of the Gibe III dam in the
Lake Turkana region, is rife with analytical misinformation, inconsistencies. This assessment fails to undertake a substantive
investigation of even the most basic aspects of pastoral, mixed pastoral/shing and shing livelihoods in the Turkana region,
let alone the potential impacts of the Gibe III damor its linked irrigated agricultural enterpriseson these systems. The
report blatantly asserts the Gibe IIIs overall benets to residents in the lake region.
The EIB report identies at least eight major problems predictable from the Gibe III dam development, including the virtual
absence of baseline data for Omo River flow volume and river inflow to Lake Turkana, inadequate consultation with local
communities, and inadequate compensation for residents of the lower Omo basin. However, the report stops short of
asserting that any of these are key issues necessitate resolution prior to continued dam building and operation (Table 6.3).
At least seventeen additional problems of signicance are identied, though inconspicuously, in the EIB report. Most
signicant among them are the following.
Absence of a sound management plan and the failure to substantively evaluate compensation for the regions resident
population.
Fundamental conflict between power generation at the Gibe III dam and the high opportunity cost of releases of water for
controlled flooding downstream.
Likely occurrence of serious disease outbreaks downstream from the dam.
Drying out of lands within the Omo delta and low riverside flats, where flood recession agriculture would be eliminated
(see below).
An 810-km retreat of Lake Turkanas northern shorelineas a result of the radical reduction of Omo inflow to the lake
(Fig. 5.2).
Possible violent conflict among ethnic groups within the Ilemi region.
The EIB report fails to draw the obvious implications of such problems for the overall impact of the Gibe III project, even
when some of them clearly spell disaster for the resident population and the regions environmental integrity. The main
exception to this pertains to the reports recognition of the loss of recession agriculture, due to effects of the dam.
In the Lower Omo plain, the construction of the Gibe III dam will have signicant and direct impacts on the reduction
of cultivated land on the riverbanks and flooded areas (flood recession agriculture)Approximately 67,600 people
depend to some extent on flood recession agriculture. (EIB 2010)
Even these statements are fully inconsistent with other assertions in the report. For example, the EIB apparently relies on
GOE estimates and assertions of limited indigenous reliance' on flood recession agriculturetherefore, limited vulner-
ability of the indigenous to livelihood systems to destruction from the Gibe III dam. The EIB quotes the GOEs false
statement, shown below, without comment:
Only for Karo people where livestock is less signicant might recession agriculture constitute the main source of ivelihood.
[Emphasis added.]
In contradictory fashion, the EIB report references GOE estimates of 20,000 households within the delta that are practicing
flood recession agriculture (and cropping), yet states elsewhere:
This means that 100,000 people could be affected in the delta alone.
For Dasanech communities along the Omo River, the loss of flood recession agriculture would have disastrous conse-
quences. Yet the EIB report repeatedly asserts that any loss of livelihood from elimination of flood recession agriculture
could be compensated or offset by rainfed agriculturea patently false statement. Even brief conversation with
Dasanech residents or ecological ground reconnaissance in the lowermost basin and delta region would revealrstly, that
there is no rainfed cropping in the region (in contrast with the Mursi region upstream), and secondly, that multiple
thousands of households depend on flood recession agriculture for their survival because their pastoral economy has been
dismantled in recent years.16
A dominant feature of the EIB assessments summary section is its inclusion of at least sixteen suggestions for further
study or reviewfew if any of which have been carried out since the report was released. Some of these suggestions pertain
to impacts identied above; others are major issues that most critics would view as essential to resolve prior to concep-
tualizing the dam, and certainly before actually constructing and operating the dam. The EIB report suggests various studies
studies, including of Omo River flow volume and inflow to Lake Turkana, the technical feasibility of a controlled flood
program, livelihood development plans for the indigenous population, the socioeconomic and ecological character of the
delta, indigenous recession agricultural systems and riverine zone biodiversity. None of these are suggested as essential to
the planning or implementation of massive development in the basin, when the reality is that virtually all of them are.
Offsetting any such problems noted by the EIB are its assertions of positive Gibe III dam outcomes for local
residents and for the ecology of the lower basin (Table 6.3). The report offers at least twenty-one positive statements
about the Gibe III project and its objectives, as well as GOE intentions and efforts to address local problems.17 The vast
majority of these statements are unfounded, and the likelihood of GOE adoption of the numerous mitigation suggestions is
understood to be miniscule.
The EIB assessment repeats GOEs assertions that its planned irrigation and canal works in the lowermost Omo basin will be
for social development projectsmainly, small-scale irrigated agriculture for pastoralists and distribution of social ser-
vices (GOE 2009b). The opposite was already occurring, however, even by the end of 2009 and early 2010namely, the
expropriation of major resource and village areas along the river for the establishment of irrigated, large-scale government as
well as private farm enterprises. Desperation was already widespread, especially among the Dasanech.
16
As detailed in Chap. 7, Dasanech villagers throughout the region consistently stated to South Omo/North Turkana (SONT) researchers that no
GOE or other individuals had been to their villages for information about household members and population, floods, recession agriculture or any
other activities.
17
Although the GOEs violations of EIB funding procedural requirements may well have raised a roadblock for the bank to fund the dam project
directly (a parallel situation with the AFDB and the World Bank), there are different interpretations as to why EIB funding did not actually
materialize. Whatever the decision of the EIB would have been, the Ethiopians reached an agreement with the Chinese for just under USD 500
million for construction (see Chap. 1).
By comparison with the EIB, the AFDB has been far central in the rationalization of the Gibe III development, in
several regards. These include its nancial and technical support for::
(i) River basin development master plans and feasibility studies of dam and irrigated agricultural development in the
Gibe-Omo basin, from 1990 through 1996.
(ii) Impact assessments for the Gibe III project (2009/2010)reports largely complicit with the development.
(iii) Financial support and legitimation of the major transmission line for exporting electricity Ethiopia to Kenya and the
broader eastern Africa regiona line including Gibe III electricity by all GOE accounts, despite AFDB and World
Bank disclaimers.
The development banks socioeconomic impact assessment (AFDB 2009) lacks an even minimally acceptable livelihood
description and analysis; various failings of the report are dealt with in Chap. 9. The AFDB socioeconomic consultants
apparently viewed their task as promoting the Gibe III dam project, as their own descriptions suggest. However, the
assessment does briefly note Turkana community opposition to the dam because of its likely destruction of the lake and its
sheryand even to threats of direct action by local leaders. Nevertheless, the consultants refer to their role as one of
emphasizing project benets to local residents.
The AFDB 2010 hydrological assessment is the primary one referred to by GOE, development bank and other ofcials. It
presents a largely complicit with the project. As indicated in Table 6.3, it generally states concerns as suggestions for
studies or reviews, or as notations for possible monitoring or post-operational mitigation. The reports major reservation
about the Gibe III dam project, stated only hypothetically, pertains to possible irrigation schemes upstream. (As noted
earlier, the AFDB consultant produced two later reports for the African Studies Centre at the University of Oxford (Avery
2012, 2013) that took a far more critical view of the impacts of irrigated commercial agricultural development on Lake
Turkanapredicting, in fact, likely major destruction of the lake.
The 2010 hydrological assessment does identify some signicant problems with the GOEs impact assessment of the
downstream Omo riverine zone within Ethiopia (GOE 2009b), such as in its statement, Positive impacts on the lakes
hydrology have been claimed, but there was no basis for these claims. Other problems with the GOEs assessment that are
identied in the AFDB report include: the absence of Omo flow volume and lake inflow baseline datafor which the AFDB
review lays out an alternative method of calculation; predictable Omo River incision and water table drop, sediment capture
and buildup at the dam, and impact of flood regime changes on sh breeding in the lake.18
Beyond the deciencies identied above as in common for the AFDB and EIB reports, other major problems exist in the
2010 AFDB hydrological assessment.
(i) Rather than recognizing the transboundary character of the Omo River itself, with its terminus within Kenyas
national borders (Figs. 1.2 and 1.3), the AFDB report repeatedly asserts the river to be only within Ethiopia. For
example, the Executive Summary states:
The lake is almost entirely within Kenya, whereas the Omo River is entirely within Ethiopia.
Rather than acknowledge the transboundary nature of the Omo River itself, the AFDB report asserts only that the
effects of reduced flow (unspecied as caused by the dam or irrigation) would impact Kenya, so that management of
the Omo Basin and lake water resources presents transboundary challengespresumably with management tech-
niques after dam operations have been launched.
18
A prediction of Lake Turkanas likely drop in level during and following the Gibe III reservoir-ll, by an ARWG physical scientist long familiar
with the regioni, is presented in Chap. 5 and subsequent chapters.
The matter of the Omos terminus with Kenya, making it an international river, is obviously of major political
signicance in any economic development affecting the rivers delivery of water to neighboring countries and must be
negotiated with those countries governmentsprior to project approval or inception. This point reflects both
international principles and Ethiopian regulations. The AFDB assessment skirts any explicit recognition of this
reality.19
(ii) Nearly all of the concerns raised in the 2010 AFDB assessment summary sections take the form of suggestions
for further study or review, mitigation or monitoring, as (Table 6.3) indicates. Many of the 19 studies or reviews
that are suggested in AFDB summary sections involve issues that most analysts would consider fundamental to even a
minimally adequate impact analysis. These require resolution prior to the projects undertaking. Because the dam was
already under construction for nearly three years by the time the AFDB assessment was produced, such suggestions
clearly remain discretionary on the part of project developers and they presumably were meant to be undertaken during
or after project completion and operation (see Table 6.3). For example, studies or reviews are suggested for bathy-
metric studies of the lake, hydrologic measurement, flooding patterns of the river, irrigation utilization of the river,
sheries status of the lake, calculation of the economic value of the lake, socioeconomic studies, and integrated basin
environmental and socioeconomic assessment, and dam breakage.
(iii) The AFDB 2010 assessment fails to deal with the predictable 810-km retreat of Lake Turkanas northern
shoreline during Gibe III reservoir lling period (EIB 2010) and the consequences of this retreat for major sh
reproductive habitats there. Such radical change spells disaster for hundreds of thousands of Dasanech and Turkana
residents who depend on the northern lakes resources for their survival. The absence of the AFDB reports consid-
eration of such a retreat is particularly disturbing in view of its recognition of the importance of the Omos annual flood
pulse of fresh water, sediment and nutrient input to the northern end of the lake.
(iv) The AFDB assessment erroneously and repeatedly describes the extensive irrigation agriculture development
along the Omo River as a separate phenomenon from the Gibe III dam. The fundamental dependence of the
irrigated farms on the Gibe III dams regulation of the Omo River is essentially denied, or downplayed, as evidenced
by these statements:
This hydrological study has demonstrated that with the potential abstractions that might be implemented, the lake
could drop up to 20 m. This is not attributable to Gibe III... [Emphasis added.] Irrigation abstraction is not a
project component of the Gibe III project, as the dam is developed solely to generate power, but indirectly, the
regulated flow sequence from the dam is expected to stimulate small-scale irrigation. [Emphasis added.]
While the latter statement is technically accurate, it omits the reality that the dams hydroelectric potential and the Omo
Valleys possible irrigation agriculture, including large-scale commercial operationswere long considered integrally by
development interests.
The 2010 EIB impact report references GOE information (see below) regarding irrigation plans in its consideration of
irrigation feasibility potential in the lower basin, and report includes a GOE map indicating major irrigation areas planned
(see chap. 7). The GOE has openly solicited international agribusiness and related industrial investment in the Omo basin
prior to and during preparation of the EIB and AFDB assessments.
Since feasibility studies and planning (even some construction) of large-scale irrigation infrastructure were undertaken well
before the AFDB assessment and were, in fact, referred to by its author, planning for both the hydroelectric dam and its
linked irrigated agricultural enterprises was certainly known to the AFDB consultant.
19
The AFDB does quote, but without comment, the 1996 Master Plan for the Gibe-Omo river basin: This means that in the international context
a bilateral agreement should be reached between the two countries (Kenya and Ethiopia) before either country changes the natural flow of the
riverAny major change in the rivers regime as, for instance, by the construction of a dam for the development of hydro-power, or, more
signicantly, by the development of large-scale irrigation in the south of the basin, would be almost certain to raise issues internationally.
The development banks had actually supported various aspects of planning for river regulation and large-scale irrigated
agriculture in Ethiopian river basins for decades. In the case of the AFDB, the bank had directly funded two desk studies of
major policy importance. One of these was the 1990 Master Plan for all Ethiopian river basins, prepared by the global
consulting rm, WAPCOS (see Chap. 2). The othercontracted to Woodroofe and Associates a few years later for USD 6.1
millionwas the 1996 Master Plan for the Gibe-Omo River Basin, which estimated both the basins potential hydrodam
electricity and irrigation agricultural development.
The GOEs 2009 downstream impact assessment formulated three types of irrigation:
Small-scale settlement agriculture,

Small-scale commercial irrigated farms, and
Large-scale irrigation farmsi.e., over 7200 ha (cotton and sugarcane plantations).
Two additional statements within the AFDB 2010 impact assessment are sufcient to illustrate the reports failure to link
the Gibe III dam and major irrigation systems and to directly address the seriousness of the combined dam-irrigation effects
on the indigenous population.
If irrigation development proceeds as planned in the Omo Basin, the lake will diminish, as will biomass and sheries.
Whether this is of consequence should be the subject of a separate study and consultations with the Kenyan
Government and stakeholders, and should be based on a proper economic evaluation of Lake Turkana and its
resources. [Emphasis added.]
The biggest impacts can be expected to arise from Ethiopian Government plans for large scale irrigation within the
Basin. These have not been studied in this Report, but they must be taken into account at some point, as it will be futile
to disregard developments in the Basin as a whole as they affect mitigation measures. As developments are inevitable
to cope with rising population pressure and food security needs, a balanced view needs to be agreed upon between
Kenya and Ethiopia, through detailed studies and dialogue, on what environmental impact is acceptable, and on what
mitigation measures can be adopted, and how they will be managed. This process has already begun. [Emphasis
added.]
In reality, major scale irrigated agricultural enterprises planned or under construction downstream from the
Gibe III dam are clearly dam enabled enterprises, not unrelated phenomena. Among numerous linkages are these
closely related ones:
Large irrigation systems, commonly for monocrops and high chemical userequire predictability of water and cali-
bration of cropping phasespredictability that can only be provided by regulation of the river flow volume and its
periodicity.
Irrigation infrastructure cannot accommodate wide fluctuations of the rivers natural state.
Linkages between river regulation by major dam construction and large-scale irrigated agricultural enterprises are
well-documented in developmental policy and economic and scientic literature concerning drylands Africa. They have
been in play throughout the decades of modern Ethiopian river basin development, beginning with that nations rst
irrigated agricultural schemes and major (at the time) dam developmentin the Awash Valley.
Since large-scale irrigated agricultural development along the lower Omo River is dependent on the rivers regulation
by the Gibe III dam, these two developments have a causative connection. This matter is discussed in Chap. 10, along
with the critical matter of human rights violations being committed.
Literature Cited
African Development Bank (AFDB). 2009. A. S. Kaijage, N. M. Nyagah, Final Draft Report, Socio-economic analysis and public consultation of
Lake Turkana communities in Northern Kenya, Tunis.
African Development Bank (AFDB). 2010. S. Avery, Assessment of hydrological impacts of Ethiopias Omo Basin on Kenyas Lake Turkana
water levels, Final Report. 146 pp.
Africa Resources Working Group (ARWG). 2009. A commentary on the environmental, socioeconomic and human rights impacts of the proposed
Gibe III Dam in the lower Omo River Basin of Southwest Ethiopia. http://www.arwg-gibe.
Avery, S. 2012. Lake Turkana and the lower Omo: hydrological impacts of Gibe III and lower Omo irrigation development, Vols. 12. African
Avery, S. 2013. What future for Lake Turkana? The impact of hydropower and irrigation development on the worlds large desert lake. African
Carr, C.J. 1977. Pastoralism in crisis: the Dassanetch of Southwest Ethiopia. Chicago: University of Chicago Department of Geography Papers.
(.90), 319 pp.
Carr, C.J. 1998. Patterns of vegetation along the Omo river in southwest Ethiopia. Plant Ecology 135(2): 135163.
Proposed Gibe III Dam in Ethiopia, Africa Resources Working Group (ARWG), 250 pp. https://www.academia.edu/8385749/Carr_ARWG_
Gibe_III_Dam_Report.
Government of Ethiopia (GOE). 2009a. Ethiopian electric power corporation (EEPCO), CESI, mid-day international consulting engineers (MDI),
Gibe III hydroelectric project, environmental and social impact assessment, Report No. 300 ENV RC 002C Plan.
Government of Ethiopia (GOE). 2009b. Ethiopian electric power corporation (EEPCO), agriconsulting S.P.A., mid-day international consulting,
Government of Ethiopia (GOE)., and Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (EEPCO). 2010. Environment and social issues related to Gibe III
hydroelectric project, GIB HEP Ofce. http://ethiopianembassy.org/pdf/giveiihydroelectricproject.pdf.
Kinde, S., and S. Engeda. 2010. Fixing Gibe IIengineers perspective. http://www.digitaladdis.com/sk/Fixing_Gilgel_Gibe_II.pdf.
Thomas, G.A., and K. DiFrancesco. 2009. The heritage institute for the world bank. Final report, rapid evaluation of the potential for reoptimizing
hydropower systems in Africa.
USDA, United States Department of Agriculture. 2006. MODIS satellite imagery August 11, 2006; August 21, 2006.
Woodroofe, R., and Associates, with Mascott Ltd. 1996. Omo-Gibe river basin integrated development master plan study. Final Report. IXV
Vols.
The Dasanech of the Lowermost Omo Basin:
From Adaptation to Development Debacle 7
Abstract
The decline of Dasanech pastoral economy in recent decades, due to increasing
marginalization by powerful external political and economic forces, has forced the majority
of Dasanech to move to areas along the Omo River and its active delta or around the
northeastern shores of Kenyas Lake Turkana. Radical reduction of river flow volume, lake
retreat and elimination of the rivers annual flood brought about by the Gibe III dam,
together with dam enabled irrigation agricultural enterprises, would destroy the key
components of Dasanech livelihood. Most flood recession agriculture would be eliminated,
along with last resort livestock grazing lands, forest resources and sh reproductive
habitats in the lowermost Omo and Lake Turkana northern shoreline. Even if the highly
unlikely and in any case inadequate articial flood program promised by the Ethiopian
government were implemented, Dasanech survival systems would have already been
decimated. The looming crisis of region-wide hunger and mortality is intensied by the
Ethiopian governments eviction and expropriation of thousands of Dasanech villagers for
large-scale irrigated commercial agriculture. Political repression and a culture of fear prevail.
As the crisis unfolds, Dasanech communities, faced with vanishing means of survival, would
inevitably contribute to rapid escalation of cross-border, interethnic armed conflict.
Dasanech Pastoral Decline: Roots and Responses
Throughout the rst half of the twentieth century, the Dasanech pastoralists sustained a system of wide-ranging
movements throughout the regions dryland plains, as did other indigenous groups in the transboundary region.
These movements ranged across different types of habitats (Carr 1977; Bassi 2011), facilitating diversied food production
and complex patterns of risk minimization, as described in Chap. 4.
By the second half of the century, the combination of direct territorial restriction by the Kenyan and Ethiopian governments,
conflict with other disenfranchised pastoral groups in the region and other pressures effectively conned the Dasanech to the
plains west of the Omo River and east of the Kibish River for many years. The Dasanech were forced to relinquish most of
these areas:
The upland plains of the Ilemi Triangleformerly, a buffer zone created by agreement between the Ethiopian
monarchy and the Kenyan colonial administration.

112 7 The Dasanech of the Lowermost Omo Basin
Grasslands in the Kenya/Ethiopia border area to the northwest of Lake Turkana and southeast of the Ilemi Triangle
especially critical during drought periods.1
Woodlands and grasslands along the Kibish River, Koras Mountain and much of the pasture lands between Koras
Mountain and the Omo River (Fig. 1.3)lands previously shared with the Nyangatom but increasingly fought over as
resource degradation and loss of land access have taken hold in the region.
Semi-arid plains and relatively wetter foothills east of the lowermost Omo River, due to hostilities with the Hamar group
to the east (Fig. 1.3).
These territorial restrictions caused severe overcrowding of Dasanech livestock, with a loss of access to critical
resources during prolonged drought and other stress periods. Centuries old risk minimization and recovery strategies of
the Dasanech were no longer effective. With no relief available to them, the Dasanech were subjected to continued
deterioration of their lands, and the herds of individual pastoral families plummeted.
While Dasanech pastoralism persisted in the second half of the twentieth century (Fig. 7.1), their livelihood was severely
threatened to the point where major adjustments were necessary for their survival.
Widespread ecological degradation was evident throughout much of their remaining territory by the late 1960s and early
1970s. Instead of the uniquely complex, mosaic-like complex of habitats and vegetation, vast areas became susceptible to
invader species of plantsa process that has continued to the present. This writer studied the structure and floristics of
natural versus disturbed grassland communities in major plains habitats, including including relict sandy beach ridges,
black cracking (margallitic) clay basins and ancient floodplains adjacent to the Omo River (Carr 1977). There are some
common features of ecological deterioration in these different communities:
Sharp reduction of total vegetation cover with the creation of signicant bare areas.
Invasion and spread by numerous disturbance indicator plant speciesmostly unpalatable species.
Increasing erosion (both water and wind driven) with the loss of topsoil. Much of this degradation is irreversible in
practical terms, particularly once sheet erosion and certain species invasion occur (most recently, Acacia nubica,
A. horrida and Prosopis juliflorathe last of these, an introduced species, has spread throughout the region). Vast areas
are now with negligible plant cover and susceptible to intensive wind and water erosion.
This writer (Carr 1977) described phases of this deterioration for much of the lowermost Omo basin based on construction of
ecological (vegetation and soil) transects along a gradient of grazing pressure in the above geomorphic units (Figs. 7.2 and 7.3).2
Most Dasanech pastoral lands are now so severely degraded that their recovery potential is in serious question,
even under the best of circumstances.
Dasanech elders uniformly describe the degradation of their grasslands as the most important change in their
survival efforts, at least until the recent aggressive policies by the GOE along the Omo River. The statement of one
Dasanech elder on the west bank, recorded in 2011, is illustrative of the narratives throughout Dasanech lands.
When I was a young man, our land was big. Now we dont live in those lands, as the governments have taken them
from us, and now they let others into our lands. Once we had the lands of good grass, but now we have no grass
except for short times when the rains come, and even then the grass goes away quickly. Before, there were so many
wild animals roaming the land: topi, oryx, wildebeest, lion, cheetah, foxes and many more. Now most of them are
gone. Have they gone north? Or west? They have been chased away by the loss of grass that is killing our cattle too,
and killed by poachers and by those who have gotten many guns from the war.
1
The British administrator from Kenya (Mr. Whitehouse) who played a key role in the decision to remove the Dasanech (termed the Marille by
the Kenyan government) from this region described to this writer that no account was taken of the Dasanech population or neighbors survival
needs in boundary determination.
2
Grassland and other vegetation types west of the Omo River are determined by a combination of factors including ancient sediment depositional
patterns (for example, alluvial and fluvialwith soils ranging from silty clay relict floodplains through margallitic, or black cracking soils to sandy
beach ridges) and land use pressures.
Dasanech Pastoral Decline: Roots and Responses 113
Fig. 7.1 Dasanech herders and livestock. Top Cattle at pastoral village in highly overgrazed area. Center left Women slaughtering goats in
pastoral village. Center right Young male herder at stock camp. Bottom left Mid-day milking. Bottom right small stock watering at Omo River
Fig. 7.2 Pasture deterioration phases in upland plains. Dominant and comparable soil type in Dasanech region of the lower Omo basin (sandy-silt
soils on relict beach/interridge areas)
Pastoral Dasanech households (Fig. 7.4) attempted to recover from unprecedented resource losses by any means
possible. Among other adjustments, they altered their seasonal herding patterns, lessened the mobility of villagesrelying
instead on highly mobile stock camps, utilized all types of social cooperation and exchange relationships, and engaged in
raiding of neighboring groups deemed hostile at the time. This writer studied these complex patterns during the 1970s, with herd
sizes, seasonal movements and production activities recorded for six different village areas, indicated in Fig. 7.5 (Carr 1977).
The differentiation of Dasanech social segments is reflected in the nodes of pastoral settlement: for example, the Rendelli
segment is distinguishable from Inkabela and Oro segments. These patterns were identied by this writer (Carr 1977) and are
summarized in Fig. 7.5. At the time, most Dasanech were pastoralists residing in the upland plainstaking their livestock to
the Omo River primarily during the dry seasons and especially during prolonged drought periods. Those Dasanech
households engaged in flood recession agriculture along the Omo River went there primarily during periods of intensive
farming labor, although some Dasanech were well-established there in semi-permanent villages. A signicant proportion of
villages along the river were of the Eleli segment of the Dasanech, for example. Some of the poorest Dasanech had already
begun shing in the lowermost delta and along Lake Turkanas northern shoreline in the delta.
A series of prolonged drought periods in the region during the 1970s and 1980s, accompanied by increased livestock raiding
between the Dasanech, and their neighborsespecially the Turkana and Nyangatom, greatly worsened Dasanech coping
efforts. Herd numbers plummeted for the vast majority of households. Kenyan ofcers administrating the Ilemi Triangle
began permitting Turkana pastoralists back into Ilemi lands by the 1980s, so even the longstanding illegal but persistent
use of the Ilemi by the Dasanech became sporadic, at best. This situation continues to the present day.
Fig. 7.3 Phases of ecological decline in lower Omo basin pastoral overgrazed conditions in silty/sand soils with discontinuous cover and
lands. Top left Ilemi Triangle healthy grasslandwell-drained plant invader species. Bottom photos Severely overgrazed conditions;
silty/sand relict beach ridge. Top right young herders with cattle in leftunpalatable vegetation (e.g., Cadaba rotundifolia, Euphorbia
seasonally inundated cracking clay grassland basin within the Ilemi nubica) severely malnourished cattle
Triangle with relict beach ridge behind. Center photos two intermediate
The urgency for additional grazing lands for Dasanech livestock in these three different environments emerged from a
combination of factors, including:
Worsening environmental degradation of the dryland plains, due to overgrazing, with increased livestock mortality and
herd losses.
Increasing hostilities with neighboring groups, particularly the Turkana and Nyangatom.
Continued exclusion from the Ilemi Triangle (and contiguous lands dominated by the Turkana).
116
7
Fig. 7.4 Dasanech pastoral villagers and activities. Top left Dasanech at major (dimi) ritual. Top right Woman at noon-time milking in village. Bottom left Hut-building with riverine shrub
The Dasanech of the Lowermost Omo Basin
branches and animal skins. Bottom right Men slaughtering ox in plains village
Fig. 7.5 Seasonal movement patterns of six Dasanech settlement areas west of the Omo River. Source Carr (1977)
Conflicts between Dasanech and Nyangatom communities intensied, as both groups competed for water and grazing at the
seasonally flowing Kibish River, where they have long done extensive well digging in the dry months, in lands around Koras
Mt. and eastward to the Omo River (Fig. 1.1). They also competed for settlement, wild food gathering and hunting locales
along the Omo River. Similar conflict relations existed with the northern Turkanaprimarily over access to the Ilemi region
and the grasslands of the Ethiopia-Kenya border region northwest of Lake Turkana. Venturing into these lands for the
Dasanech was at great riskboth because of possible Turkana and Nyangatom attack and because of seizure of their
livestock and sometimes shootings by Kenyan police.
Adapting from Upland Pastoral Life to Diversified Economy at the River
Faced with rapidly diminishing herds and environmental degradation throughout their pasturelands, by the early
1980s, Dasanech pastoralists had no choice but to rely on the Omo riverine zone and lake environments, both for last
resort grazing and economic diversication to recession agriculture. The only real options for them were locales
(i) within the delta, which was actively expanding (see Chap. 1), (ii) along the river upstream from the delta to the southern
extent of the Nyangatominitially, along the west bank (due to the danger of attack from the Hamar to the east), and
(iii) around the northeastern shoreline of Lake Turkana to Ileret, Kenyaand southward along the lake (Fig. 1.3). At rst,
most Dasanech settlements in these area were seasonal, but over time many of them remained throughout the year.
The overall migration pattern is shown in Fig. 7.6. Some Dasanech pastoralists remained highly mobile, even with greatly
diminished herds. The more mobile pastoral households continued sending stock camps to the eastern Ilemi Triangle from
Fig. 7.6 Dasanech settlement migration from upland plains to Omo riverine zone: 19602011
Adapting from Upland Pastoral Life to Diversified Economy at the River 119
which they were ofcially excluded, as well as around Koras Mountain and the Kenyan-Ethiopian border areasincluding
the coveted grazing lands of Meyen and Labur. (Their use of the Ilemi lands, however, was with strong risk of having their
livestock seized by police and herding in the border lands and around Koras Mountain carried equal danger of attack by the
Turkana and Nyangatom (a reciprocal threat that remains and intensies in times of stress).
In spite of these efforts to access their traditional lands, Dasanech pastoralists continued to suffer major cattle and small
stock losses. They became increasingly dependent on the Omo River zone for both water and pasturage. Even pastoral
villages remaining several kilometers away from the Omo River had at least some family members engaged in food
production in the riverine zoneprimarily flood recession agriculture and shing.
Several new possibilities for Dasanech livelihood activities emerged during the 1980s, even though these have been
wholly insufcient to compensate for their massive economic decline.
The Omo delta began a period of expansion southward, with its terminus extending well into Kenyas Lake Turkana
(Fig. 1.2). This new delta area has amounted to more than 500 km2 for possible new settlement as well as livestock
grazing, flood recession agriculture and shing.
Local Kenyan ofcials began permitting the Dasanech to return to the arid lands around the northeastern shoreline of
Lake Turkana where the group had once resided. Large numbers of Dasanech, particularly from one cultural segment,
responded to this opportunity. In fact, many of them continued southward from Ileret to their fluctuating border with the
Gabbra (Fig. 1.3). Relations between the Dasanech and Gabbra are generally hostile although they were once largely
peaceful, with resource sharing in many locales. Hostilities have intensied as available pasturage has disappeared.
Settlement shifts by most Dasanech from their degraded upland plains to the Omo River and Lake Turkana
environments directly reflects the failing economic conditions for the group as a whole.3 Many Dasanech who settled
west of the Omo began moving back to the riverine zone on the east bank of the Omo Riverlands where they had resided
decades earlier. The danger of attack by the Hamar to the east effectively conned their villages and herds close the river.
A variety of village and household livelihood patterns have emerged, but with overall economic decline and shift in food
production activities (Fig. 7.7). Despite the Dasanechs long-term cultural dislike of shing, an increasing number of the
poorest households have had no choice but to begin shing in the channels of the lowermost Omo River or the northernmost
waters of Lake Turkana. The number of shing households has increased substantially since the 1980s, for several reasons.
rst, the plains environment and livestock herds have continued to deteriorate; second, the traditional lands of the Ilemi were
no longer available; and third, the Ethiopian government has evicted thousands of villagers from their riverine lands
forcing most of them into the already crowded Omo delta where planting land is scarce. A wide variety of subsidiary but
essential livelihood activities are carried out in both riverine and upland areas (Fig. 7.8).
Tens of thousands of Dasanech now reside in three major areas along the lowermost Omo Riverthe west bank, the
east bank and the active delta region. There are no reliable demographic data for these Dasanech, despite the obvious
importance of such information for a detailed assessment of the human impacts that would be caused by the Gibe III dam.
SONT researchers identied major Dasanech village areas that are variously seasonal or of year-round duration. Village
areas recorded and the large zone of GOE expropriation of villagers from their settlements and riverside lands are indicated
in Fig. 7.9.
GOE population estimates vary from 40,000 to more than 200,000. The Ethiopian governments census results were
clearly projections rather than actual village based countsprojections likely generated in towns well removed from
Dasanech settlements. Villagers throughout the region emphatically state that neither government nor other individuals have
3
Although strong differences in wealth have long existed, the resulting precipitous herd decline affected the Dasanech as a whole, since those stock
owners fortunate enough to retain larger herds were obliged to distribute at least some of their wealth to varying combinations of clan, age-set and
afne (in-law) relations. These social structural relations are best described by Almagor (1978).
Fig. 7.7 Major Dasanech livelihood decline from upland pastoral economy (west side of the Omo River)
visited to record census information.4 Staff members of non-governmental organizations engaged in periodic relief opera-
tions amongst the Dasanech expressed their frustration at having to rely on ofcial government estimates.
Any gure between these extremes points to the major numbers of Dasanech whose lives are threatened by the Gibe III
dam and dam enabled irrigated agricultural development.
It is likely that the European Investment Banks impact report (EIB 2010) relied on GOE population gures, given the EIB
consultants statement that the duration of its eld investigation of the entire area from the Gibe III dam to Lake Turkana was
only ten days. Such a period is wholly inadequate for even a minimally acceptable population sampling among the
Dasanech. Estimates based on satellite imagery without extensive ground-based investigation would be entirely inaccurate,
since Dasanech village complexes fluctuate in locationsometimes extremely rapidlyin response to shifts in pasturage,
water, disease, immediate security and other conditions. Moreover, villages visible in satellite images are often abandoned
ones, or reoccupied by another ethnic groupespecially common in contested areas. There are also major Dasanech
settlement shifts between Kenya and Ethiopia, reflecting rapidly changing environmental and socioeconomic conditions.
SONT researchers could not conduct systematic population counts, due to GOE restrictions and widespread fear of gov-
ernment reprisals by villagers. Dasanech village areas were therefore identied only through ground reconnaissance, and
primarily during the dry season (Table 7.1). Small scattered villages were not recorded.
The combination of information from all reliable sources, including SONTs own eld-based investigation in selected village
areas and several non-governmental ofcials interviewed, suggests a minimum Dasanech population of 60,000 to 70,000
an approximate gure, at best. Whatever the accurate gure for the Dasanech population, it is clear that there are tens of
thousands of them residing along and nearby the Omo River with their livelihood dependent on sustainment of and access to
the Omo River.
4
These villager statements were corroborated by a senior government ofcer in Omorate (see Fig. 1.3 and maps below), who afrmed to this writer
that no ground census had been carried out.
Fig. 7.8 Dasanech woman making dugout canoe from a tree trunk in a small clearing in the Omo riverine forest
Fig. 7.9 Zone of Ethiopian Government Expropriation of Dasanech villages and livelihood areas
Table 7.1 Dasanech village complexes along the Omo River: 20092010
West bank East bank Modern delta
Goto Afuor Lomosia
Damish Kapuse NgymoruLulung
Akudingole Tieli rieli Ediporo
Nyemomeri Lobele Kipur-cheria
Atalago Edete Andora/Ililokelete
Salany (Salin) Lobaoi Bokom (both banks of channel)
Lochuch Apaluka(largely shing) Lonyangereng
Koro Derish Nakabila
Bokom Aluuli Chongochongo
Olmin (Loyere, Nyikikieast of Omo River zone) Aachuun
Gabite Jiete-Konya
Toltale Budori
Malsipi Nakoida
Terishichess Araloput
Tuushe Lokielinya
Turite Kaakulu
Lopelebin Koranyilutu (Koro Nyingabite) Naichari
Naakale
Three areas of villages were identied: west bank, east bank and active (modern) delta
While these villages (many of which are included in the map of Fig. 7.9) were recorded during the dry season and
some of them are seasonally mobile or have shifted altogether, their presence during all or part of the year indicates the
extreme dependency of the Dasanech on riverine resources.
The economic decline of the Dasanech, the dominant sequence of which is summarized Fig. 7.7, is evident from
household data collected by this writer, in 1970/1972 and 2009/2010. Of 75 households surveyed in the 1970s,
information was updated for 35 of them in the latter period (Table 7.2). Households from the original survey were
randomly selected from four of the six major pastoral settlement areas indicated in Fig. 7.5.
A number of patterns are evident from these household timeline data:

All of the 35 households recorded had relocatedmostly to the riverine/delta zonedue to major changes in their key
production activities.5 Most had diversied their production from herding to include flood recession agriculture or
shing, or both. Nearly all households moved part or all of their members to the riverine/delta region, seasonally or year
round. Signicant shifts in authority and other social relations have accompanied these changes (Fig. 7.10).
Precipitous herd decline has overwhelmingly driven this economic transformation (with minor exception). Some
households lost all livestock; most lost a quarter to two-thirds of their cattle, while small stock losses varied considerably.
As cattle herds have declined, Dasanech herders have relied more on small stock since they are far more adapted to
degraded pastures and to days without watering. Dasanech long-term cultural preference for cattle over small stock has
been dominated by this necessary shift.
Dasanech herd owners on the west bank and in the delta were interviewed concerning their loss of livestock to disease.
A typical response was:
Only a few people near Omorate got help for livestock diseases. Those living in the delta and the whole west bank
received no help from the government.
Some herd owners diversied their economic production and managed to partially rebuild small stock herds though barter
or sale of grain or sh.
5
The relative similarity or difference between the specic household in question and neighboring ones from the original sample was also recorded.
Names of household heads are excluded for the protection of individuals.
Table 7.2 Dasanech household wealth status and livelihood change. Households from west bank of the Omo River: 1972 versus 2009
1972 2009
Village
Household Location # # Village # #
Number P-Plains Cattle Goats Farm Fish Location Cattle Goats Farm Fish
R-River Sheep Shee
Sheep
D-Delta
1 P 140 180 No No P 38 30 Yes No

2 P 150 45 No No P/R 40 48 Yes No
3 P 60 0* No No R/D 18 30 Some Some
4 P 28 65 No NO R/D 5 22 Yes No
5 P 47 5* No No D 0 0 No Yes
6 P 280 350 No No R/D 15 0* Yes Yes
7 P 44 60 Yes No R/D 18 24 Yes No
8 P 120 210 No No R 35 68 Yes No
9 P/R 32 44 Yes No D 0 5 Some Yes
10 P/R 30 12 Yes No D 2 0 No Yes
11 P 310 155 No No R 34 50 No No
12 P 41 15 No No R/D 15 33 Yes Some
13 P 58 40 Some No P/R 22 6* Yes No
14 P 155 85 No No P/R 10 34 Yes No
15 P 550 200 No No P/R 18 400 No No
16 P/R 50 30 Yes No D/R 12 22 Yes (Yes)
17 P 210 60 Yes No R 32 85 Yes No
18 P 800 110 No No R 160 60 No No
19 P 540 85 No No P 105 73 (Yes) No
20 P 65 38 Yes No R/D 40 55 Yes (Yes)

21 P 75 22 No No R/D 14 5 Yes No
22 P 0 8 Yes No D 0 0 No Yes
23 P 80 130 (Yes) No P/R 65 60 Yes No
24 P 90 45 (Yes) No R 20 48 Yes No
25 P 82 70 No No R/D 7 36 Yes (Yes)
26 P 125 150 No No R/D 26 38 Yes No
27 R 4 23 Yes Yes D 0 5 Yes Yes
28 P 87 110 No No R 26 44 Yes No
29 P 12 15 Yes No D 0 3 No Yes
30 P/R 4 15 Yes No D 0 3 No Yes
31 P 65 50 (Yes) No R 16 24 Yes No
32 P 90 55 No No P/R 80 110 (Yes) No
33 R 12 20 Yes No R/D 10 48 Yes (Yes)
34 P 65 30 No No P/R 20 35 Yes (Yes)
35 R 0 4 Yes Yes D 0 0 No Yes
a
Lost in raids by neighboring Nyangatom or Turkana
Fig. 7.10 Dasanech male elders in the Omo riverine zone
Households with remaining livestock now depend on grazing locales within the Omo riverine and active Omo delta lands
during much or all of the year. Although most Dasanech are now agropastoral, many of the households with remaining
livestock depend on last resort grazing lands such as dipaa locality of the eastern delta with relatively rich pastures.
According to villagers, waters from both the Omo River and Lake Turkana sustain these grasslands.
Last Resort Survival: Desperate Dependence on Omo River Annual Flood
Most Dasanech now have major dependence on the Omo riverine zonefor flood recession agriculture, dry season
and last resort livestock grazing, shing and a host of secondary production activities. All of these depend on the
sustainment of the Omo Rivers annual flood.
Settlements and major livelihood activities in the delta vary from seasonal to semi-permanent. Most of the latter are located
along the river above the maximum flood level. Including in the uppermost portion of the delta. Livestock herding in the
delta fluctuates widely with seasonal changesfrom short visits, especially during drought months, to year-round presence,
depending on environmental and social conditions.
Dasanech households and communities practice flood recession agriculture on annually flooded waterside flats upstream
from the delta, on some low riverbanks along the waters edge, and within the active delta (Fig. 7.11).6 Contrary to the
6
Other opportunities exist for flood recession agriculture, including a few locales where backup of Omo river waters into the terminus of gathering
streams (for example, Kolonsee Fig. 4.3) or incomplete channels. Some oxbow meanders well north of the Dasanechfor example, in Kara
lands (Fig. 1.3) also provide conditions for flood recession agriculture when they are inundated with Omo River waters during high flow periods.
Fig. 7.11 Flood recession agriculture and Dasanech planters. Top left Dasanech girl in flood recession farm in delta. Top right agricultural plot
burned prior to flood. Center Omo inside bend with sandy/silt spitannually flooded with agricultural plot; adjacent forest does not flood. Bottom
left Dasanech riverside village. Bottom right Dasanech tending farm at the river
Last Resort Survival: Desperate Dependence on Omo River Annual Flood 127
GOEs assertions, they do not plant in the relict floodplains because flooding does not occur in these vast flatsnor has it for
thousands of years. As described in earlier chapters, overbank flooding does not occur upstream from the modern delta,
except in a few small localities where there is a break in the natural levee.
Also contrary to GOE and development bank reports, rainfall in the lower Omo basin is insufcient for farming, as a brief
conversation with any local resident substantiates.7
While a relatively small number of Dasanech were practicing flood recession agriculture along the Omo River well back in
the twentieth century, flood dependent planting has now become the dominant means of survival for tens of thousands of
villagers. In the early years, planting on seasonally flooded riverside flats was a means of minimizing risk through production
diversication, rebuilding herds through bartering grain for livestock and fullling social obligations (see Chap. 4). Par-
ticularly after livestock losses following territorial constriction caused by government actions, extended drought, disease,
and raiding by neighboring groups, Dasanech households exchanged grain from their farms along the Omo for small stock
and other items. Small grain reserves were widely evident and recorded by this writer in the early 1970s.
The Dasanech consistently describe their present crisis as one of too little flooding, not excessive flooding. This is true
for both the active delta and the upstream waterside localitiestogether accounting for the majority of Dasanech settlement
in recent years. Chapter 6 details the GOEs false claim of frequent major floods that are destructive of human life and
property.
SONT researchers recorded these statements by Dasanech agropastoral and shing elders.
We have to move with our households and animals to stay close to the river channels and the delta where there is
water and grass for us and our animals and where we can farm. Lands east of the river are bare and dry, except when
there is good rain. We only nd food and water here. [Female agropastoralist, western edge of Omo delta]
We never had such hunger in my fathers and my own timeuntil recently, when we became old men. Only this
hunger can force us to farm and even eat sh! Herders do not eat shthe sh eaters are the dies. Our times were
better. Our land was good for all Dasanech and even a man with fewer animals could eat well from his animals. The
animals were healthy, and they gave much milk. We didnt have all this bushit has come to now when we have lost
our land of good grass. I used to stay with my animals in the grasslands. Now I must be at the Omo River where I have
learned to farm. I must farm because my family will not eat from our few animals. Even people with many animals
dont get enough milk. And when the flood doesnt come to our land, and we cannot farm, we eat sh. I dont want any
more of our children to die, so we eat sh. [Riverside male elder]
Most Dasanech communities are now dependent on the Omo delta and its immediate environs for their survival
whether for their direct use of delta resources for livestock grazing, flood recession agriculture or shing, or their
indirect but vital use of exchange relations with delta villagers.
The southward expansion of the Omo delta to its present 500 km2 area has coincided with the Dasanechs diversication
to agriculture, shing and wild food gathering (Fig. 7.12). Large numbers of impoverished Dasanech would otherwise
have faced catastrophic level conditions of hunger. As noted in previous chapters, the Omo delta was previously a limited
land area with birdfoot morphology (Fig. 1.2) and had few localities suitable for planting, livestock grazing and
settlement.
The total area utilized for flood recession agriculture varies widely, depending on flood conditions and multiple other
factors. Based on SONT eld observations and satellite photos, a medium to high range of 40006000 ha is a reasonable
estimate for such plantingfrom Omorate southward to Lake Turkana, including the modern Omo delta.
7
When the ephemeral Kibish River (which dissipates in the dry Sandersons Gulf, just south of Koras Mt.) has sufcient flow, flood recession
agriculture is done along the riverbanks. Presently, large numbers of Nyangatom are settled around Kibish.
Fig. 7.12 Dasanech Life along the Lower Omo River. Top left Girls in cattle at watering. Center right East bank Dasanech shers with catch.
flood recession farm near the delta; wooded natural levee in rear. Top Bottom Agropastoral village near the west bank, in the delta region
right Goats watering at Omo River. Center left Extremely malnourished
Although no precise estimation of the number of hectares utilized for recession agriculture or the population
dependent is feasible without ground-based survey and direct interviewing of local residents, an estimate of tens of
thousands of Dasanech facing such destruction is entirely reasonable.
Under the present conditions of region-wide political repression and fear of Ethiopian security forces in virtually all
villages, combined with the GOEs effective ban on independent research in the area, establishing reliable baseline
data for the precise population under threat from loss of flood in recession agricultural landslike the estimation of the
population in generalis not possible. These data are critical for the precise assessment of the crisis unfolding,
Environmental conditions in the delta are diverseproviding opportunities for multiple production activities that
combine to provide the survival of Dasanech communities. This comment by a villager to this writer is typical in its
reference to the importance of this aspect of the delta.
Many people here have some small stock, but they dont give enough milk. So a lot of people have to rely on what they
can harvest from their farms. In some places, the crops do well if they get flood from the river, but in some places there is
no flood and crops fail, so people have to nd other ways to survive, like eating sh or buying grain from those who have
it. [Dasanech female elder at village on west bank in delta area]
Villagers throughout the delta typically are flexible in their production activities in response to their changing conditions.
Both settlement locations and resource use patterns within the active delta naturally shift with changes in Omo channel
morphology and the rivers annual flood as well as other environmental and social factors. A majority of villages in the
western portion of the delta have been relocating to its central and eastern portions due to the threat of Turkana attack,
decreased annually flooded lands and reduced planting locales on the western margin, drainage conditions that favor
woody vegetation (shrubs), and tsetse infestation. Villagers with calves often have no option but to have them graze crop
stubble (Fig. 7.13) when floods are insufcient to replenish vegetation in their locales.
Dasanech village settlement areas and flood recession agriculture locales active at the time of SONT research are indicated in
Figs. 7.9 and 7.14. Many of these locales are now expropriated (see below). The map also indicates desiccation of the region
that would result from the radical reduction of the rivers flow volume and inflow to Lake Turkana, brought about by the
Gibe III dam and large-scale irrigation commercial agricultural along the river.
Within the modern delta, a mosaic-like pattern of different vegetation types and water conditions has developed with
the recent expansion of the deltaproviding habitat for livestock grazing, shing and food gathering. The fluctuating
and critically important wetland habitat and sharp transition between riverine and upland environments (on the west bank)
are shown in Figs. 7.15 and 7.16. The GOEs ESIA (GOE 2009) falsely describes a far more mesic (relatively wet)
environment than is in fact the caseeven presenting a highly detailed vegetation map indicating an active river channel
departing the river just above Omorate to Lake Turkana. This channel (locally termed Amolo, is actually a relict one.8
Dasanech planting on low riverside flats (including point bars and low sand/silt spits) and within the modern delta plant a
variety of crops, including these traditional ones:
sorghum/milletDasanech nameruba Pigeon peasgadda

maizenakapono other vegetableseri
squashbote; gourdsturum tobaccotampo
sweet potatolokoto beansam haamo
8
The signicance of this misrepresentation is that it suggests the existence of a relatively favorable environment for alternative resource use by
the Dasanech. In fact, this channel is an ancient one and the channel hasnt flowed for many years. Formerly an active part of the Omo River
system, only pools of water form during rainy periods. The relict floodplains around the Amolo channel are generally poor soilscracking clays
and silts.
Fig. 7.13 Calves in starvation condition grazing in stubble of riverside farm plot
Except for sorghum, which is critical for meeting both subsistence and exchange needs, these crops have long been grown
primarily for household consumption. Sorghum has lower water requirements than maize and it is well suited to shifting
river conditionscertainly by comparison with maize. Moreover, in a good flood year, planters can produce two sorghum
crops and sorghum seeds are available le from previous harvests. Beyond its importance as a household food staple, sorghum
is widely traded for small stock (sheep and goats), even cattleboth within Dasanech economy and in the broad arena of
interethnic exchange (Fig. 1.6). Sorghum yields are determined by multiple factors including type of sorghum planted, extent
and duration of Omo River flood, soil type and land use practices. Experienced Dasanech planters up to fteen or twenty
distinct types of sorghum. It all depends on the floodwaters, according to most respondents.
Several major soil types prevail in the delta zone where flood recession agriculture is practiced. These vary among sand, silt
and clay-like textures. Although two of these (locally termed maal and digirte) are considered by most to be superior,
planting is done in a wide range of soils, with different degrees of flooding. Tools are simpleprimarily axes (hoolte), sticks
(yugeny) and pangas (nyewolo). Labor patterns are flexible, with men generally doing more of the clearing and harvesting
while women perform much of the planting and weeding as well as assist in harvesting.
Labor for flood recession agriculture is highly variable among communities. Some have pervasive cooperation in most
phases of farming while others have relatively sharp household delimitation of plots accompanied by limited cooperation
primarily for land preparation and harvesting. Problems of crop diseases are sometimes severe, especially from insects and
rust. Dasanech villagers consistently state that the Ethiopian government has not helped them deal with these diseases; in
fact, most complained of no agricultural services at all from the government. This major hardship for the river dependent
Dasanech parallels that of the pastoralists. Contrary to GOE reports, village elders flatly state that they have received no
Fig. 7.14 Desiccation of modern Omo delta and northern end of Lake Turkana predictable from Gibe III dam and dam-linked irrigation systems.
Destruction would include flood recession agriculture, last option grazing and shing habitats
Fig. 7.15 Wetlands at the Omo delta terminus at Lake Turkana. Dasanech cattle grazing
Fig. 7.16 Dasanech village complex at shoreline near northwestern extreme of Lake Turkana, close to Omo delta wetland
Fig. 7.17 Dasanech crossing Omo River at high flood stage for transactions between west bank residents and Omorate traders. Natural levee
supports closed woodlandwithout overbank flooding
government assistance for the rampant and often devastating livestock diseases affecting their herds. Moreover, very few of
them have access to the extremely limited NGO assistance in the area.
Dasanech knowledge and management of these conditions has been key to the sustainability of these systemsas distinct
from unsustainable ones introduced and commercial style developments brought to the region by the government and private
interests. When crops fail in parts of the modern delta, for example, agropastoral villagers may sell or barter some of their
remaining small stock to households with more successful harvests in order to obtain sorghum.
With the retreat of Lake Turkana (Figs. 1.2 and 7.14) and expansion of the modern delta in recent decades, tree and shrub
growth has increased alongside decreased flow in the main western river channel, according to local residents. Farming has
declined in these areas and villages have moved to central and eastern portions of the delta where annual floods facilitating
recession agriculture are more likely to occur. Even where flooding occurs in the western delta, crop yields are diminished.
Reciprocity relations between Dasanech and pastoral and agropastoral households, as well as among the regions
ethnic groups, have long been critical to the survival strategies of all. These include strong east/west bank exchange
relations (Fig. 7.17). Many pastoral Dasanech settled near the river plant in the delta region by negotiating labor-sharing
arrangements with households there. For example, livestock owned by the delta residents are sometimes sent to stock camps
in Kenya-Ethiopia borderlands northwest of the lake with labor provided by herders from west bank villages. In return, west
Dasanech of the east bank and eastern delta commonly trade with the Hamar to the eastespecially exchanging their
sorghum for Hamar small stock. They also acquire knives, axes, earthen pots and hides from the Hamar, who have better
access to these highland products. Dasanech settled on the west bank and in the western delta, on the other hand, are more
likely to trade their agricultural product (primarily sorghum) for Turkana small stockconflict conditions permitting. When
relations between the two groups are relatively peaceful, Turkana herds may even be permitted to graze in the delta region,
in return for wet season grazing by Dasanech herds in Turkana controlled lands.
Without a successful sorghum harvest, the Dasanech in the riverine and delta region are often forced to sell their remaining
livestock in order to survive. This has in fact been the case for countless households in recent years. East bank Dasanech
agropastoral households, for example, often have no alternative but to market their remaining cattle or small stock in
Omorate or other markets frequented by Hamar, Arbore or Kenyan Somalis.
Wild food gathering is critical for Dasanech survival, especially during harsh times. These include periods of prolonged
drought when livestock milk and other products are reduced or when for example, the omo annual flood is insufcient for
agriculture or for successfull shing. The poorest Dasanechthose without livestock or farm plotsrely on this food source
much of the time, particularly in recent times.
Most wild food gathering is done in the riverine and delta zonesprecisely the environments most in line for desiccation
from the destroyed from the effects of the Gibe III dam and irrigated commercial agricultural enterprises.
Fishing is done by thousands of Dasanech households and is key to survival of most of them. It is no longer limited to
the poorest of the poor communities and households. The critical role that shing, as well as recession agriculture, has
Agriculture have come to play, in the face of major herd decline, is stated by this elder in the southeastern Omo delta:
We eat sh every day. If others have sorghum, they will cook it and eat it. Some of us have been shing for a long time
more than those others. Other Dasanech came to join us after they lost their cattle and small stock from drought and
disease. Thousands of us are here! Many of our people died because they had nothing to eatand before they could
get here to try to plant or sh.
Fishing communities utilize their catch for varying combinations of domestic consumption and exchangewhether
barter or cash sale in local markets. Dasanech shers exploit whatever river and lake locales they can access, depending
on Omo River flow patterns and annual flood occurrence, seasonal shifts in sh life cycles, availability of shing gear,
security conditions and other factors. Major shing areas include the lowermost Omo and fringing Omo delta channels
and the nutrient-rich waters along Lake Turkanas northern shorelinewaters nourished by the rivers annual freshwater
and pulse that sustains sh reproductive locales there (Figs. 5.2 and 7.14).
The most common sh caught by the Dasanech at the mouth of the Omo channels and along Lake Turkanas northern
shoreline are tilapia and Nile perch. The most common catch species for the Dasanech are the same as those for Turkana
shers (see Chap. 9). Dasanech male shers also hunt crocodile and hippo at nightthe populations of which have
radically dwindled to the point of endangerment9.
Many shing households still use the simplest of technologies: metal spears and harpoons with string (from barter with
other ethnic groups), locally crafted dug-out canoes fashioned from riverine forest trees (Fig. 7.8) or simple rafts
constructed from doum palm trunks lashed together (see photos in Chap. 9). Others have wooden boats and nets, with
additional gear. Dasanech shers originally obtained much of their knowledge of shing, as well as shing technology,
from the Turkana. They now acquire equipment through barter, purchase and capture. During investigations in Turkana
villages along the lakes northwestern shoreline, for example, this writer recorded numerous accounts of violence
killings as well as gear theftsbetween Turkana and Dasanech shers.
Dasanech shers report rapidly declining sh catch, especially with the incursion of commercial shing fleets based
in Ethiopiacompanies promoted and protected by the GOE. Commercial catch is primarily destined for urban
Ethiopian and export markets. Efforts to develop facilities for sh refrigeration and processing were initiated by the GOE for
years, with active solicitation of investment by the SNNPR and federal government by the early years of this writers
investigation, when three major companies were active in the lowermost river and in Kenyas Lake Turkana.
9
Hippos and crocodiles, like other riverine zone wildlife (elephant, buffalo, primates including colobus monkey and baboon, a wide range of
reptiles, etc.) lived in abundance along a major proportion of the lower Omo river during this writer's early eld work (e.g., in the early 1970s).
Hunting was nearly incidental until the 1980 s when the GOE began developing Omorate and enterprises along the river, and when rearms
became increasingly dominant in communities throughout the region. Much of the wildlife population would require restoration if this natural
heritage of Ethiopia (and basis for tourism) is to be valued differently from the wholesale destruction underway. Young malesnow often with
little accountability to eldersoften kill for sport.
Company boats easily overwhelm the poorly equipped indigenous Dasanech and Turkana shers. Villagers in the delta
describe enormous sh discard (waste) by the motorized commercial boats, including large deposits of sh bones and other
waste, that create major problems for their small nets and also destroy sh reproductive and feeding habitats. One Dasanech
sher responded this way when asked for his view of the foreign shing boats:
What is bad about them is the amount of sh they kill. Some of them [llet] the sh right there and throw the waste in
the lake, so this makes the lake water poisoned. We get small nets from some of them, but mostly we are losing our sh,
so nets dont help us if the sh are gone.
The Ethiopia-based shing corporations have steadily increased their catch range into Kenyas Lake Turkana, where they are
in clear violation of that nations sovereignty. These company boats extend their shing ventures as far southward as North
Island (Figs. 1.3 and 5.2), often display the Ethiopian flag and are often accompanied by Ethiopian guard boats. They pay no
fees to Kenya, nor do they obtain shing licenses or make catch reports to Kenyas local Beach Management Units.
Turkana representatives from villages along the northwestern shoreline have appealed to the Kenyan government numerous
times to expel the foreign fleets, and Kenyan sheries ofcials are fully aware of the situation. As of early 2015, the Kenyan
government had taken no effective action, despite innumerable requests by Turkana shers and their representatives
including in the locally based Beach Management Units. Nor have the development banks, in their assessments of lake
conditions, shery status or socioeconomic conditions (AFDB 2009 and 2010) raised the issue of the incursion and impact of
Ethiopian commercial fleets in these Kenyan waters on sh stocks and on the worsening interethnic conflict among shers.
What amounts to state-sponsored piracy into Kenyan waters is a matter of international sovereignty, but also
greatly worsens the crisis faced by vast numbers of Kenyas Turkana whose livelihood is dependent upon the
lakes shery.
Violent conflicts between Dasanech and Turkana shers who are increasingly desperate to secure catch from these
northern waters constitute a major problem in the region. The northernmost portion of the lake accounts for many of
the hotspots of conflict expansion (Fig.5.3).
The frequent violence over gear theft and sporadic killings noted above frequently spreads to pastoral and agropastoral
communities in the region (and visa versa) with extensive series of reprisals between the two ethnic groups. The frequent
points of conflict among shersindicated in the map of Fig. 5.3are also the likely points of major expansion of local
conflicts into regional ones. This trend is already well underway and is greatly amplied by the plummeting of livelihood
resources as a result of Gibe III dam and irrigated agricultural development.
Governmental, non-governmental and U.N.-based accounts of conflicts among shers and in the border region generally
exclude consideration of the actual causes of this mounting crisis. Instead, the solutions prescribed are most often either
interethnic mediationwithout account of the real dynamics at playor additional militarization by the Ethiopian and
Kenyan governments, or both.
Ethiopian Expropriation and Political Repression of Riverine Communities
The Ethiopian government is engaged in extensive and systematic human rights violations of tens of thousands of
indigenous pastoralists and agropastoralists along the Omo River, downstream from the Gibe III dam site, in order to
pave the way for new commercial agricultural enterprises. Evictions of villagers and expropriation of their riverine
resources by GOE police and militia frequently involve beatings and arrestsand reportedly, torture. Dasanech
resistance to their dispossession nevertheless occurs, when possible.
GOE denials of its expropriation actions are contradicted by available planning documents over many years. As
detailed in Chap. 6, the Ethiopian government excluded mention of its obvious plans for such large-scale commercial farms
in its environmental and social impact assessments. Gibe III feasibility and planning documents over the yearsincluding
the AFDB-funded Master Plan for the Omo River basin (Woodroofe & Associates 1996), for exampleassessed hydro-
electricity and irrigation potential. The EIB 2010 assessment included a map of the GOEs projected commercial agricultural
development along the river (Fig. 7.18). In 2009, this writer was directly informed of the governments ambitious plan for
agricultural development and major irrigation in the lowermost basin during a discussion with a senior agricultural ministry
ofcial in Addis Ababa.
In the 1980s, the Ethiopian Dergs commitment to large-scale irrigated agricultural development on indigenous lands was
evident from the Ethio-Korean project at Omorate (Fig. 7.9). The GOE and major international aid organizations have
prioritized hydrodam development with agribusiness and power production over indigenous land rights since the Koka dam
and Awash Valley developments during the post-war Haile Selassie years, despite well-documented disastrous impacts on
the Oromo and Afar peoples in the Awash Valley (Bondestam 1974; Carr 1978; Kloos 1982), and elsewhere. (Chapter 2
outlined the early decades of comprehensive planning for dam and dam-linked irrigated agriculture in Ethopias river basins,
including this prioritization.).
The specics of Ethiopian and foreign ownership of the commercial farm development are relatively well documented along
the Omo in the traditional territory of the Mursi and neighboring groups (Fig. 1.3). Hundreds of thousands of hectares are
leased or planned for Ethiopian, Indian, and European and other corporate and private investors (Human Rights Watch 2012;
Oakland Institute 2011). Information presented by Turton and colleagues at the University of Oxford (available at www.
mursi.org) reports that 30 of the 52 Mursi and Kwegu villages (at least 58 % of them) are in areas that are either already
delineated for sugar plantation development or are being offered by the government of Ethiopia for private agricultural
development. According to this eld-based data, the expropriation process involves 73 % (114 of 157) of Mursi and Kwegu
agricultural sites. Even two individual sugar block plantations total more than 162,000 ha, with a planned total of 245,000 ha
for sugar plantations.
Table 7.3 indicates key concessions documented by the above-mentioned NGOs and researchers during investigations
between 2010 and 2013.
The above gures exclude enterprises underway or planned further downstream, especially the transboundary section
of the river. Government prohibition of visitors and investigators has been extreme in the lowermost basin where the
Dasanech and Nyangatom also face eviction, particularly since 2009. Observations by international aid groups
allegedly investigating possible abuses in the area (including USAID and DFID), moreover, are generally facilitated,
or informed by the GOE itself.
The major crops planned for these commercial farms are cotton, sugar and oil palm, with agricultural product directed to
international export and Ethiopian urban markets. These crops are high water consumption/chemical-requiring crops. These
agribusiness industrial enterprises require major water diversion through canals and irrigation channels, as well as facilitation
of chemical/waste discharge into the Omo Riverboth having disastrous effects on both downstream Omo and Lake
Turkana peoples and environments. The extensive irrigation systems are already partially constructed and undergoing
expansion. These include a large number of diesel pumps for water diversion and large canals.
Like the Mursi/Bodi ethnic residing upstream, the Dasanech and Nyangatom face major evictions by the GOE for the
establishment of large-scale, irrigated commercial agriculture and supporting infrastructure. While it is known that
private investors along the lower Omo River are from Ethiopia, India, China, Europe and the U.S., but information regarding
specic individual, corporate and government owners of these irrigated commercial farms are difcult to obtain due to the
GOEs refusal of access to the area by investigators and to the governments policy of extreme surveillance. All of these
effectively prohibit local residents from providing information and places them under threat of severe reprisal.
Ethiopian Expropriation and Political Repression of Riverine Communities 137
Fig. 7.18 Planned and potential irrigated agriculture in the lower Omo River basin. Some lowermost riverine zone planned farms (expropriation
areas) are omitted. Source GOE map in EIB 2010
Table 7.3 Selected irrigated agricultural enterprises in the lower Omo basin
Plantation type and size Owner
Kuraz Sugar Plantation FDRE Sugar Corporation
245,000 ha (formerly Ethiopian Sugar Corporation)
Koka Oil Palm Plantation Lim Siow Jin Estate
31,000 ha (Malaysian company)
palm oil, sesame, rubber trees
15 smaller land concessions Various private companies
111,000 ha
majority for cotton plantations
Oil Palm Plantation Fri El Green Power (Italian company)
60,000 ha
Total: Minimum of 445,000 ha
Company, farm size and crop formation from Human Rights Watch (2012), Oakland Institute (2011)
Evictions of Dasanech villagers and expropriation of their recession agricultural and last resort grazing lands for these
enterprises have been underway for years, along with the construction of irrigation and canal works. Political
repression accompanies all of these actions since opposition is not tolerated by the GOE. The impacts are cataclysmic
when they are combined with radical reduction of river and lake waters by the dam and irrigation systems.
The underreported estimate of lands seized by the GOE for commercial use along the river in Dasanech and Nyangatom
traditional landsmore than 120,000 ha, according to the now outdated Human Rights Watch estimate is vastly increased
if both east and west bank commercial farms along with irrigation and canal construction are considered.10
Evicted villagers have no realistic survival options. Nearly all households now have too few livestock to move back
into a pastoral life and in any case the rangelands are severely deteriorated. Moving into the modern delta is difcult even
in the best of circumstances. There are already tens of thousands of Dasanech residing there or at least claiming delta
lands there are suitable for flood recession agriculture.11 Residents in nearly every Dasanech village complex along the
Omo River have either experienced GOE eviction or expropriation themselves or have been impacted by the influx of
villagers subjected to these processes elsewhere.
Closure of the dam would immediately initiate desiccation of the Omo deltathe very lands where the expropriated
Dasanech take refuge in order to survive (Fig. 7.14). For many of them, shing has become their last livelihood option,
along with whatever success they may have in accessing flood recession planting in the already overcrowded delta.
Last option survival by shing along the lowermost Omo and along Lake Turkanas northern shoreline would be
eliminated by the multi-kilometer retreat of that shoreline that would follow closure and early operation of the planned
dam with no real reservoir water release.
Tens of thousands of Dasanech relying on annual flood in the Omo delta or who evicted from lands upstream along the
river would face massive scale conditions from the impacts of the Gibe III dam and dam-linked irrigated agriculture.
Figures 5.2 and 7.14 indicate the desiccation of delta and lakeshore areas caused by these developments.
The GOEs eviction of Dasanech (and Nyangatom) from their flood recession farms and settlement areas is evidence enough
of the governments true development intentions in the South Omo. The governments priority of commercial development
10
SONT researchers recorded specic areas of GOE eviction or expropriation of Dasanech villagers, but for political security reasons, did not
attempt to quantify the size of farms being established or planned.
11
Finding lands in the Omo delta for their livelihood is extremely difcult for these evicted communities, even when they have strong social ties
(dened social segment, or clan terms), since the Omo delta lands are already overcrowded. Some of them attempt shing and move even closer
to Lake Turkanas northern shoreline.
over the survival of its indigenous population is starkly evident from its public statements and investor solicitations.
The administrator of Debub Omo Zone, in an interview for Fortune magazine, stated:
We granted the land to the company along the Omo valley, which is the most suitable area for the plantation of palm
oil, to encourage investors to come to the region with the prospect of exploiting this huge potential.
Dasanech village settlements and lands listed in Table 7.4 were among those expropriated by the GOE, according to local
resident reporting to SONT researchers, mostly during late 2012 and early 2013.
The GOEs planning and impact assessment documents describe agricultural development plans as part of com-
munity development and social services provisiona clear misrepresentation of the reality of the lowermost Omo
region as well as GOE policies. The following false statements in the GOEs downstream impact assessment (GOE 2009)
reflect this misrepresentation.
The following examples of such statements by EEPCO ofcials illustrates GOE fabrication of its development plans for the
benet of the Dasanech.
The South Omo project area is hardly inhabited at all except at a widely scattered pattern, and that the population
density at the South Omo project site is below ve persons per square kilometer.12
To the contrary, SONT researchers documented thousands of Dasanech living in major village complexes along the west
shore of the Omo River riverine zone in proximity to one another, as indicated in Fig. 7.14. This condition is manifest, even
to the casual observer visiting the riverside zone.
The government will not displace a single person involuntarily in Gambella, or elsewhere within the country.
Firsthand accounts by Dasanech elders, describing their evictions from settlements and lands (Table 6.4), directly contradict
the governments assertions.
An irrigated land of 0.75 ha of land each is prepared for 2050 households. There will not be any land scarcity for
any family with a capacity to produce more. Training on improved agronomy practices, technology inputs and
livestock management including rangeland will be provided.
This statement is also false. The communities listed in Table 7.4 are among those whose riverside farming areas or settlement
areas have been expropriated. While thousands of villagers are expropriated with nowhere to go, the GOE frequently speaks
of providing employment for the local population. A very few Dasanech are incorporated into selected commercial farms,
they are in essence wage labor, not participants in local cooperative or community based development. SONT investigation
of two major expropriation/farm establishments on the west bank, for example, revealed that only 20 to 30 young men were
hired while hundreds of villagers were sent away.
The Ethiopian government consistently describes its consultation with local communities participatory. Dasanech
elders, however, consistently report that, the Ethiopian government has forcefully ordered them to vacate many of
their different their village locales, as well as major grazing and recession agriculture lands.
Development bank documents refer to the consultations carried out by the GOE, but these rely entirely on the GOEs
description of its actions, not that of local residents.
A culture of fear prevails among Dasanech villages. Omorate based GOE militia and security personnel take
repressive, even violent measures against individuals and groups protesting their eviction and expropriation.
Villagers acts of resistanceeven questioning, have been met with swift and sometimes violent action by police
or militia.
12
These (italicized) statements were made in a letter from the Minister of Federal Affairs in the GOE, in response to a letter from Human Rights
Watch in November of 2011. They are representative of numerous statements issued by the GOEs EEPCO and other key government ofcials.
Table 7.4 Partial list of Ethiopian government evictions and expropriations of Dasanech villagers
EVICTION OF VILLAGERS AND FLOOD RECESSION CULTIVATORS:

WEST BANK OF THE OMO RIVER (2009 2012)
Goto: Eviction from extensive flood recession agricultural lands.

Thousands forced to evacuate to find new areas for planting and livestock grazing.
Large commercial farm established.
Damish: Eviction from extensive flood recession agricultural lands.
Most households forced to find new resource areas for planting, livestock grazing.
Large-scale irrigated commercial farm established.
Nyemomeri: Eviction from extensive flood recession agricultural lands.
Eviction of village complex (evangelical missionary operations remain).
Major canal construction westward, creating barrier to livestock movement.
Large commercial farm established; water works. (A few Dasanech - as wage labor).
Population forced to find new areas for subsistence
Villagers remaining in the region highly subject to Turkana attack.
Akudingole: Eviction from extensive flood recession agricultural lands.
Villagers forced to find new areas for livestock, flood recession agriculture,fishing
Salany (Salin/Selegn): Eviction from flood recession agricultural lands.
Highly vulnerable to attacks by Turkana; plains severely degraded by livestock
overgrazing due to exclusion from riverside lands.
Many villagers forced to move, primarily into modern Omo Delta.
Kolon Lochuch: Most villagers evicted from flood recession plots.
Village remaining, but a substantial percentage of the population forced to
leave in search of new planting locales.
EVICTION OF VILLAGERS AND FLOOD RECESSION CULTIVATORS:

EAST BANK OF THE OMO RIVER & MODERN DELTA INTERIOR
Afewerk/Afor: Government-run large farm established early 2006.

Kapusie: Government-run large farm established in 2006/2007.
Ediporon: In the modern Omo Delta; no agricultural land, but impacted by the influx
of evicted villagers and their livestock into the delta.
Bokom (both west shore & delta interior villages): impacted by new settlers and
their livestock. Flood recession agriculture land heavily impacted by influx of
evicted Dasanech from villages upstream.
Source SONT interviews with west bank Dasanech elder residents, 2010 June2013 January
By local accounts, such government consultations have consisted of meetings where a few government representatives and
a number of trusted local residents, with ofcials explaining the major benets that will come to the villagers as the result
of the Gibe III dam and large-scale irrigation systems. One Omorate ofcial stated to this writer that he had actually lled out
the forms of community approval.
The Dasanech (and Nyangatom) have had no real experience with small or medium scale dams, let alone knowledge of
a megadam and how it would affect their lives.13
There is historical precedent for the expropriation of Dasanech lands and eviction of villagers along the Omo River.
Following the overthrow of Haile Selassie in the mid-1970s, the new military regime greatly increased the governments
presence in the lower Omo region. Until that time, direct government presence had little impact except when pastoral groups
had been forced out of certain territories by Ethiopian and Kenyan government forces.
The governments establishment of the frontier-style town of Omorate along the east bank of the Omo (Fig. 1.3)
furthered the displacement process of prior years and led to the rapid incursion of traders and other outsiders. This caused
serious incidences of HIV infection, alcoholism, prostitution, and other social problems previously unknown to the
indigenous communities. Within a short time, Omorate became the hub of large-scale agricultural development. The
program used the rationale of settling the pastoralists. Highland agricultural ofcers in Addis Ababa viewed this
development as for their benet14
By the 1980s, Omorate emerged as the Ethiopian governments police and administrative center, as well as a town of
trade. This has produced unprecedented mixing of Dasanech, Nyangatom, and Kara people and drawn substantial
numbers of individuals from other ethnic areas of Ethiopia.
The 1980s incursion by the national government for agricultural development and new police/administrative presence
came on the heels of many years of Christian evangelical missionary presence along the lowermost Omoa presence the
government facilitated by alienating riverside common property of the Dasanech. Small numbers of local residents were
included in the missionary program, with certain conditions (villagers report have to become Christianized.)
Non-indigenous crops (bananas, tomatoes, mangos, cassava, etc.) have been grown rather than the traditional sorghum,
beans, sweet potato, pumpkin, maize and other crops consumed by local villagers. During SONTs work, villagers had to
pay fees for use of missionary provided windmills.15 The impact on local systems of traditional land tenure, food, and
other product exchange, and social relations have been signicant.
The large Italian palm oil plantation being installed just north of Omorate, on the east bank of the river, is in the same
locale as the Ethio-Korea Joint Agricultural Development Projectan irrigated commercial cotton plantation established
in the 1980s under the Derg. Like its predecessor, the palm oil plantation is situated in silty clay soils of the ancient
(relict) floodplain. These soils form numerous sinkholes and cracking networks, some of which extent to depths of more
than four meters and from major landscape features easily visible from satellite photos and aerial views. The enormity of
these cracks in the silty clay soils of the relict floodplains soils is evident in Fig. 7.19. Combined with the specic soil
texture and high evaporation rates, these cracking features favor major salt accumulation.
The Dergs Korean-sponsored irrigated cotton venture was a failureone repeated under subsequent non-governmental
organization management with major salt concentration, radically decreased soil fertility and invasion by intractable
non-indigenous plants unpalatable to livestock.
13
Some Dasanech (and Nyangatom) herders are even misled by having seen very small dams (for example, 3050 ft. ones) built across streams in
nearby northwest Kenya (one is just outside of Lokitaung (Fig. 1.3), where many have traveled for trading), or in the Ilemi. Herders view all of
these dams negatively, since they block stream flow and vegetation downstream that are vital for their livestock. These experiences obviously offer
no basis for comprehending the enormity of a structure like the Gibe III dam.
14
This writer personally discussed plans for such development with ofcials from the Ministry of Agriculture. They outlined their objectives of
settling the Dasanech (they persisted referring to them with the longstanding Amhara term, Geleb,) teaching them to grow tomatoes and drop
their primitive ways.
15
Personal communication by this writer with missionary representative on the east and west banks of the Omo River.
The planned large-scale agriculture in this locale is likely to suffer the same fate as the previous cotton plantation.
These soils are essentially the same in locales along the river where the GOE plans other irrigated commercial farms
as distinct from the annually flooded flats where the Nyangatom and Dasanech have long carried out recession
agriculture.
The GOE carried out another large expropriation of Dasanech communal grazing land on the east banka roughly 10,000
ha unit south of Omorate appropriated by an Ethiopian highlander favored by the Derg. This enterprise was abandoned in
1991, following the overthrow of the military government.
This land was later partly utilized by the present government to settle allegedly displaced people by the large flood of 2006
and for commercial production. Individuals at this plantation reported to SONT researchers that they were ordered into the
new settlement by the government, despite their wish to return to their traditional village areas after the 2006 flood subsided.
Their village areas had remained intact and many were not even flooded, according to residents, yet they were ordered to
move. By the new government plan, longstanding traditional tenural relations with common property and traditional
exchange systems were ended. By early 2010, Dasanech farmers here reported that they were required to grow specied
crops for the governments storage facility or for government controlled marketing in Omorate. The GOE states that its grain
storage near Omorate, on the east bank, is for Dasanech use during times of hunger. Local elders insist that hunger already
prevails and that there is little or no assistance from the government, even in the worst of hunger periods. The Dasanech in
these government schemes view themselves as largely forced labor for the government. Since researchers other than those
under strict control and independent observers are prohibited from working in the area, these descriptions from Dasanech
villagers lack further detail.
GOE expropriation or eviction actions are absent from all GOE planning and impact assessment documents for the
Gibe III project, as is information regarding the GOEs active solicitation of private investors for commercial Agri-
culture and other industrial development in the South Omo.
Increasing hunger and lack of recovery options for thousands of Dasanech eicted from their riverine locales have
intensied hostilities between the Dasanech and their northern Turkana and Nyangatom neighbors, who face similar
conditions. Livestock raising, thefts of shing gear and boats, armed conflict and killings are widespread.
Locales in the transboundary region already with frequent conflict are shown in Fig.5.3. They include:
Northernmost waters of Lake Turkana and the Omo delta region.

Villages near the northwest lake edge, including Turkana settlement at Kenyas Todenyang and in adjacent Ethiopian
lands.
Ethiopia-Kenya borderland grazing (stock camp) areas northwest of the lake.
Eastern Ilemi Triangle stock camp/herding locales.
Dasanech conflicts with the Nyangatom are most frequent in lands around:
Koras Mt./ Kibish River grazing, watering and settlement areas.
Eastern Ilemi Triangle herding and stock camp locales.
Contested locales near the Omo River.
Violence among the regions ethnic groups has frequently provoked intervention by local government security forces based
in the border areas of Ethiopia and Kenya. In the case of Ethiopia, these events frequently lead to increasing repression and
harsh measures by the Ethiopian police or militiaactions that are viewed by the Dasanech as part of the GOEs evictions of
their communities and continual expropriation of water and land resources vital to their survival.
Although government, international aid agency, United Nations and ecumenical statements concerning conflict in the
Ethiopia-Kenya-Ilemi Triangle/South Sudan tri border region consistently cite or clearly imply indigenous inter-
ethnic conflict natural to the area. This is a major distortion of the historical reality of relations among these groups.
Fig. 7.19 Cracking silty clays in relict floodplains, near planned irrigated commercial farm
While it is true that conflicts have long been common among the Nyangatom, northern Turkana, Dasanech and a number of
adjacent groups, two overarching realities prevail:
Relations among ethnic groups have long involved sporadic conflicts, but within a framework of broad, regional
social and material exchange systems, as well as sharing of grazing and water resources, among others.
Major arms trafcking in the region, especially that involving the conflict in South Sudan, has radically increased the
frequency and intensity of violence.
Literature Cited
Almagor, U. 1978. Pastoral partners: Afnity and bond partnership among the Dassanetch of South West Ethiopia. Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 258 pp.
Bassi, M. 2011. Primary identities in the Lower Omo Valley: Migration, cataclysm, conflict and amalgamation, 17501910. Journal of Eastern
African Studies 5(1): 129157.
Bondestam, L. 1974. Peoples and capitalism in the Northeast Lowlands of Ethiopia. Journal of Modern African Studies 12: 428439.
Carr, C.J. 1977. Pastoralism in crisis: The Dassanetch of Southwest Ethiopia. Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Geography Papers,
319 pp.
Carr, C.J. 1978. The Koka Dam, agribusiness and marginalization of the Ittu Oromo pastoralists in the Awash Valley of Ethiopia. Report to
National Science Foundation, 170 pp.
Carr, C.J. 2012 Dec. Humanitarian catastrophe and regional armed conflict brewing in the border region of Ethiopia, Kenya and South Sudan:
The proposed Gibe III Dam in Ethiopia. Africa Resources Working Group (ARWG), 250 pp. https://www.academia.edu/8385749/Carr_
ARWG_Gibe_III_Dam_Report.
European Investment Bank (EIB). 2010 Mar. Sogreah consultants, independent review and studies regarding the environmental & social impact
assessments for the Gibe III Hydropower Project. nal Report.
Ethiopia, Government of (GOE), Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (EEPCO). 2009. Agriconsulting S.P.A., mid-day international consulting,
Human Rights Watch. 2012. What will happen if hunger comes? Abuses against the Indigenous Peoples of Ethiopias Lower Omo Valley. http://
www.hrw.org/sites/default/les/reports/ethiopia0612webwcover.pdf.
Kloos, H. 1982. Development, drought, and famine in the Awash Valley of Ethiopia. African Studies Review 25(4): 2148.
Oakland Institute. 2011. Understanding land investment deals in Africa. Country Report: Ethiopia.
Nyangatom Livelihood and the Omo Riverine
Forest 8
Abstract
Nyangatom agropastoralists settled along the Omo River to the north of the Dasanech rely
primarily on flood recession agriculture on riverside flats, with subsidiary shing and
exploitation of forest resources. These Omo River dependent communities maintain
complex social and material exchange with other Nyangatom settlements in both the Kibish
River-Koras Mountain area at Ethiopias western border and in the Ilemi Triangle-South
Sudan, where they share lands with the Toposa ethnic group. Nyangatom pastoralists and
agropastoralists frequently clash with Dasanech and Turkana herders over grazing lands
and water resources. The extensive Omo riverine forestthe last such pristine forest within
semi-arid Sub-Saharan Africarequires substantial soil moisture retention from the Omo
Rivers annual flood. Cessation of the flood would quickly promote the death of the forest
and destruction of its abundant wildlife and resources essential to Nyangatom survival.
Thousands of Nyangatom living along the river would suffer immediate disaster from the
effects of Gibe dam closure and dam enabled irrigated agricultural enterprises. Like the
Dasanech, the Nyangatom also are subjected to major expropriation and repression by the
Ethiopian government, as well as major cutting of their forest by the Ethiopian government
and its allied development interests.
Nyangatom Omo Settlements and Dependence on Riverine Resources
The Nyangatom, like the Dasanech and other neighboring pastoral groups, have a complex and highly adaptive
survival strategy system.1 Their economy, like that of the Dasanech, depends on both Omo riverine and upland plains
environments. Nyangatom settlements extend over a broad areafrom the riverine forest along the Omo River westward to
the Kibish River near Koras Mt. and well into the Ilemi Triangle where they coexist with the closely related Toposa.2
The exclusion of all indigenous groups from the contested Ilemi Triangle for several decades effectively created a buffer zone
among ethnic groups, as viewed by the Ethiopian and Kenyan administrations. Long shared by the regions pastoralists and
only minimally impacted by them because they had wide-ranging options for seasonal herding, the Ilemi supported rich
wildlife populations and relatively pristine grassland environments (Carr 1977). Expulsion of the Nyangatom from their
lands in the eastern Ilemi Triangle, in essence, split them into two segments: a largely pastoral one based in the Ilemi and an
agropastoral or agricultural one settled along the Kibish and Omo rivers.
1
The Nyangatom were long referred to as the Donyiro and Bume by outsiders. A collection of detailed description and analysis can be found in
Tornay (1979, 1980, 1981), Tornay et. al. (1997) and Tornay and Tvedt (1993).
2
Although this writer once had easy access to Nyangatom villagers, it is now extremely difcult to interact with villagers, due to intense
surveillance by the GOE and pervasive fear of reprisal by local police. Villagers, pre no recent access has been possible, due to GOE restrictions.
Consequently, information presented in this chapter is based primarily on interviews with Nyangatom at the Kibish River and in Omorate.

146 8 Nyangatom Livelihood and the Omo Riverine Forest
Movement between the two settlement poles and labor/product exchange relations between the Nyangatoms contrasting food
production systems was disrupted although the group has maintained as much cooperation and interaction as their situation
permits. The radical reduction of pasture and the split between settlement areas that has resulted from the governments
exclusionary policies have increased conflict between the Nyangatom along the Omo and Kibish Rivers (Figs. 1.3 and 8.1)
and their Dasanech and Turkana neighbors. By contrast, the Kenyan authorities administrating the eastern Ilemi Triangle for
decades have only moderately enforced the agreed upon exclusionary policy as it applies to the Turkana. Many in the region
report that the GOK even encourages Turkana movement into the Ilemi lands that Kenya has long claimed.
The high concentration of livestock caused by the governments policies in the Ilemi forced the Nyangatom (and Dasanech)
to crowd their herds into lands between the Kibish River and the Omo River. As a consequence, these pastures became
severely overgrazed and ecologically degraded, causing major new livestock mortality and herd decline. Nyangatom
pastoralists have faced continued deterioration of grazing areasa trend worsened by prolonged droughts affecting all
transboundary groups. Nyangatom pastoralists interviewed by SONT describe major livestock lossessimilar to those
reported by the Dasanech and the northern Turkana (see Chaps. 7 and 9).3 Livestock herded around Koras Mountain. and
along the Kibish River are watered at the seasonally flowing Kibish River. During drought seasons, villagers dig water holes
in the dry riverbed of the Kibish (Fig. 8.2). These watering holes, frequently extending to 7 or 8 m depths.
Nyangatom villagers along Omo River have resided in well-established settlement areasgenerally near the water
where they rely on flood recession agriculture, with a variety of subsidiary production activities. Huts are
semi-permanent and are constructed with grass over a frame of branches (Figs. 8.3 and 8.4). Households owning livestock
typically send them to stock camps in the upland plains, especially during the many years of tsetse fly presence in the
riverine zone. These Nyangatom pastoralists have long concentrated in the Koras Mt.-Kibish River, where they Dasanech
herders, and in the NyangatomToposa grazing lands within the Ilemi. There are constant treks back and forth among the
Nyangatom at the Omo River, and those along the Kibish River and in the Ilemi (Fig. 8.1). Nyangatom stock owners, like
their Dasanech and Turkana counterparts, maintain highly flexible seasonal movements of their livestock herds in response
to environmental, socioeconomic and security conditions.
Flood recession agriculture by the Omo-dwelling Nyangatom is primarily on seasonally flooded point bars and river
silt/sand flats along the Omo River. Overbank flooding does not occur upstream from the active delta. Crops grown by
these villagers are basically the same as those planted by the Dasanech (see Chap. 7), with sorghum and maize as main
staples. Grain product is stored in high overhead granaries (Fig. 8.3) that add protection from wildlife. Numerous Nyan-
gatom settled at the Omo River, particularly the poorer households, have taken up shingmostly in river waters upstream
from the Dasanech, either in dugout canoes or along the shoreline. Until their recent acquisition of gear from merchants and
neighboring groups, Nyangatom shers have used simple technologies including ropes, harpoons, locally constructed nets
and small blades (through exchanges with neighboring groups). The Nyangatom complain of decreased sh catch following
the incursion of GOE-supported commercial shing enterprises in the Omo River and Lake Turkana (see Chaps. 7 and 9).
The acceleration of commercial shing in the region, which villagers describe as destructive of sh reproductive habitat as
well as catch levels, has been occurring just as Nyangatom villagers had had to rely more on shing in order to cope with
their economic decline.
Nyangatom residents depend on riverine habitat for a host of production activities subsidiary to recession agricul-
ture. In addition to livestock raising, these include wild food gathering, hunting, shing, beekeeping and boat-making and
household small item manufacture for exchange (see Table 8.1 and Chap. 4). As with sorghum and maize growing, these
activities are for both domestic consumption and exchange (Fig. 1.6). These secondary types of production take on major
importance during times of high stress, including from failed or insufcient Omo River flooding for recession agriculture,
crop losses by pest invasions, prolonged drought periods in the upland plains or loss of livestock from disease, raiding by
neighboring groups or loss of access to resources due to government.
Nyangatom communities along the Omo River have no realistic alternatives for their survivalcertainly no options
for new settlement or major resource access since they are bordered on all sides by ethnic groups experiencing similar
losses of land and resources and with whom they frequently have hostile relations, including the Suri, Kara, Hamar,
Dasanech and Turkana (Fig. 1.3). In the face of recent decline and government expropriations, many young Nyangatom men
3
Research by Bassi (2011) in recent years provides some excellent perspective on Nyangatom cultural history.
Nyangatom Omo Settlements and Dependence on Riverine Resources 147
Fig. 8.1 Nyangatom trek from Omo River villages to Kibish River and Ilemi Triangle settlements
respond by traveling to South Sudan where they acquire arms from liberation forces (most identify the SPLA)later
returning to their homelands along the Omo and Kibish Rivers. This dynamic has weakened traditional authority systems
and intensied conflict among transboundary ethnic groups, according to Nyangatom elders.
Nyangatom relations with the Turkana, with whom they are closely related in linguistic and cultural terms, have fluctuated
greatly over the years, with peaceful periods punctuated by raiding and violence. The situation has recently inverted, with
frequent hostilities erupting, particularly within the context of the Kenya governments encouragement of Turkana re-entry
into the contested Ilemi Triangle. The situation is at least as volatile between the Nyangatom and the Dasanech, with their
overlapping traditional resource areas and the GOEs expropriation of both groups along the Omo River. One area where
clashes are often extreme is around Koras Mt. and the lowermost Kibish River, where some of the few stock watering and
grazing alternatives to the Omo River environments exist.
Nyangatom dependence on the Omo River for recession agriculture and shing, along with their reliance on the
riverine forest for secondary subsistence activities are ignored in the GOE impact assessment (2009b) and is barely
mentioned in the 2010 EIB report.
Construction of the Gibe III dam and large-scale irrigated agricultural enterprises would essentially dismantle
Nyangatom livelihood along the Omo River. This destruction would occur in at least three ways:
(i) The predicted 6070 % reduction in Omo river flow volume during the years of reservoir ll and early operation of the
dam promises cessation of annual flood sufcient for recession agriculture in most locales.
Fig. 8.2 Nyangatom man and woman at (5 m deep) watering hole dug in Kibish riverbed during the dry season. Kibish waters are the main
alternative source of water by Omo River dwelling Nyangatom and well access is a source of conflict with the Dasanech and Turkana
Fig. 8.3 Nyangatom family in village alongside the Omo Rivers west bank. Household granary and food storage on elevated platform, with day
hut and thorn fence in rear
Fig. 8.4 Nyangatom in agropastoral villages along west bank of the Omo River. Left Woman with son at mid-day in village. Top right children in
central square of village. Bottom right aerial view of semi-permanent village (chicken hutch and fence repair visible)
Table 8.1 Nyangatom livelihood activities dependent on riverine habitat

Production activity Location
Flood recession agriculture Riverside point bars, waterside flats
Livestock watering, grazing Woodland/transition zone, waterside
Wild food gathering
Fishing Riverine forest/woodland
Beekeeping Omo River waters
Hunting Riverine forest, woodland and transition
Dugout boat-making Riverine forest
Radical river reduction would terminate Nyangatom flood recession agriculture along the riverparallel to
such destruction in Dasanech lands downstream. Like the Dasanech, Nyangatom villagers insist that they
receive too little flooding by the Omo River, not excessive flooding.
(ii) The drop in water level and associated major impacts on the rivers oxygen, sediment and nutrient replenishment
would destroy sh habitat in the river and disrupt the seasonal migration of sh upstream from Lake Turkana and delta
waters, destroying Nyangatom shing livelihood.
(iii) The well-developed Omo riverine forest in Nyangatom territory would be destroyed by the radical drop in the rivers
flow volume and the effective elimination of the annual floodin turn destroying the key subsidiary activities of wild
food gathering, hunting and beekeeping.
Nyangatom communities along the Omo would face widespread hunger and desperationconditions exponentially wors-
ened by the GOKs expropriation of their lands and clearing of their forest for new commercial scale irrigated agricultural
farms. Unable to be mitigated by long-standing exchange relations between Omo riverine zone dwelling Nyangatom with
their counterparts settled around Kibish River (Fig. 7.6) and in the Ilemi Tri-angle. Under such dire conditions, the most
likely survival option for the Omo Nyangatom would be to migrate back to the Nyangatom and Toposa settlement area in the
Ilemi Triangle. This desperate movement would inevitably intensify the already widespread armed conflict in the region as
ethnic groups compete for what resources remain (Figs. 5.3 and 5.4).
Like their Dasanech neighbors downstream, the Nyangatom are already experiencing the dismantling of their
survival system due to actions by the Ethiopian government. These actions include eviction of settlements and expro-
priation of their planting lands in favor of the large commerical irrigation agriculture. Recent reports by the Nyangatom
include accounts of major such measures by the GOE.
Fate of the Forest: Nyangatom Survival and Ethiopias Heritage
The Omo riverine forest and woodland is the last remaining pristine riverine forest in the drylands of Sub-Saharan
Africa (Fig. 8.5). The GOE assessment misrepresents these low altitude riverine forests as basically equivalent to those
upstream at higher elevations, when they are in fact unique and without such substitute plant communities upriver. Com-
parable riverine forests in semi-arid/arid regions in Sub-Saharan Africa have already been eliminated by river flow reduction
from large hydrodam constructiondams much smaller than the Gibe III. In the African Horn and East African region
alone, the riverine forests along Ethiopias Awash River and Kenyas Tana and Turkwel rivers have already been largely
destroyed by hydrodam and associated developments.
Death of the forest along the lowermost Omo would result from radical reduction of the rivers flow, since the forests
adaptation to the high/low extremes of flow would be destroyed. Highly sensitive root systems of riverine forest have
evolved in response to fluctuations of subsurface moisture and nutrient replenishment provided by the annual floods
permeation of the natural levee soils, since overbank flooding does not occur upstream from the modern Omo delta. The root
systems of the forest tree and shrub species depend on a necessary period of retention of river waters by soilsthat is, the
residence time of subsurface soil moisture.
Fig. 8.5 Omo riverine forest in Nyangatom region. Top photos Buttressed large g and other shallow-rooted forest trees. Center Nyangatom man
on sandy/silty spit on inside river bend; flood recession agricultural plot and non-flooded riverine forest in background. Bottom Straight channel
with thin recession agricultural plots along shoreline
Fate of the Forest: Nyangatom Survival and Ethiopias Heritage 153
Specic soil moisture residence time is dependent on the Omo Rivers annual high water stage, including its sub-
stantial duration. The Gibe III dam and dam enabled irrigated agricultural development would eliminate the residence
time necessary for the survival of the forest.
The rich wildlife populations in the Omo riverine forest, nearly undisturbed for centuries, would be exterminated by
the effects of the Gibe III and dam enabled irrigated agricultural schemes due to the elimination of their forest
habitat. Wildlife in the Omo riverine (or gallery) forest zone, includes the Nile crocodile, hippopotamus, elephant, buffalo,
lion, leopard, kudu, monitor lizard, Colobus monkey, grivet monkey, baboon, bushbuck, and a host of water-loving birds,
including the sh eagle. Wildlife experts at the University of Addis Ababa describe the area as the second richest wildlife
area of Ethiopia, underscoring its importance to Ethiopias natural heritage, with major potential for park and tourism
development. These populations would be rapidly eliminated by forest destruction.
The riverine forest is a highly delicate biotic community, with emergent trees extending to 30 m, with a secondary level of
spreading shrubs. All major taxa are included in the species list of Appendix B. Large portions of the landward side of the
forest are dominated by shrub thicket, with abundant vines and succulents. Some inside bends receive sufcient subsurface
inundation of Omo River floodwater to create grassland swamps. Ecological studies in the Omo riverine zone (Carr 1998)
detailed a variety of vegetation types ranging from forest to closed woodland, open woodland and different types of
grassland (e.g., grasses with and without scattered trees and shrubs, and with different amounts of herbaceous ground cover).
Shrub thickets are common throughout the transition zone from forest/woodland to the broad relict floodplains (Fig. 8.6).
Fig. 8.6 Transition zone between the Omo riverine forest and adjacent drylands. Scattered trees and shrubs with discontinuous grasslands prevail.
Like the forest, this zone is not flooded but is sustained by subsurface moisture from the Omo Rivers annual flood
Fig. 8.7 Riverine vegetation types along the lower Omo River. Source Carr (1998)
Fate of the Forest: Nyangatom Survival and Ethiopias Heritage 155
Fig. 8.8 Riverine forest development along the lowermost Omo River. Left Riverine forest and woodland studies with young to mature forest.
Vegetation development along a gradient of river natural levee exposure (from south to north) following Lake Turkana retreat. Right Location map
of study area. Source Carr (1998)
Complex depositional patterns and soil/water conditions produce a mosaic-like pattern of vegetation typesincreasing the
range of grazing potential for livestock types with different nutritional needs and sensitivity to changing water and disease
conditions. Figures 8.7 and 8.8, taken from this writers studies of the Omo riverine forest (Carr 1976, 1977, 1998),
summarize the complex development of riverine forest and woodland along the Omo Rivers as well as its transition to
adjacent dryland vegetation communities. A south to north gradient of forest development (from younger to older plant
communities) is evident from detailed plant ecological studies at the sites indicated in Fig. 8.8.
The Gibe III dam and dam enabled large-scale irrigation agriculture would cause the cessation of flooding of riverside flats
where the Nyangatom carry out their main survival activityflood recession agriculture. These developments would also
destroy the vast majority of riverine zone vegetation types shown in maps.
This destruction of vegetation, in turn, would eliminate Nyangatom (and Dasanech) last remaining areas
pasturage for livestock grazing, wild food gathering, hunting and other activities that are their only means of
survival during the most severe hardship periods.
Literature Cited
Carr, C.J. 1976. Plant ecological variation and pattern. In The Lower Omo Basin, Earliest man and environments in the Lake Rudolf Basin, eds.
Y. Coppens, F.C. Howell, L.L. Isaac and R.E.F. Leakey. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Carr, C.J. 1977. Pastoralism in Crisis: The Dassanetch of Southwest Ethiopia. University of Chicago Department of Geography Papers,
319 pages.
Carr, C.J. 1998. Patterns of vegetation along the Omo River in southwest Ethiopia. Plant Ecology 135(2): 135163.
Tornay, S. 1979. Armed conflicts in the lower Omo Valley, 19701976: Nyangatom society. Senri ethnological studies 3: 97117.
Tornay, S. 1980. The hammar of Southern Ethiopia, conversations in Dambaiti-Strecker. I. Homme 20(2): 99108.
Tornay, S. 1981. The Nyangatom. An outline of their ecology and social organization. In Peoples and cultures of the Ethio-Sudan Borderlands, ed.
M.L. Bender, 137178. Michigan: African Studies Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
Tornay, S., K.W. Butzer, J.A. Kirchner, G.K. Fuller, A. Lemma, T. Haile, T. Bulto, T. Endeshaw, M. Abebe, S. Eshete, G.P. Petros, and D.H. Van.
1997. The growing power of the Nyangatom. University of Chicago.
Tornay, S., and T. Tvedt. 1993. More chances on the fringe of the state? The growing power of Nyangatom; a border people of the lower Omo
valley, Ethiopia (19701992), Conflicts in the Horn of Africa: human and ecological consequences of warfare, 143163.
Turkana Survival Systems at Lake Turkana:
Vulnerability to Collapse 9
We have lost our livestock and much of our lands. Now we must sh, or we will die.
[Turkana male elder from lakeside village near Ethiopia-Kenya border]
Abstract
The pastoral economy in transboundary Turkana lands has drastically declined in recent
decades, largely due to the effects of colonial and post-colonial policies. Faced with radical
herd losses, thousands of Turkana households have moved to Lake Turkanas western
shoreline for shing and/or herding. This populationlargely uncountedis extremely
vulnerable to loss of accessible Lake Turkana water, sheries resources, and lakeside
grazing. The Gibe III dam and irrigated agricultural plantations along the Omo would cause
major shoreline retreat and eliminate the Omo Rivers annual flood pulse of fresh-water
and nutrients into the lake. Major loss of sh reproductive habitat and sh stocks as well as
potable water, along with desiccation of lakeside environments essential to livestock and
people would result. As conditions worsen, a general movement of shing and
shing/pastoral villages southward toward Fergusons Gulfitself drying outand around
towns, in search of relief aid or survival opportunities, is likely. With no practical means of
continued livelihood, hundreds of thousands of Turkana shers and pastoralists would face
region wide hunger and conditions for disease epidemics. Cross-border conflict between
these Turkana and their northern neighbors would sharply escalate, especially in the face of
regional arms trafcking. Northern and central Turkana protests and pleas for help have so
far been ignored by the Kenyan government which continues to militarize the region.
Northern Turkana Pastoralists: The Long Decline and Migration to the Lake
The major human and livestock disease epidemics extending across the Sahel and eastern Africa during the latter
years of the nineteenth century produced famines in Ethiopian, Kenyan and Sudanese drylands. Both written and oral
accounts of the period describe frequent raiding of Turkana livestock by their pastoral neighbors, including the Pokot and
Dasanech (Fig. 1.3).
Colonial travelers describe major expropriations of Turkana lands as well as livestock during the British colonial admin-
istration (Gulliver 1955; Lamphear 1988, 1992; McCabe 1990, 2004; Collins 2006; Hogg 1982).1 British domination of the
Turkana unfolded largely from its colonial base in Uganda.2 Its interests were largely focused around the Nile River region
and as part of its strategy in the region Britain claimed the northern end of Lake Turkana.3
1
The bulk of literature regarding early Turkana history pertains to the southern and central regions.
2
A small British post near the Uganda border (at Lokiriama) constituted an early foothold in the region, both for military and civil presence. Other
military outposts followed.
3
Lake Turkana was named Lake Rudolf by the explorer Count Teleki, after his patron, Prince Rudolf of the Austro-Hungarian empire (von Hohnel
1938).

158 9 Turkana Survival Systems at Lake Turkana: Vulnerability
Dispossession of the northern Turkana during the late nineteenth century and early decades of the 1900s occurred mostly at
the hands of the British colonials, but ghting between the Turkana and neighboring ethnic groups in the transboundary
region worsened the impacts of this dispossession. Pressures by Ethiopias Menelik II, who had territorial ambitions
extending to the south end of Lake Turkana, provoked a protective response by the British, who furthered their milita-
rization of the region.
The British defeated the Turkana in 19141915 and signicantly increased their military presence in the northern region.
British forces conscated massive numbers of Turkana livestock, expropriated large portions of Turkana lands and thor-
oughly disrupted customary seasonal patterns of herding and exchange throughout the region. The colonials also disarmed
the Turkana, greatly weakening their ghting capacity and placing them at strong disadvantage relative to their northern
neighbors, particularly the Nyangatom and Dasanech, who had superior access to rearms through their connections in
Ethiopia. According to northern Turkana elders oral accounts, the Turkana experienced similar stresses in their relations
with the Pokot and Jie peoples to the west and southwest.
Imposing a hut tax on the Turkana, the British administration used conscation of livestock as the penalty for nonpayment.
Unrest in the regionin part, a reaction by the Turkana to these and other aggressive policies by the governmentprovoked
further reprisals and livestock seizures. Food insecurity for the pastoralists was extreme in these early years (Oba 1992). In
their weakened state, the central and northern Turkana faced extreme hunger, even famine especially during severe
drought periods.
The colonial government declared a closed district policy in the region that persisted until the 1970s. Meanwhile, the
British moved their headquarters from Lorogumu to Lodwar (Fig. 1.1). A small trading center for decades, Lodwar grew to
become the administrative capital of Turkana Countynow the largest town in northwestern Kenya, with a population of
more than 48,000. The British also established a key military post at Lokitaung (Fig. 1.1), which had been a satellite trading
center in the far north of Turkana. Military operations from Lokitaung facilitated the colonials subjugation of new segments
of the Turkana. The post there was the launching point for the British routing of the Italians in the Ilemi Triangle and
southwestern Ethiopia in World War II conflict and it became Kenyas center for administration of the Ilemilong a
disputed area between Kenya and South Sudan (see Chap. 4) and also the northernmost extent of the Turkana population.
Turkana territorial losses in the early decades of the twentieth century sparked overcrowding of herds, and therefore
overgrazing and deterioration of their remaining pasturelands. Region wide increases in stock mortality and herd
decline followed. In the years surrounding World War II, northern Turkana elders describe their herd losses as particularly
devastating, due to raiding by Dasanech and Nyangatom pastoralists who had acquired new arms from both the Ethiopians
and the Italians during their respective occupations of the area.4Major herd composition changes accompanied the plum-
meting livestock numbers among the northern Turkana. For most stockowners, goats and sheep became key components of
their herds, since small stock can survive conditions of deteriorated grasslands and diminished water sources far better than
cattle. Even camel herds declined, according to Turkana accounts, despite the adaptation of camels to long treks for browse
and far lengthier periods between watering (see Chap. 4).
There are different interpretations of the causes of Turkana hunger and herd losses during the post-war years. Most written
reports pertain to the central and southern Turkana regions, where conditions vary considerably from those in the north.
A combination of factors were at play in the herd declines of the northern Turkana, including the following.
British seizures of livestock, including as punitive measures.
Continued taxation
Exclusion from territories by British colonial actionscausing overgrazing and heightened stock mortality.
Raiding by neighboring ethnic groups
Extended drought periods, worsening livestock disease/mortality
4
Accounts of these losses by Turkana elders are in agreement with details provided by a former British ofcer, Mr. Whitehouse, who gured
prominently in the Ethiopia-Kenya-Ilemi Triangle border demarcation process. This writer held conversations with Mr. Whitehouse in the early
1970s.
Northern Turkana Pastoralists: The Long Decline and Migration to the Lake 159
Northern Turkana elders describe at least six types of responses to radical herd losses.
(i) Natural reproduction of livestock with alteration of herd composition and herd mobility. This recovery strategy
includes using exchange relations to obtain new livestockespecially small stock. Rebuilding herds through
reproduction, however, necessitates access to sufcient land in order to separate herds and expand their grazing areas,
with reliance on customary social exchange and cooperation patterns. Many locales where Turkana had previously
sent some or all of their livestock for pasture and water during times of severe hardship became inaccessible to them,
either because of government restriction or the threat of livestock seizure by neighboring groups.
(ii) Increased reliance on production activities once subsidiary to herding. Unlike the Dasanech and Nyangatom at
the Omo River (and Turkana along the Turkwel River to the south), the northernmost Turkana have no practicable
flood recession agriculture opportunities, since watercourses in their lands are relatively small and ephemeral. Along
the Turkwel River to the south (Fig. 1.1), some Turkana undertook flood recession agriculture. The stresses noted
above have forced the northern Turkana to rely far more on secondary production activities, especially wild food
gathering, chicken raising (for both consumption and exchangesee Table 4.2), and charcoal production (primarily
for marketing).
(iii) Livestock raiding. Like all pastoral peoples in the transboundary region and beyond, the northern Turkana have
initiated raiding and seizure of livestock as a customary means of economic recovery. In recent decades, this strategy
has been less effective for several reasons, including increased Kenyan and Ethiopian military and government
security presence in the region, the extreme violence in such raids since rearms have replaced spears and hand to
hand combat, and the reality that all pastoral groups have reduced numbers of livestock.
(iv) Evacuation to towns and internally displaced persons (IDP) camps within the northern region. Pastoral villagers
have variously exercised this option as a temporary or long-term measure. For the northern Turkana, Lodwar and
Kakuma (northwest of Lodwar) have been primary destinations. These refugees seek assistance of any type possible
in IDP camps and in nearby towns, but assistance is makeshift and temporary, at best. Thousands more Turkana have
joined or formed spontaneous or temporary camps along roads near towns (especially Lodwar) and even in the most
remote areas such as the Ilemi and border regions. Camps are few in number compared with the needs of tens of
thousands of Turkana facing dire circumstances when their attempted recovery strategies have failed. For most of
these Turkana families, the distances required to camps are simply too great for travel. Most northern Turkana seek
access to international food aid. For the overwhelming majority of them, such aid is sporadic at beststatements by
the government and impact assessments notwithstanding.
(v) Settlement in aid-funded agricultural projects near Lake Turkana and in other scattered locales. Very few
individuals from the northern region have been incorporated into schemes along the Turkwel; most of these have most
of the other have failedmost of them having depended on rainfall which is simply too limited and erratic. (All such
schemes visited by SONT members in the northernmost plains had failed.) Recently, foreign aid agencies and Kenyan
non-prot organizations have introduced settlement and irrigated agricultural development, for a select number of
Turkana, along the Turkwel Riverreducing access to the river for other Turkana in that region.
(vi) Migration to Lake Turkana for shing and last resort livestock raising. Northern Turkana pastoralists (like the
Dasanech) have long regarded shing as a last resort means of survival. This attitude prevailed throughout Turkana
society, despite their familiarity with El Molo shers along the lakes southern shores (Figs. 1.3 and 4.6). Since the
1920s, the British colonial government, foreign nationals, aid organizations and later, the independent Kenyan
government, have all designed and implemented relatively small Turkana sheries and settlement projects, particu-
larly around Kalokol. Fishing related activities are now the main means of subsistance at the lake.
As early as 1924, the British Colonial administration formed a settlement (commonly termed famine camp in
written and oral accounts) at Kalokol, near Fergusons Gulf. There they taught shing to displaced Turkana
pastoralists. This new livelihood mode absorbed more Turkana over the next few decades through Kenyan government,
missionary and aid efforts as well as by the Turkanas own initiatives (Bayley 1982). At Kalokol, nets and other simple
technologies were issued, but little follow-through assistance was given so the project failed, leaving a large number of
Turkana stranded. Other sheries development projects sprang up at Fergusons Gulf and northward from Kalokol along the
lake, at Eliye Springs and near the terminus of the Kerio River (Figs. 1.3 and 4.6).
Programs introduced by Kenyans, Norwegians and Italians were ambitious but mostly ill conceived and short-lived. Despite
the high failure rate of the projects themselves, many Turkana became skilled shers. Most of these Turkana began shing
with simple basket nets, though some soon turned to harpoons and began constructing rafts by lashing together the trunks of
doum palm trunksa technology that persists to the present time. Gill nets eventually became dominant among the shers
and wooden boats are now widespread and in strong demand (see below). Kalokol remains the center of sh collection and
trading for the region.
The severe droughts of the 1960s disenfranchised huge numbers of Turkana pastoralists. Many northern Turkana from
displaced persons camps (famine camps) were settled at Lowarengak, a lakeside town near the Kenyan border post at
Todenyang (Fig. 1.3). Thousands more Turkana households migrated to this area in subsequent years. Many of them took up
shing or shing related activities. This northernmost population fluctuated greatly, particularly in response to shifting
relations with the Dasanech, with whom conflicts intensied. Lowarengak has remained a key shing center along the
northernmost shoreline.
By the 1980s, when major prolonged droughts and widespread hunger conditions occurred, impoverishment among
the northern Turkana pastoralists increased markedly. Major numbers of households, even groups of villages, relocated
to Lake Turkanasometimes moving in stages over years. Villages generally moved in a southward direction along the lake
(see map in Fig. 4.6), settling anywhere between Lowarengak (near Todenyang; see Fig. 1.1) very close to the Kenya border,
and Fergusons Gulf. The arriving Turkanas options for settlement were often determined by their social ties with
households already established there. According to accounts by Turkana elders in villages along the northwestern shoreline
of the lake, the number of households settling there increased sharply during the almost rainless years between 2007 and
2009a nearly unprecedented drought in the memory of local residents.
The dire economic situation facing northern Turkana pastoralists in the upland plains is evident from SONT interviews with
90 Turkana household heads in the dryland plains west and north of Lokitaung in 2010 and 2011 (Figs. 1.3 and 9.1). A series
of common features of life in this northern region emerged from this survey.5
Nearly all households remaining in pastoral areas owned inadequate numbers of livestock. Many attempt to remain
actively pastoral, despite having only (many with only a few to 10 or 20). What animals they had were often sent to stock
campsmany of them at great distances in search of pasture and water.
With most young men off herding, households typically consisted of women, children and older men, at least
during much of the year (Fig. 9.1). Many villages had relocated near towns, including for security reasons or for access
to periodically delivered food aid. Most households surveyed relied on a few milk animalsmostly goats (some had a
few camels; none surveyed had cows present), chicken raising (typically for selling or consuming eggs), other household
or village based commodity production. Wild food gathering accounted for a substantial portion for these villagers. Many
Turkana men have sought wage labor opportunities, though few have succeeded in this effort.
Two major responses of herd owners to serious livestock lossesincreased separation and geographic distribution
stock animals (often utilizing new labor and other cooperation arrangements) and various exchange strategies for
rebuilding livestock numbers (particularly those involving small stock). Both of these have been entirely inadequate,
however, especially in the face of extreme ecological degradation of upland pastures from overgrazing as well as drought,
major threat of attack by neighboring groups, and government restrictionsin the Ilemi region and elsewhere.6 Raiding
of Dasanech and Nyangatom livestock by northern Turkana pastoralistspreviously an important component of herd
5
A detailed account of these interviews is the subject of a forthcoming report.
6
Together with elders from the region, SONT researchers constructed a map of the northernmost landsparticularly the narrowly dened border
lands and disputed Ilemi area, and villagers stressed that the best grazing lands (mostly slightly higher elevation plains with higher rainfall and
grass development) are effectively off-limts to them because of government policy enforcement or danger of losing both livestock and lives. The
area around the Kibish River, at the Ilemi/Ethiopia border, is another sought after area for water and livestock grazing by all three groups
Dasanech, Turkana and Nyangatom and was heavily settled by Nyangatom during SONT investigations.
Fig. 9.1 Pastoral life in northern Turkana. Top Villagers requesting help for repair of broken water wella well built by the Catholic Church,
which also requires villagers in the region to pay for repairs. Bottom Hand-dug well serving thousands of livestock in northern Turkana, near the
Ilemi Triangle
recoveryis also insufcient. All of the transboundary areas groups now own rearms, so both the incidence and level
of violence level of raiding are extreme in certain localities, particularly those that are indicated in Fig. 5.3. Kenyan and
Ethiopian security forces in the region impede some of this violence, but the general trend persistsin fact, escalates,
since it stems from the desperate living conditions of all three groups. The effects of this conflict are devastating for all
concerned.
Stock mortality with radical herd decline initiated a major exit of northern villagers toward Lake Turkana. Most
household heads in the upland plains region knew of at least one or two nearby villages whose residents had already
departed for the lake. A few said that they too were considering moving in that direction, as well. (Some village heads
indicated that they might instead move to a town in order to increase their chances of receiving food aid.)
Food and other essentials available in local markets are priced beyond the reach of most householdseven those
fortunate enough to generate income from household/village based commodity production.
Internal social problems accompanying such economic stress are also on the increase. Many elders flatly state that
they no longer have authority over the actions of their young men and that such problems are a radical departure from
earlier times. The decline of customary traditional authority relations most likely results from a combination of influences
including government administrative systems imposed on the Turkana, economic disenfranchisement and displacement
of communities, access to weapons (providing young Turkana men with a new sense of power and independence), and
privatization of Turkana lands and resource commons.
Adaptation from Pastoral to Fishing Livelihood
The Kenyan government (GOK) has failed to ofcially acknowledge the major migration by pastoralists to Lake
Turkana, nor does it openly recognize the vulnerability of this population to lake level dropa predictable effect of the
Gibe III dam and dam enabled irrigated agricultural development.7 Development banks also have failed to take these
major changes into account in their environmental and socioeconomic impact assessments or other publically available
reports. This matter is detailed in Chap. 6
Tens of thousands of Turkana pastoralists from the upland plains now make seasonal treks to Lake Turkana for
livestock watering and for whatever shoreline graze and browse is available (Fig. 4.7). During severe drought periods,
the lake provides last option survival for the tens of thousands of livestock. Countless numbers of small stock are brought to
the lake's shoreline when distant areas are no longer available. Except for female camels (cows) with young calves, most
camels are herded in the western plains and other upland localities with sufcient browse, although they too are often
brought to the lake for watering (Fig. 9.2).
The lakeside environment is so severely degraded that large numbers of livestock perish from the long trek to the lake or the
trip back to upland grazing areas (Fig. 4.4), especially during severe droughts. The problem is compounded by the recent
introduction of one of the most destructive invader plant species in the worldProsopis juliflora (or mesquite).8 The
recently unpalatable Prosopis accelerates pasture deterioration (Fig. 9.2) and it is spreading rapidly throughout the trans-
boundary region.
Lakeside Turkana arrive from a wide variety of upland pastoral areas. Nearly all of them now engage in shing or
pastoral/shing production activities. They reside in settlements ranging from single household villages to large
complexes with hundreds of households. Most household heads describe having moved from an upland region in stages:
for example, from near the Ilemi or around Lowarengak near the Kenya-Ethiopia border, southward to as far as Kalokol and
Fergusons Gulf (Fig. 1.3).
7
Some local ofcials privately acknowledge this major crisis brewing, but political conditions prohibit them from making any public statements
that are even potentially critical of the government. In fact, key SONT researchers were warned by these ofcials that their investigative work as
well as dialogue with villagers about the matter were dangerous and could bring repercussion. Partly for this reason, the identity of respondents and
their villages are protected by SONT.
8
This rapidly spreading and nearly intractable mesquite shrub consumes major soil water resources, prevents native rangeland species
establishment and is unpalatable for livestock (Manduab et al. 2011).
Fig. 9.2 Northern Turkana livestock herds watering at the lake. Top Goats at lakeside for watering and browse (plants are mostly unpalatable
invader species, Prosopis juliflora). Center Major death of baby goats (several hundred) from lack of water and browse on long trek to the lake).
Bottom left Young camels with female, in Prosopis thicket at lake. Bottom right Dead wild ass (donkey) during drought period near the lake
Most Northern Turkana communities from the upland areas now settled along the lake depend on shing or mixed
shing/pastoral production for their survival. For the most part, these Turkana have lost the majority of their livestock or
retain only a small number of animals (particularly small stock). Except for milk animals with very young offspring, even
these livestock are often sent to camps well removed from the lake.
Those households newly residing at the lake usually learn shing from others already settled there. Many different social
types of social arrangements are made for sheries and related economic activitiesarrangements for catch and village
based post-catch tasks, including preparation of pallets for merchant pickup. Some villagers engage in highly specialized
activities, such as boat preparation and repair or sail manufacture and repair (Fig. 9.3).
In addition to being involved in cleaning and drying sh catch, women and children frequently do secondary production
activities such as poultry raising, charcoal production and other small-scale manufacture. Although shing communities
have made major shifts in production relations since their pastoral existence, some dimensions of pastoral life have
remained strong. Graduallyk these too have been impacted by commercial relations in the region.
Tens of thousands of pastoral/shing Turkana reside in lands slightly removed from the lake but are also
dependent on the lake resources and activities for their survival. Many engage in work theresometimes shing
boat owners, but often in one of many forms of wage labor or bartering and market activities that generally involve
livestock products (live animals, skins and milk). The typically small numbers of village-based livestock are taken to the
lake for watering, as well as grazing (when it is available.) With the assistance of local elders, SONT researchers
identied the village complexes of both shing and pastoral/shing villages between Kalokol and the Kenya/Ethiopia
border (Fig. 9.4).
Technology among Turkana shers is relatively simple and mostly suited to shing in nearshore areasparticularly
Fergusons Gulf, the Omo delta, Alia Bay (Fig. 9.4) and smaller bays and inlets. Wooden boatsuniversally the most
desired item by shersare constructed, largely by boat-makers from the Kisumu-Lake Victoria region. Boats are pointed at
both ends, constructed from timber planks with a v-shaped bottom, and are propelled by paddles and /or sails (Figs. 9.3 and
9.5). Sails are typically fashioned from plastic food aid bags and the Turkana are highly adept at repairing them. Boats are
easily adapted for motors, but few Turkana can afford them. Lack of funds for boat purchase and engines is a universal
complaint among the shers along the lakes western shoreline, as pressure on nearshore resources continues to grows with
the influx of households needing to take up this new form of livelihood (Fig. 9.6). A few Turkana have developed expertise
in boat-making, though the substantial capital required has favored the Luo builders from the Kisumu region who craft them
at Fergusons Gulf, especially. Meanwhile, traditional rafts constructed of doum palm trunks lashed together (Fig. 9.5) are
used locally along portions of the lake's shoreline where waters are sufciently quiet. Rafts are extremely common in
Fergusons Gulf, for example.
Fishing in wide areas of the lake is commonplace for both northern and central Turkana. Fishers with sailboats, for
example, form seasonal, or temporary camps along the eastern shoreline (Figs. 9.3 and 9.4) and ventures into the Omo
delta are also taken on during multiple months of the year. Expeditions to the eastern shoreline can last up to a month or
more and can be extremely risky, depending on security and weather conditionslike Turkana ventures into waters near the
Omo delta. Specic direction, distance and duration of trips are determined by numerous factors, including size and
condition of boats, lake currents and prevailing winds, Omo River inflow force (including its annual pulse with freshwater
and nutrients), sh stock availability (involving reproduction and feeding rhythm, etc.), relations with other shers and labor
concerns.
Fishers commonly sail to eastern parts of the lake when winds subside and currents in the northern portion of the lake are
strong: for example, during the Omo Rivers annual pulse of inflow to the lake. Seasons of the year are often described
differently by residents along the lakeeven among individuals in one locale, as reports to SONT members revealed.
Moreover, seasonal changes of most concern to pastoralists are clearly different from those of shersa reality bringing
even more complexity to the reckoning of participants in this relatively new type of livelihood among the Turkana. (Strong
differences of interpretation emerged in group discussions of the matter in several shoreline villages, for example, and
certainly in inland ones). Table 9.1 presents only one such description of seasonality.
Fig. 9.3 Turkana shing villagers along northwestern shores of Lake Turkana. Top left preparing nets before sailing expedition party leaves. Top
right Pallet of dried sh await merchant pickup at roadside. Center Turkana wooden boats inshore with villagers bathing and water-getting. Bottom
left Fishing expedition of sailing boats leaves for eastern Lake Turkana waters. Bottom right villagers repairing sails made of plastic international
food aid bags
Fig. 9.4 Fishing and mixed shing/pastoral Turkana village areas at Lake Turkana. Major village complexes are indicated, along with temporary
(seasonal) shing villages along the eastern shore of the lake (another forms at North Island) and key sh reproductive habitatsprimarily along
shorelines in shallow waters (including near the Omo River inflow, in Fergusons Gulf and Alia Bay (see Fig. 5.2 for a bathymetric representation
of lake level drop)
Northern Turkana Pastoralists: The Long Decline and Migration to the Lake
Fig. 9.5 Turkana shing village activities at Kalokol and northward along the lake. Top left Turkana man with shing nets and raft of doum palm trunks lashed togetherat Fergusons Gulf.
Top right Sail boat (with sail constructed of food aid bags). Bottom left Clothes washing and interior of non-motorized boatnear Kenya-Ethiopia border. Bottom right Local market where
households market their prepared charcoal to locals and to travelers
167
Fig. 9.6 Northern Turkana Fishing Villagers. Top left Boys getting water at Fergusons Gulf. Top right Girl with sh caught from doum palm raft
in Fergusons Gulf. Bottom photos Family members of shing village complex near Ethiopia-Kenya border
Table 9.1 Annual seasons described by northern Turkana shers
ANNUAL SEASONS RECOGNIZED BY LAKE TURKANA FISHERS
AUGUST to NOVEMBER: ANAMAPOLO

Omo River: Major inflow to Lake Turkana
Currents: Extremely strong southward current from Omo River inflow,
facilitating movement of west shore Turkana fishers to eastern waters.
Winds: From the north, relatively mild to moderate.
Lake level: Generally at a maximum level in central/ northern portions of the lake,
lf and bays with highest waters and often high fish catch.
Strong currents around Omo delta are dangerous and avoided. Fish stocks
in shoreline areas and nearshore are relatively plentiful.
High level of movement to east shore waters from west shore villagers: up to 1 month trips.
) forming in modern delta with abundant fishing
by Dasanech.
DECEMBER to MAY: AKIBONG ANAM

Omo River quiet, much reduced.
Currents: Not strong, slowed considerably.
Winds: Extremely strong, from southeast, in early phase; then quieted.
Travel on lake possible as winds subside.
Lake level: Swelling gradually dwindling back toward minimum.
Fishing: Most lake travel suspended because of high winds in early phase.
After winds subside, major travel possible: fishing expeditions to
lake's eastern shoreline, northern shoreline, etc.
JUNE - JULY: ALELES NGAITIA

Omo River: Relatively quiet, low inflow to lake. Currents relatively slow to moderate.
Winds: Moderate, allowing traditional boats throughout the lake.
Lake level: Northern waters only slightly swollen relative to rest of the lake.
lf -- waters reduced, low level.
Fishing: Expeditions throughout eastern lake as well as northern shoreline
and modern delta (day expeditions, due to Dasanech opposition).
catch levels reduced.
Destinations dependent on boat type, gear, labor issues .
Note: Many refer to "the time of many birds breeding" for this period.
Fishing seasons contrast with pastoral ones, with fundamentally different factors for livelihood. Monthly periods indicated are approximate and
fluctuate with environmental conditions. Much variation in villagers use of these terms also exists in the northern and central regions
Fishing conditions in the lake would be drastically altered by even short-term cessation of Omo River inflow, which
would eliminate the rivers annual pulse of freshwater, sediment and nutrients. Major destruction of sh habitat and
plummeting sh catch would resultdecimating the livelihood of Turkana shing communities.
Fig. 9.7 Turkana girl and villagers with dried sh pallets set at roadside for transport to market. These pallets here have remained for two weeks,
awaiting merchant pickup
As according to shing elders from villages along the western shoreline, Turkana shers forming camps along the eastern
shore of the lake frequently mingle with El Molo shers in their targeting of tilapia, Nile perch, and other species. They are
at considerable risk of attack, however, by Dasanech from the east shore and by Gabbra herders (Fig. 1.3).
Conflicts between Turkana and Dasanech shers (described in Chap. 7) are frequent and often involve gear thefts and
killingsparticularly in the northern lake waters and around the Omo delta where the two groups compete for limited sh
stocks during many months of the year. According to all shers, these stocks are greatly stressed by the large commercial
shing boats based in Ethiopia. Turkana sailboats and gear are generally far superior to the technology available to the
Dasanechanother contributing factor to conflict. In a survey of Turkana shing households in several different village
complexes along the northwestern shoreline of the lake, this writer and other SONT researchers recorded numerous accounts
of gear theft and killings between Dasanech and Turkana shers.
As the survival systems of both the northern Turkana and the Dasanech continue to decline and the influx of pastoralists
refugees to the lake economy increases, the conditions for violent conflict intensify.
Fishing for markets is a precarious enterprise for the northern Turkana villagers. As early as the 1960s, some shers
have sent shprimarily tilapia and Nile perchto Kitale, Lake Victoria and other Kenyan markets. Preparation of catch
for market has not changed substantially over the years. There are no post-catch facilities for cleaning sh, so sh are
commonly cleaned on the sandy shores of the (therefore, deemed of reduced quality in markets), then salted and sun-dried on
netting racks strung well above the ground (Figs. 1.3 and 9.9). Dried sh for marketing are stacked and bound onto large
pallets and left at the roadside (Figs. 9.3 and 9.7). Pallets are picked up at irregular times by merchant truckers and moved to
markets in Kalokol and Lodwar within Turkana, as well as to Kisumu by Lake Victoria and elsewhere in Kenya. The price
paid to villagers is entirely set by the merchants and fluctuates widely. These are matters of real distress to northern Turkana
shers, since the number of days between pallet preparation and merchant pickup can be so extended that their nancial
return for their efforts is miniscule.
While household commodity productionincluding the common activities of charcoal preparation and chicken/geese
raisingis easily incorporated into customary Turkana social relations, commercial relations have generally brought new
pressures to the Turkana (Fig. 9.5). Instead of participating in community-based shing and marketing, for example, a few
villagers have now become sh merchants themselves. Local community members view them with some scorn and such
privatization style change suggests the potential future impacts of commercial systems on traditional cooperative relation-
shipsshould shing even survive as a means of livelihood in the region.
Fishing Shoreline Communities: Household Practices and Resources
SONT researchers conducted a survey of the practices and outcomes of shing by households in three distinct settlement
areas along the lake, between Fergusons Gulf and Todenyang (Fig. 9.4). Randomly selected household heads were
questioned about their livelihood activities and status. Data for 35 households from the different settlement areas are
summarized in Table 9.2.
Major patterns emerging from this survey include the following
Considerable uniformity exists within and among shing communities in terms of shing location and patterns of
consumption versus marketing of catch. There is also little variation in types of household commodity production.
More than half of all households had been settled along the lake for fewer than ten years, 25 % for twenty to forty years
and only 2.8 % for more than forty years. In general discussion, many household heads indicated that they remained at
the lake following the failure of aid development projects they had been part of, since they had insufcient resources to
return to pastoral life.
Villagers from the northern area (Todenyang, Lowarengak) were from upland pastoral areas such as Lokitaung (Fig. 9.4)
and relatively closer to Ilemi pastures. Many from the Kalokol region have arrived from Eliye Springs or lands toward
Lodwar and northward while others arrived from villages in the extreme northwestern shoreline area (Fig. 9.8). All
households settled along the lake for last resort survival activities after the loss of all or nearly all of their livestock from
starvation and disease during drought times or from raids by adjacent ethnic groups.
All households took up shing almost immediately after settling by the lake (mostly on others boats). Of the 35 shing
household heads surveyed, 12 owned (or co-owned) wooden boats. A number of shers in the Kalokol/Fergusons Gulf
area used doum palm rafts, most of them stating that they could not afford a boat. Nariokotome and Nachukwi (north of
Kalokol) were the only village areas surveyed where a substantial number of shers owned their boats. Very few had
been able to purchase an enginea matter of real frustration among these shers.
Food for household consumption consisted primarily of sh, with occasional meat (from purchase with proceeds from
sh marketing or from barter with nearby pastoral households). International food aid, primarily in the form of maize
meal or powdered milk, has provided occasional temporary relief for households in some locales; others have received no
aid at all.
A minority of shing households surveyed (approximately 17 %) undertook some type of household-based commodity
production, such as preparation and marketing of charcoal, grass mat weaving and chicken raising, in order to purchase
additional food (Figs. 9.5 and 9.9).
As described earlier for the region as a whole, most shing households engage in regular exchange (both barter and
sale/purchase) with nearby pastoral or mixed pastoral/shing villagers. Most needed to market a relatively high proportion of
their sh catch, however, and worked cooperatively with surrounding households. The prices paid by merchants for
sun-dried and salted sh picked up at the roadside were inconsistent among lakeside villages. Villagers complain that they
are powerless in this regard since they have to accept whatever the sh merchant will pay. At the time of the SONT survey, a
large pallet of sun-dried mixed species sh brought the low price of about 30 Kenyan shillings/kg in villages near
Lowarengak, for example. Nile perch clearly commanded the highest returnabout 150 Kenya shillings/kg, except for sh
maws (entrails).9
9
At the time of survey, USD 1 was equivalent to about 80 Kenyan shillings.
Table 9.2 Household Survey in Lake Turkana Fishing Communities: A Summary
172
Household number* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Village Todenyang Lowarengak Lowarengak Lowarengak Nakitoe- Nakitoe- Nadoupua Nadoupua Lorekawotolem
konon konon
Number years lived at 20 10 4 13 3 12 10 20 8
lake
Prior village areas Lowarengak Pringan,Naki- Lochwa Todenyang Lomekwi Lowarengak Lowarengak Todenyang Lokitaung
toekonon Arengan Lokitaung Kalokol Kakuma Kakuma Kakuma Kaleng
Kachoda
Reason moved to lake Livestock Livestock Livestock Livestock loss Livestock Livestock Livestock Livestock Livestock loss
loss loss loss loss loss loss loss
Major household food ** Fish Fish Fish Fish Fish Fish Fish Fish Fish
Own boat Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes No
Boat type Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood
Fishing: Jan to Apr 2011
Area fished Kanamukuny Ileret Ileret Kanamukuny Ileret Lowarengak Deep water Deep water Deep water
Kambi Ileret
Catch/month: Kg (dried) 30 120 200 20 520 40 300 130 230
fish
Fish consumed per month 30 30 80-100 14 20 60 180 30 50

(kg)
Number of fish marketed 70 190 2600 23 300 300 100 80 180

per month (approximate)
Other areas fished None Selicho Selicho Ileret, Ileret Ileret Lowarengak Kanamukuny Ileret
Delta Delta Kanamukuny
Main target fish Labelo, Labeo, Nile perch Nile perch Labelo N. Labelo Labelo Tilapia Tilapia
Tilapia Tilapia, perch
Nile perch
Fish prep. for market Sundry Sundry Sundry Sundry Sundry Sundry Sundry Sundry Sundry
(salt) (salt) (salt) (salt) (salt) (salt) (salt) (salt) (salt)
Market destination Kalokol Kalokol Kalokol Kalokol Kalokol Kalokol Lowarengak Lowarengak Lowarengak
Kisumu Kisumu Kisumu Kisumu Kisumu
(continued)
9 Turkana Survival Systems at Lake Turkana: Vulnerability
Household water source Lake Lake Well Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake
Own livestock No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cattle 0 3 8 5 0 0 0 0 0
Small stock 0 10 5 3 27 5 14 33 5
Camels 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other food sources No No No No No No No No No
Household commodity No No No No Mats No Firewood No Charcoal

sale
Relief aid Seldom Seldom Seldom Seldom Seldom Seldom Seldom Seldom Seldom
Village Nadoupua Nadoupua Nadoupua Nadoupua Nadoupua Narioko- Narioko- Nariokotome Nariokotome
tome tome
lake
Prior village areas Lowarengak Born Lowarengak Lowarengak Lowarengak Lowarengak Todenyang Lowarengak Lowarengak
Kakuma Todenyang Todenyang Turkwel Kakuma Kakuma Todenyang
Reason moved to lake Livestock N/a Livestock Livestock Livestock Livestock Livestock Livestock loss Livestock loss
loss loss loss loss loss loss
Major household food ** Fish Fish Fish Fish Fish Fish Fish Fish Fish
Own boat No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Boat type Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood
Fishing: Jan to Apr

2011
Area fished Deep water Deep water Deep water Ileret Ileret Choro Deep water Ileret Choro Ileret Choro
(continued)
173
174
Catch/month: Kg (dried) 210 300 25 170 300 100 27 305 160

fish
Fish consumed/ month 50 140 15 90 140 47 52 30 80

(kg).
Number fish marketed/ 160 220 50 210 430 203 50 490 190
month.
Other areas fished Ileret Ileret Ileret Kanamukuny Kanamukuny Choro Ileret Choro, Ileret Choro, Ileret
Main target fish Tilapia, Nile perch Nile perch Nile perch Nile perch Nile perch Labeo Nile perch Nile perch
Labeo Tilapia, Tilapia, Tilapia, Tilapia, Distichodus Labeo
Labeo Labeo Labeo Labeo
Fish prep. for market Sundry Sundry Sundry Sundry Sundry Sundry Sundry Sundry Sundry
(salt) (salt) (salt) (salt) (salt) (salt) (salt) (salt) (salt)
Market destination Lowarengak Lowarengak Lowarengak Lowarengak Lowarengak Kakuma - - -
Household water source Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake
Own livestock Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cattle 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
Small stock 38 8 3 0 43 5 12 26 8
Camels 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0
Other food sources No No No No No Work in Work in Work in No
mission mission mission
Household commodity No No No No No No No No No
sale
Village Nariokotome Nariokotome Nachukwi Nachukwi Nachukwi Nachukwi Nachukwi Nachukwi Kalochoro

lake
Prior village areas Lowarengak Lowarengak Lowarengak Lowarengak Lowarengak Kakuma Kataboi Kalokol Kalokol
(continued)
Kalokol Ngomeris Todenyang Todenyang Kalokol Lobolo Lodwar
Reason moved to lake Livestock Livestock Livestock Livestock Livestock Livestock Livestock Livestock loss Livestock loss
loss loss loss loss loss loss loss
Major household Fish Fish Fish Fish Fish Fish Fish Fish Fish
food**
Own boat No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Boat type Wood Wood Wood Wood - Wood Wood Wood Wood
Fishing: Jan to Apr

2011
Area fished Nariokotome Nariokotome Choro Ileret - Choro Ileret Ileret Deep water,
Kalochoro
Catch/month: Kg 250 430 30 202 - 68 30 42 145
(dried) fish
Fish consumed/ month 60 80 20 30 - 30 60 220 90

(kg).
Number fish marketed/ 370 620 84 120 - 90 310 400 300

month.
Other areas fished Choro, Ileret Choro, Ileret Choro, Ileret Choro, - Choro Choro - Kerio
Ileret
Main target fish Nile perch Nile perch Nile perch Nile perch - Nile perch Nile perch Tilapia, Labeo Distichodus,
Labeo Labeo Labeo Labeo Labeo Labeo
Fish prep. for market Sundry Sundry Sundry Sundry - Sundry Sundry Sundry Sundry
(salt) (salt) (salt) (salt) (salt) (salt) (salt) (salt)
Market destination - - Kalokol Kalokol - Kalokol Kalokol Kalokol Kalokol
Kakuma Kakuma Kakuma Kakuma Kakuma
Dinking/cooking water Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake
Own livestock No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cattle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Small stock 8 8 8 3 10 8 3 9 10
Camels 0 0 3 8 9 3 2 6 0
Other food sources No No No No Work in No No No No
mission
Household commodity No No No No No No No No Sell mats
sale baskets
(continued)
175
176
Household number* 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Village Kalochoro Kalochoro Kura Kura Kura Kura Namadak Namadak
Number years lived at lake 13 6 4 7 12 8 20 13
Prior village areas Kataboi Namadak Lodwar Lodwar Todenyang Todenyang Eliye Springs Lobolo, Eliye Springs
Kalokol Kalokol Kataboi Kerio
Reason moved to lake Livestock loss Livestock Livestock Livestock Livestock Livestock Livestock loss Livestock loss
loss loss loss loss loss
Major household food ** Fish Fish Fish Fish Fish Fish Fish Fish
Own boat No No No No Yes No No No
Boat type Wood Wood Raft Raft Wood Wood Raft Raft
Fishing: Jan to Apr 2011
Area fished Deep water, Deep water, Kura, Kura Kura Kura Namadak Namadak Namukuse
Kalochoro Kalochoro Karipun Longech Longech Longech Namukuse
Longech
Catch/month: Kg (dried) fish 240 170 400 370 3,000 4'000 2,000 1,500
Fish consumed/ month (kg). 50 78 50 70 40 400 200 50
Number fish marketed/ month. 120 320 2,000 2,400 2,100 16,000 9,000 7,000 fingerlings
fingerlings fingerlings fingerlings fingerlings fingerlings
Other areas fished Nariokotome Kalochoro Ekwar Adisi Ekwar Adisi Ekwar Adisi Ekwar Adisi Namukuse Lokoro
Nariokotome (Ferguson's (Ferguson's (Ferguson's (Ferguson's Ferguson's Ferguson's Gulf
Gulf) Gulf) Gulf) Gulf) Gulf
Main target fish Distichodus Distichodus Tilapia Tilapia Tilapia Tilapia Tilapia Tilapia
Labeo Labeo Clarias Clarias Clarias Clarias
Fish prep. for market Sundry Sundry Sundry Sundry Sundry Sundry Sundry Sundry
(salt) (salt) (salt) (salt) (salt) (salt) (salt) (salt)
(continued)
Market destination Kalokol Kalokol Kalokol Kalokol Kalokol Kalokol Kalokol Kalokol
Household water source Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake
Own livestock Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes
Cattle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Small stock 8 12 0 0 0 10 13 7
Camels 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0
Other food sources No No No No No No No No
Household commodity sale Sell mats Sell mats No No No No No No

baskets baskets
Relief aid Seldom Seldom Seldom Seldom Seldom Seldom Seldom Seldom
a
Household head interviewed; bOccasional maize meal from food aid organizations
177
178
Fig. 9.8 Turkana life at Fergusons Gulf and northward along shoreline. Top left Children on beach, near Kenya-Ethiopia border. Top right beach at Fergusons Gulf. Bottom left Goats
watering at Fergusons Gulf. Bottom right, Lower right Girl washing clothes from doum palm raft
Fishing Shoreline Communities: Household Practices and Resources 179
Fig. 9.9 Turkana woman drying sh for marketing with secondary geese/chickenraising
Fish Species and Critical Habitats

Fishing villages all along the west shore depend almost entirely on shing for their survival, with the number growing all
the time. A viable alternative way of survival is rare among them.
[GOK sheries ofcer in Kalokol]
Local accounts of important sh and their favored habitats, recorded by SONT researchers summarized in Table 9.3,
point to the devastating impacts that the Gibe III dam and dam linked irrigated commercial agricultural develop-
ment would have shoreline retreat would have on critical sh environments and indigenous shing.
Habitats for breeding and early life cycle stages for some of the most important sh species for northern Turkana shing
communities are concentrated along the northern shoreline of the lake and the Omo delta, where the annual flood pulse of
the Omo River provides major freshwater and nutrient contributions to the lakeas well as in Fergusons Gulf, Alia Bay
and several other key shing habitats along the lakes shallow locales.
The two most important catch species for the TurkanaNile perch and Nile tilapiadepend on these habitats.
Tilapia lay their eggs and hatch in grassy or reed areas along the shoreline in Fergusons Gulf and in other bay waters.
Tilapia ngerlings mature along the lakes muddy shores. Nile perch, on the other hand, lay eggs and hatch in deep water,
but juveniles feed on tilapia and other species ngerling populations in the delta and along the shoreline. Their presence
in the northern shoreline and delta area corresponds with the Omos annual flood and annual pulse of lake inflow between
early August and December. Nile perch also migrate upstream in the Omo River, where they provide subsistence to the
poorest Dasanech and Nyangatom communities. Three different species of tilapia: Orochromis niloticus, Sarotherodon
galilaeus and Tilapia zillii, are caught in the river, dried and sold to the export-oriented shing enterprises operating from
Ethiopia.
Turkana shers report a larger number of migrating species than are described in the scientic literature. Of the more than
50 sh species recorded for Lake Turkana, at least 12 are of major signicance to the Turkana shing communities.
Hopson (1982) describes four different sh communities in the lake: a littoral assemblage, an inshore assemblage, an
offshore demersal assemblage, and a pelagic assemblage. Eleven sh species are endemic to the lakenearly all of them
living in the offshore pelagic or demersal zone (Lowe-McConnell 1987). During the rivers annual flood, some of these
migrate up the Omo River and breed for various periods (Hopson 1982; Beadle 1981; Lvque 1997). These species
include Alestes baremoze, Hydrocynus forekalii, Citharinus citharus, Distichodus niloticus and Barbus bynni.
During the early months of the year, currents come from the north, with relatively light Omo River inflow, so Turkana
communities from the western shoreline can access both the Omo delta/northern shoreline areas and the eastern portion of
the lake, along with all available areas along the western shoreline. These conditions often have facilitated a relatively
high sh catch. Local shermen report catch levels range from 30 to 4000 kg (kilograms per month) during the
comparatively favorable February to April period. This wide range of catch values reflects a multiplicity of factors, similar
to those identied earlier for seasonal movements (e.g., access to boats and gear, available labor, number and duration of
shing expeditions, current and wind conditions, and shifts in target sh locales.) Catch values of 10004000 kg were
recorded only for shers at Fergusons Gulf areaprimarily those shers possessing sailboats with engines.
Table 9.3 lists those sh deemed most important by local shers, along with identication of critical sh reproductive and
life cycle habitats, as well as their estimated sensitivities to lake level change. Localities and seasonality of shing basically
conform to the seasonal movements and sh reproductive habitat locations indicated in Fig. 9.4. A view of progressive lake
level droppredictable from Gibe III and commercial scale irrigated agricultural developmentsis presented in Fig. 9.10.
A closer view of progressive lake level dropincluding changes to be expected in the earliest phase of these developments,
is shown for the Omo delta and Fergusons Gulf in Fig. 9.11.
Given the density of northern shing communities, the shoreline sh habitats on which they depend, their
already precarious nutritional status and the borderline potability of lake water, Turkana shing communities
are clearly vulnerable to catastrophic level destruction from lake retreat caused by the planned Omo basin
developments.
Counting the Discounted: Northern Turkana Population at the Lake
The question remains as to just how many Turkana are vulnerable to such livelihood destruction in terms of possible
destruction of the lake shery loss of the lake resources for livestock raising and access to potable water for basic
household needs.
It is apparent from the Kenyan government, development bank and other international agency documents and
particularly the 2009 national census by the Kenyan government, that the lakeside population remains vastly
underestimated in ofcial records. This fact is basic to the government and banks failure to account for its vulnerability to
demise from the planned developments in impact assessments and other reports. The SONT research project had insufcient
resources to be able to accurately assess the numbers of Turkana facing these threats, let alone the population of other
vulnerable ethnic groups around the lakea calculation that must include Dasanech, Gabbra, and El Molo communities
(Fig. 1.3). Targeted information gathering from local records (when available), meetings with council of elders members
were the only realistic means available for establishing a rough estimate. Moreover, village populations along the lake, as
well as pastoral/shing ones slight removed from the lake, shift rapidly with changing social and environmental conditions
both in the lake zone and the upland plains. (Fig. 9.4).10
10
Fishing and pastoral/shing village complexes shown in Fig. 9.4, for example, are mapped in relational terms, since GPS was not available to
SONT researchers at the time of survey.
Counting the Discounted: Northern Turkana Population at the Lake 181
Table 9.3 Lake Turkana sh species and habitats of importance to Turkana shing communities
Turkana Area most fished by Importance to Sensitivity to

Name Turkana and Spawning Turkana Survival Lake Retreat
Scientific/Common Habitat System
Names
Tilapia spp, including: Delta, near shore, Critical 3 Extreme

T. nilotica Kokine Consumption, Loss of spawning habitat;
T. galilaea Spawn: Marketing desiccation of delta, shoreline,
T. zilii Gulf, shorelines
Oreochromis
niloticus
Lates niloticus Delta, north shore, North Critical 3 Extreme
Nile Perch Iji and Central Islands Consumption, Feeding habitat and catch habitat
Spawn: Pelagic, but Marketing destruction
juveniles feeding in delta
Delta, nearshore, some Critical 3 Extreme
Labeo Horrie Chubule throughout lake Consumption Loss of spawning habitat and catch
Spawn: Grassy shore areas Marketing habitat destruction
Delta, north shore, Critical 3 Extreme

Distichodus niloticus Golo shorelines Consumption, Spawning and catch habitat
Spawn: Delta-Omo R. Marketing destruction
(grassy shoreline)
Clarias lazera Delta, north shore, near Critical 3 Extreme
Catfish Kopito shore Consumption, Spawning habitat destruction
Spawn: Muddy shallow water,,Marketing
grassy reeds
Shoreline Critical 3 Extreme
Synoclontis sp. Tir Spawn: Shoreline Spawning/ juvenile habitat loss
Delta, north shore, Critical 3 Extreme
Alestes - including: Juuze Consumption, Spawning/ juvenile habitat
A. dentex offshore, flood shallow Marketing Destruction (except North Island)
A. baremose Spawn: Delta, bays, North
A. nurse Island
Delta, north shore, near Significant 3 Extreme
Citharinus citharus Gesh shore, general lake Consumption (limited) Spawning and feeding habitat
Spawn: Delta destruction
Delta, shoreline, offshore Major 3 Extreme
Hydrocynus forkalii Lokel Spawn: Delta Consumption Spawning habitat destruction
Tigerfish
Barbus turkanae Momwara Delta, near shore, offshore Major 3 Extreme
B. bynni (schools) Consumption (limited) Spawning habitat
Spawn: Delta Marketing
Offshore/ demersal. Critical 1/2 Moderate/high
Bagrus spp. Loruk Spawn: General lake Consumption,
Balck Nile Catfish Marketing
Schilbe Naili Delta, north shore Major 3 Extreme
uranoscopus Spawn: Delta Consumption Spawning habitat destruction
(northern region )
Deltas, shallow water Significant 3 Extreme
Cichlidae Loroto Consumption
Marketing
Bagridae- Delta only Significant 3 Extreme
(giraffe catfish) bulubuluch Consumption
Key:
-- Importance to Turkana Survival System: = significant. = major, = critical
-- Sensitivity to Lake Retreat: 1 = moderate, 2 = high, 3 = extreme
Identication of taxa and assessment of habitat sensitivity described by local shermen from villages along Lake Turkanas northwestern shoreline
Fig. 9.10 Bathymetric representation of Lake Turkana retreat from Gibe III Dam and linked irrigation agriculture. Source ARWG; bathymetric
base map from Hopson (1982)
Fig. 9.11 Desiccation of Fergusons Gulf and the modern Omo delta: projected from Gibe III dam and irrigated enterprises along the Omo River.
Source ARWG; bathymetric values from Hopson (1982)
Some of the gures obtained were markedly below certain non-governmental organization estimateseven radically so, as
in the case of Kalokol town, which was recorded by several nonprot groups as 55,000 whereas the SONT estimate (from
consultations with local elders and aid agency gures) was closer to 30,000. Since the population of Kalokol fluctuates
greatly with economic and environmental conditions, this is not surprising. Other estimates, such as those by Oxfam for a
number of village/town locales along the lakerecorded in 2007 (prior to the 20072010 drought) , were lower. The highest
population gures, however, provide the best indication of the central and northern Turkanas vulnerability to the decline or
disappearance of Lake Turkanas waters and living resources.
Local Turkana administrators and council of elders members consistently described to SONT researchers that the GOKs
2009 census takers:
Recorded populations only in major centers, avoiding the more populous outskirts.
Avoided rural areas near the lake where most Turkana live (all local administrators questioned by SONT attest to the fact
that there are often more people living between main village complexes than within them). The GOK Census states that
census takers recorded very large areas (often hundreds of square kilometers around towns). Local ofcials questioned
gave contrary accountsnamely, that GOK census takers did not record the large and diffuse populations in lands
surrounding those towns visited.
Did not request the direct cooperation of locally chosen administratorsindividuals who are trusted by local residents
and far more knowledgeable about their communities and population sizes.
Recorded information from children and others unlikely to report accurately, rather than from heads of household.
Population estimates from SONT efforts with community members were taken primarily during the dry season. As noted
earlier, the populations of these complexes can fluctuate widely with changing environmental and social conditions.
Even a conservative estimate of the population dependent on the lakes resources points to at least 300,000 Turkana
who are dependent on the lakes watersfor household members daily consumption, for shing and/or for livestock
watering and grazing, and many exchange relations involving lake resources.
The Turkana population surrounding Fergusons Gulf is particularly vulnerable to major hunger and disease
conditions brought about by the retreat of Gulf waters, accompanied by shery collapse. Together with council of
elders members, SONT conducted a preliminary survey of villages around the Gulf, and continued data collection at
Kalokol and northward along the western shoreline. This work consistently produced larger gures than those released
by the 2009 GOK census. Moreover, this population is overwhelmingly likely to swell as environmental and economic
refugees move southward along the lake and toward the lake from the upland plains. Fergusons Gulf, along with the
northern reaches of the lake, must be anticipated to suffer the most immediate effects of early lake level drop from the
developments underway (see Fig. 9.11).
Lake retreat caused by the Gibe III dams inevitable radical reduction of Omo River inflow, even during the presumed
reservoir-ll, would desiccate Fergusons Gulf as indicated in the bathymetric of Figs. 9.10 and 9.11.11
The extremely shallow waters and biochemical characteristics of Fergusons Gulf support major reproductive habitats
for sh species critical to the Turkana and intensive shing activity during parts of the year. These critical sh habitats
would be eliminated by even the rst phase of lake retreat (Figs. 5.2 and 9.11).
As this book goes into print, there is substantial evidence of major river flow reduction from closure of the Gibe III dam and
reservoir lling, and early reports from villagers in both the lowermost Omo at Lake Turkana suggest both that recession
agriculture in the delta and riverside environments and the rivers annual pulse of freshwater, sediment and nutrients into the
lake are fully compromised. All communities contacted report sh catches reduced, although to date, no systematic
11
Gulf locales measured 56 m in depth as recently as 2005 were only 2.53 m by 2013, according to local shery ofcer reports to SONT
researchers. The mouth of Fergusons Gulf, once more than 1800 meters wide (according to gures quoted from the East African Common
Services Organization in the early 1960s), has become so nearly closed and shallow that even small wooden vessels typically could not pass
through the mouth and had to remain in the main lake waters (Fig. 9.11).
investigation has been possible. The possible role of climate change in worsening the lake level impact from Gibe III dam
and irrigated agricultural development is unknown, but it is likely to be substantial in the longer term.
Turkana shing villages extend around the (Longech) spit at the Fergusons Gulf opening to the lake, and continue
into lands between the Gulf and the town of Kalokol, where nearly all villagers are engaged in shing activities in one
way or another. Many of them bring livestock and are part of the pastoral/shing complexes described earlier. To the extent
possible, herd owners keep their small stock locally (Figs. 4.6 and 9.2) and groups of thousands of small stock can be seen
trekking to the lake for watering any grazing that is available. Camels are typically sent inland and are only brought to the
lake for watering when necessary.
Council of elders members at Fergusons Gulf drew a map of villages present at the time of SONTs visits in late 2012, as
shown in Fig. 9.12. The supplementary Google Earth image of Fergusons Gulf indicates the high level of accuracy with
which these individuals (relationally) represented their villages, despite no previous experience with maps. Based on
estimates earlier submitted to local ofcials, elders reported the population totals listed in Table 9.4. While gures for
individual locales sometimes fluctuate greatly with shifting economic, environmental and other conditions, the overall totals
are representative of the settlement presence and Turkana dependence on the Gulfs resources.
Most of these villages were not even included in the GOKs census; others were greatly underestimated. For example, the
population for Namukuse village area was under-represented by at least 40 % in the census. For an accurate estimation of the
Fig. 9.12 Indigenous map of Turkana villages at Fergusons Gulf. Source Local Council of Elders from the Gulf regionmeetings and eld
reconnaissance with SONT researchers. Satellite map added
Table 9.4 Population estimates from Fergusons Gulf region

Longecha 12,000
Lomaret 500
Jap 2000
Losigirigir 200
b
Village (South. of Jap) 1800
Namakat 1000
Wadite 3000
Nayanae ekalale 500
Lokwar angipirea 1500
Darajac 650
Loporoto 800
Karepun 700
Lokorokor 3000
Natirae 1500
Namukuse 10,000
Kura 3500
Village-near above 900
Impressa 5000
Nawoitorong 1000
Natole 4000
Nawokodu 500
Total population 54,050
Source Council of Elders (from prior accounts reports to aid ofcieals) as reported to SONT researchers in eld-based meetings
a
Cholera outbreaks known
b
Former GOK sheries camp
c
Former NORAD project locale
vulnerable Turkana population actually dependent on the Fergusons Gulf region, the populations of Kalokol town, its
immediate environs, and the area between Kalokol town and Fergusons Gulf must be added. Estimates from local
administrators (in private consultation) and council of elders members were:
Kalokol town 11,500 (GOK census gure; larger environs not recorded)
Kalokol (outlying)4500 (incl. Nakiria2300)
This estimate excluded additional population segments essential to include, but such a survey was beyond the logistical
capabilities of the SONT team. These population components include:
Thousands of pastoral/shing Turkana in settlements slightly more removed from the lake but fundamentally dependent
on its resources for their survival (Fig. 9.4).
Villagers diffusely settled between Kalokol town and Fergusons Gulf.
Based on above estimates for the immediate Fergusons Gulf, area combined with Kalokol and its outlying communities, the
affected resident population in the Gulf area was at least 70,050.
In all probability this estimate is a conservative one, due to the continued migration to the lake since the time of this SONT
survey.
The drying out of the Gulf would produce crisis level of hunger for both the population residing around the Gulf itself
and for multiple thousands of Turkana living in locales slightly removed.
The Turkana population residing along the western shoreline is not only acutely vulnerable to economic collapse: it is also
threatened with major disease epidemics, including cholera. According to U.N. data, cholera in the Turkana region is already
one of the highest in Kenya, with recorded outbreaks along the western shoreline of Lake Turkana, especially around
Kalokol (Africa Health 1998).
Population estimates for towns along the shores of Lake Turkana between Kalokol and the Ethiopia/Kenya border
(Fig. 9.4) present a similar picture of major exclusion by the Kenya governments 2009 national census. Along with
nearby large village complexes, these areas were recorded by SONT members with assistance from local government
administrators, council of elders members, and Beach Management Unit members (local residents who are government
appointed). The results are summarized in Table 9.5; data excludes populations of villages scattered between population
centersareas that must be included for a minimally acceptable population estimate for the northern Turkana region. Local
ofcials describe the density of people and livestock in these areas as considerably swollen following major stress conditions
in upland plains to the west and northwest. Both administrators and elders reported that most of these village areas were
not visited by government census takers.
Table 9.5 Population estimates for towns and village complexes along Lake Turkanas western shore from Kalokol to the Kenya-Ethiopia border
Kangaki 2000
Lokalale 650
Lomekwi 3000
Ngingolekoyo 1200
Nachukwi 5000
Kangatukusio 320
Kataboi 9000
Kaitengiro 500
Katiko 8000
Toperenawi 3000
Nasechabuin 3000
Kalotumukol 1700
Nalukowoi 350
Nariokotome 5000
Kaitio 200
Kokiselei 950
Kalochoro 290
Narengewoi 1300
Nayanae engol 800
Namarotot 500
Nadoupua 800
Lokapetemoi 300
Namadak 4000
Todenyang/Arii 10,300
Lowarengak 7000
Lokitonyalla 2300
Source Local government ofcers, and Council of Elders (from prior accounts reports to aid ofcieals) as reported to SONT researchers in
eld-based meetings
Based on these locally derived estimates, the indigenous population in the shoreline area between Kalokol and Todenyang
(Fig. 2) is at least 71,460
Combining the above rough estimates, the indigenous population in the shoreline area of Fergusons Gulf, extending
northward Lake Turkana to the Kenya/Ethiopia border (near Todenyang) is at least: 141,000
The true population of those Turkana who are vulnerable to destruction of their survival means from the effects of the
Gibe III dam and irrigated agriculture on Lake Turkana is far greater, however. This population includes those shing and
mixed pastoral/shing villagers who reside slightly more removed from Lake Turkana, but who nevertheless depend on it for
their survival, through:
Work as shersgenerally working for boat owners, or in post-catch sheries related work
Trading for sh, offering livestock products (meat, milk, skins, live animals)
Livestock watering and lakeside grazing.
While there are no estimates for this pastoral/shing population, which was apparently largely omitted from the census,
many thousands of villagers clearly reside throughout this zone (villages are listed and relationally mapped in Fig. 9.3).
A population estimate of at least 200,000 for those Turkana residing either along the lake or slightly removed from it is likely
a conservative one.
The unreliability of the GOKs population census does not alter the reality that the total indigenous shing and pastoral
population depending on Lake Turkana for their survival is far greater, even excluding the tens of thousands of
Dasanech residing (within Kenyan borders) in the modern Omo Delta (see Fig. 1.2) and around the lakes northeastern
shoreline, as well as El Molo, Rendille, Gabbra and other peoples around the southern and eastern lake.
In sum, the total regional population facing a survival crisis from their dependence on Lake Turkana should
be presumed to be at least 300,000.
The extreme vulnerability of this population is compounded by the continuing decline of Turkana the regions pastoral
sector. Since at least a signicant proportion of this population possibly remains uncounted by the Kenyan government in its
2009 national census as well, the regions looming disaster scale impacts of the developments underway cannot be ignored
in national and international policy institutions and civil society.12
With comparable crises to that of Kenyas Turkana unfolding among the Dasanech and Nyangatom peoples as well,
cross-border armed conflict among these groups and their neighbors (Fig. 5.3) can be expected to escalatethus
worsening the armed struggle underway in South Sudan. (Numerous young men from the regionespecially Nyan-
gatom and Turkanahave already joined insurgent groups in South Sudansome of them returning with new arms.)13
Active policy decisions by the Ethiopian government, the Kenyan government and international development orga-
nizationsparticularly the World Bank and the African Development Bankraise the specter of violation of inter-
nationally recognized human rights. These violations center around U.N. resolutions regarding the human rights to
water, to livelihood and to freedom from political repression.
12
The 2009 AFDB socioeconomic report cited a general lake-associated population of 300,000 (AFDB 2009), but embedded in the body of the
report text, without notation of any signicance within the context of the planned developments and without mention in the Summary and
Conclusions sections. The EIB assessment of the Ethiopian segment includes some fragmentary and ambiguous population estimates for Ethiopias
lower Omo region.
13
Detailed consideration of the decline of authority relations amongst the Turkana and the pastoral Suri is available in Abbink (2007) and Skoggard
and Adem (2010).
Literature Cited 189
Literature Cited
Abbink, J. 2007. Culture Slipping Away: Violence, Social Tension, and Personal Drama in Suri Society, Southern Ethiopia. In: Rao, A., M. Bollig
and M. Bock (Eds.). The Practice of War: Production, Reproduction, and Communication of Armed Violence. pp. 5371. Berghahn Books.
Africa Health. 1998. Cholera in Turkana. 21(1):43.
Bayley, P.B. 1982. The commercial shery of Lake Turkana. In: Report on the ndings of the Lake Turkana project, 19721975, Edited by
Hopson, A.J., Chap. 6, Vol. 2. London: Government of Kenya and the Ministry of Overseas Development.
Beadle, L.C. 1932. Scientic results of the Cambridge expedition to the East African lakes, 19301931. The waters of some East African lakes in
relation to their fauna and flora. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 38: 157211.
Beadle, L. C. 1981. The Inland Waters of Tropical Africa. London, Longman.
Carr, C.J. 2012. Humanitarian catastrophe and regional armed conflict brewing in the border region of Ethiopia, Kenya and South Sudan: the
proposed Gibe III Dam in Ethiopia, Dec 2012, 250 p. https://www.academia.edu/8385749/.
Collins, R.O. 2006. The Turkana patrol of 1918 reconsidered. Ethnohistory 53(1): 95119.
Government of Kenya, National Bureau of Statistics, 2009. Population and housing census. http://www.knbs.or.ke/index.php?option=com_
content&view=article&id=110&Itemid=483.
Gulliver, P. 1955. The family herds: a study of two pastoral tribes in East Africa: The Jie and Turkana.
Gwynne, M.D. 1969. A bibliography of Turkana. London: Royal Geographical Society.
Hogg, R. 1982. Destitution and development: the Turkana of North West Kenya. Disasters 6(3): 164168.
Hopson A.J. 1982, Lake Turkana, a report on the ndings of the Lake Turkana project, 19721975, Vols. 16.
Lamphear, J. 1988. The people of the grey bull: the origin and expansion of the Turkana. Journal of African History 29(1): 2739.
Lamphear, J. 1992. The scattering time: Turkana responses to colonial rule. Oxford: University of Oxford Press, 308 p.
Lvque, C. 1997. Biodiversity Dynamics and Conservation: The Freshwater Fish of Tropical Africa. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Lowe-McConnell, R. H. 1987. Ecological Studies in Tropical Fish Communities. Cambridge University Press.
Maunduab, P., S. Kibetb, Y. Morimotoa, M. Imbumic, and R. Adekab. 2011. Impact of Prosopis juliflora on Kenyas semi-arid and arid
ecosystems and local livelihoods. http://www.tandfonline.com.
McCabe, J.T. 1990. Success and failure: the breakdown of traditional drought coping institutions among the pastoral Turkana of Kenya. Journal of
Asian and African Studies 25(3): 146160.
McCabe, J.T. 2004, Cattle bring us to our enemies: Turkana ecology, politics and raiding in a disequilibrium system. Michigan: University of
Michigan Press.
Mkutu, K. 2003. Pastoral conflict and small arms: the Kenya-Uganda border region. http://mercury.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/124873/
ipublicationdocument_singledocument/0d961f0f-e565-4b17-99f7-a256a27389ca/en/Pastoral+conict.pdf.
Oba, G. 1992. Ecological factors in land use conflicts in Turkana. Pastoral Development Network, Paper no. 33a, 23.
Skoggard, I. and T.A. Adem. 2010. From raiders to rustlers: The lial disaffection of a Turkana Age-Set. Ethnology 49(4): 249262.
Von Hohnel, L. 1938. The Lake Rudolf region: Its discovery and subsequent exploration, 18881909. Journal of the Royal African Society,
London 37.
Human Rights Violations and the Policy
Crossroads 10
If our floods go away, what will we do? We have nowhere to gonowhere to take our.
children. You will nd our bones here.
[Dasanech agropastoral woman in the Omo River delta]
Abstract
The pursuit of Omo River basin development is leading to a major human rights crisis in
the Ethiopia-Kenya-South Sudan transboundary region of eastern Africa. Among the
principal human rights being violated are those recognized by the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) Treaty adopted by the U.N. General
Assembly. Although the Ethiopian government is most immediately responsible for
initiating human rights violations in the region, the Kenyan government and international
development banks are variously complicit, collaborative and partnered in these
transgressions. The World Bank, African Development Bank and major donor countries
continue to supporteven legitimatethe development despite predictable destruction of
hundreds of thousands of indigenous peoples livelihoods and major political rights
violations, particularly within Ethiopia. Cumulative and synergistic effects of the Gibe III
megadam and its linked irrigated plantations and energy export transmission system must
be integrally considered for adequate social and environmental impact assessment, yet both
governments and development banks have failed to act on this mandate. A crossroads in
public policy has now emerged: either pursue the present pathway toward massive scale
hunger, regional economic collapse and major new cross-border armed conflict or suspend
the development underway in order to take genuine account of human rights and proceed in
a direction that is accountable to citizens and provides for a sustainable future for the three
nations involved.
The Crisis Unfolding and the Human Right to Context
Previous chapters of this book have detailed how and why the Gibe III hydrodamone of the worlds tallest,
together with its linked irrigated agricultural and electricity export transmission developmentis creating a human
rights as well as humanitarian crisis in the transboundary region of Ethiopia-Kenya-South Sudan (Fig. 1.1). The
indigenous population in these semi-arid lands is already subject to some of the highest levels of malnutrition, epidemic level
disease and armed conflict in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Hundreds of thousands of indigenous pastoralists and agropastoralists, of multiple ethnicities in the region (Fig. 1.3) have
been so severely disenfranchised over decades that they have had no recourse but to move to lands along the Omo River or
Lake Turkana (Fig. 4.6). There they depend on river or lake waters for varying combinations of livestock raising, flood
recession agriculture, shing and other livelihood activities, as well as for potable water for household use. Government
census information and international aid documents grossly underestimate the size of the vulnerable population and the real
threat that these developments pose to their continued existence.

192 10 Human Rights Violations and the Policy Crossroads
Radical reduction in Omo River flow volume and the rivers inflow to Lake Turkana. brought about by the Gibe III
dam and dam-enabled irrigated agricultural enterprises, spells disaster for these river and lake dependent livelihood
activities and the peoples depending on them. The reasons for the massive scale vulnerability and the dynamics involved
are detailed throughout the chapters of this book. The overall dismantlement of livelihood systems, including complex
survival strategies that have for centuries been able to adapt to their changing circumstances, are now pushed beyond their
capacity to adjust.
For much of the indigenous population, the loss of Lake Turkana and Omo River water resources amounts to a virtual
death sentence.
Added to this impending destruction is the plausible threat of Gibe III dam failure from earthquake or seismically triggered
landslide events, causing unprecedented human and environmental decimation downstream in the Omo basin and around
Lake Turkana. The scientic basis for postulating a 20 % chance of a 7 or 8 magnitude earthquake in the Gibe III dam region
during the next 50 years is outlined in Chap. 3. The Ethiopian government, Kenyan government and development banks, in
their environmental and social impact assessments for the Gibe III dam, have unambiguously failed to take account of the
potentially catastrophic destruction that would result from dam collapse or overtopping due to a seismic event.
If the Gibe III dam and dam-enabled irrigated agricultural commercial farms become operational, major escalation of conflict
among ethnic groupseach desperate for access to the regions disappearing resourceswould inevitably occur (Fig. 5.3),
with major spillover into the Ilemi Triangle and South Sudan that are already embroiled in major conflict. In turn, the
Kenyan and Ethiopian governments would increase their militarization of the region (a process already underway), in order
to fortify their respective territorial claims and protect the activities of foreign corporations contracted by them to exploit the
regions agricultural and petroleum resources. This process is already taken to an extreme in the lower Omo basin within
Ethiopia.
Major oil and gas deposits exist throughout much of the transboundary region. Oil exploration activities have been underway
for years prior to Ethiopian and Kenyan government public announcement of newly discovered reserves (see Appendix).
Contrary to Tullow Oil and government statements, these activities have been undertaken without account of their impact on
the regions hundreds of thousands of indigenous residents and their environment. As in other areas of East Africa and the
Horn region, their actions have ignored international (U.N.) and national government mandates for free and informed
consent by affected communities. Active exploration by the oil industry and related international aid funded infrastructural
development within the region, have provoked local resistanceeven militantdespite assurances by industry and
government representatives of major benets that will accrue to local communities. Numerous small legitimation efforts by
the industry have been introduced in central and northern Turkana, including construction of small communal health small
clinics and other facilities, school payments for Turkana children (e.g., by Tullow Oil), and small traveling theater groups
dramatizing the positive outcomes of oil and gas development in Turkana lands.1
Transgressions of internationally recognized human rights by the Ethiopian and Kenyan governments, in collaboration
with the AFDB and World Bank, center around violations of internationally recognized rightsto an adequate
standard of living, to food and the means of producing it, to water and to freedom of political expression.
The United Nations drafted the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in the
1950s, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)passed in 1948 by the General Assembly.
The ICESCR, also referred to as the Covenant, was passed by the U.N. General Assembly in December of 1966 and
brought into force in 1976.2
1
These community contributions are widely considered by Turkana elders to be bribes for complicity with oil operations in their region.
2
A succinct history of the U.N.s human rights related multilateral treaties and treaty bodies is available (U.N. Ofce of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights (OHCHR 2012).
The Crisis Unfolding and the Human Right to Context 193
The ICESCR (Covenant) constitutes a multilateral treaty committing State parties to work toward the granting
of economic, social and cultural rights to individuals. It formally recognizes the human right to an adequate
standard of living, including the right to food, freedom from hunger and health, among other rights. The
Covenant also species the steps to be undertaken by all State parties in order to realize those rights.
The Covenant has 164 State parties and is legally binding of all States signing and ratifying it. (The United States, along with
Myanmar, for example, has signed but not ratied the treaty.) Both Kenya and Ethiopia have signed and ratied the ICESCR
in 1972 and 1993, respectively. Those Articles of the Covenant most pertinent to the human rights noted above include the
following.
Article 1(2): In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
Article 2(1): Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps, individually and through
international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available
resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant
by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures. [Emphasis added. Note:
achieving progressively the full realization of the rights... clearly implies no backsliding, or regressing.].
Article 11(1): The State parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard
of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous
improvement of living conditions. [Emphases added].
Article 12 (1, 2): The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the
highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. and The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the
present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for...The prevention,
treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases.
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) was established in 1985 to interpret specic
Articles of the Covenant and to monitor its implementation by States parties. Established by U.N. Economic and Social
Council (ECOSOC) Resolution 1985/17, the CESCR has 18 independent experts assigned these tasks. All State parties are
required to present regular reports to the CESCR regarding their compliance with the rights established by the Covenant,
whereupon the Committee carries out a multistage process of evaluation and subsequent dialogue with member States.
Critics note the lack of effective U.N. oversight, largely due to insufcient funding and vulnerability to political pressures.
A series of General Comments are issued by the CESCR, two of which have critical implications in a consideration of
human rights violations in the transboundary region.
The Right to Food: CESCR General Comment 12. The CESCR's General Comment 12, issued in 1999, was largely in
response to member States requests following the 1996 World Food Conference for clarication of Article 11 of the
Covenant concerning food. Follow-through meetings at the OHCHR and the FAO regarding the human right to food also
contributed to the need for clarication. Most notable in the General Comment (GC 12) is the statement afrming the
normative content of the Covenants Article 11, paragraphs 1 and 2.
The right to adequate food is realized when every man, woman and child, alone or in community with others, have
physical and economic access at all times to adequate food or means for its procurement [Emphasis added.]
Further interpreting Article 11 of the Covenant, General Comment 12 (GC 12) states,
The right to adequate food, like any other human right, imposes three types or levels of obligations on States
parties: the obligations to respect, to protect and to full... The obligation to respect existing access to adequate food
requires States parties not to take any measures that result in preventing such access. The obligation to protect
requires measures by the State to ensure that enterprises or individuals do not deprive individuals of their access to
adequate food. The obligation to full means the State must proactively engage in activities intended to strengthen
peoples access to and utilization of resources and means to ensure their livelihood, including food security.
(Section 15; Emphases added.]
More than two years prior to the GOE and development bank impact assessments, the U.N. High Commissioner for
Human Rights (OHCHR) conducted a 2007 study of the specic obligations of States relative to access to safe drinking
water and sanitation, with the conclusion that full recognition of such access should be recognized as a human right.
The OHCHR, in its Fact Sheet 35, has stated the following with regard to the human right to water as it pertains to both
agriculture and pastoralism.Water is essential for life, but is also key to food security, income generation and envi-
ronmental protection.
General Comment No. 15 states that priority should be given to the water resources required to prevent starvation
and disease, as well as the water required to meet the core obligations of each of the Covenant rights. Bearing in
mind the interdependence and indivisibility of all human rights, it can be said that the right to water ensures
priority for water use in agriculture and pastoralism when necessary to prevent starvation. [Emphasis added].
The Right to Water: CESCR General Comment 15. In November of 2002, the CESCR afrmed the right to water in
Articles 11 and 12 of the Covenant and stated that this right is inextricably linked to other rights specied in the
ICESCRnamely, the right to adequate food and health (CESCR 2002).3 By the General Comment 15, the CESCR
considers that this is not limited to domestic uses but rather, extends to multiple uses of waterincluding for production.
The CESCR did recognize, therefore, that water is required for other purposes including food production and other
aspects of livelihood, even though it prioritized the right to water for personal and domestic uses (ibid.).
The human right to water is indispensable for leading a life in human dignity. It is a prerequisite for the
realization of other human rights. (Sect. 1; Emphasis added.)
The right to water is dened as the right of everyone to sufcient, safe, acceptable, physically accessible and
affordable water for personal and domestic uses. (Sect. 2)
Article I.1 of the CESCRs General Comment No. 15 continues with these statements.
Parties should ensure that there is adequate access to water for subsistence farming and for securing the livelihoods
of indigenous peoples (pg. 4)
The Covenant species a number of rights emanating from, and indispensable for, the realization of the right to an
adequate standard of living including adequate food, clothing and housing. The use of the word including,
indicates that this catalogue of rights was not intended to be exhaustive. The right to water clearly falls within the
category of guarantees essential for securing an adequate standard of living, particularly since it is one of the most
fundamental conditions for survival.
The General Comment describes States obligations to realize the human right to water:
States must, at a minimum, show that they are making every possible effort, within available resources, to better
protect and promote this right. Available resources refer to those existing within a State, as well as those available
from the international community through international cooperation and assistance, as outlined in Articles 2 (1), 11
and 23 of the Covenant.
Among the other pertinent statements of Comment No. 15 are those that individuals should be given equal and full access
to information concerning water and the environment, (Para. 48).
General Assembly Resolution 64/292: The Right to Water. The United Nations took a major step in advancing the
formal acknowledgment of human rights in July/August of 2010, when the General Assembly (GA) adopted Resolution
64/292. The Resolution explicitly recognizes the right to water for drinking and sanitation and was adopted within the
context of the Covenant's Article 11 (and the UDHR's Article 25.) For the rst time, the U.N. formally recognizes:
The right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment
of life and all human rights.4
3
Comment No. 15 was published soon after, as E/C.12/2002/11 on January 20, 2003.
4
General Assembly Resolution 64/292 (para. 1). The Human Right to Water and Sanitation, August 3, 2010.
The Crisis Unfolding and the Human Right to Context 195
It also calls on States and international organizations to provide nancial resources in order to provide safe, clean, accessible
and affordable drinking water and sanitation for all.
Even a relatively strict interpretation of the relationship between the right to food and right to waterfor example, one
considering water as an input to food productionacknowledges that, just like food and housing, an adequate supply of
water is absolutely essential for an adequate standard of living, as it is necessary for the sustenance of life itself and for
ensuring a life with dignity (Winkler 2012)5. As such, it has the same status as the rights to food and housing that are also
encompassed under the heading of the 'right to an adequate standard of living.
It should be further noted that if drinking water, sanitation water and water for food production all come from the same
sources in a given community, then protecting drinking water effectively means protecting all water. This is precisely the
case in the lowermost Omo River basin and at Lake Turkana, where communities must utilize the same water for drinking
and sanitation as for their major livelihood activities. Any application of General Assembly Resolution 64/292 by the
Ethiopian and Kenyan States thus requires them to protect water sources used for all their needs.
The U.N. Human Rights Council responded to the General Assembly's adoption of Resolution 64/292 with its own
Resolution 15/9 on September 30, 2010, which:
afrms that the rights to water and sanitation are part of existing international law, and
conrms that these rights are legally binding upon States.
The Resolution also calls upon States to develop appropriate tools and mechanisms to progressively achieve the full
realization of such human rights obligations (in other words, without backsliding).
A number of closely related U.N. based declarations, conventions, international treaties and policy instruments have identied
human rights violations in ways applicable to the transboundary region. One of these is the 2007 U.N. Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), adopted by the General Assembly in September 2007 (U.N., General Assembly
2007)just as construction of Ethiopias Gibe III dam was beginning. An outgrowth of the ILO Convention No. 169, UNDRIP
issues the core assertion that indigenous peoples have rights to self-determination, lands, territories, natural resources and
free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). Like the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, UNDRIP is non-binding for states, but
it provides a critical measure for interpreting human rights violations as they impact indigenous peoples.
The African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights was adopted by the Organisation of African Unity in 1981
18 years after the OAU was formed and came into force in 1986, in order to both promote and protect human
and peoples rights. As an instrument of human rights, the African Charter was comparable to such bodies in Europe. In
accordance with Article 30 of the Charter, the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights (ACHPR) was set
up in 1987, with the tasks of promoting and protecting human and peoples rights and interpreting the Articles of the
Charter. Responsibility of protecting rights to hear and rule on complaints as well as considering individual complaints of
violations of the Charter. Meeting twice a year, the Commission has 11 members who are nominated by their own states
(State parties) and elected by the AU Assembly. Presently, two of the eleven members are from Ethiopia and Kenya.6
Although the ICESCR is a multilateral treaty that is binding on all members since it came into force, a mechanism for
individuals to bring a complaint against a member state when they have experienced violation of the Covenant was only
established in 2008, with the U.S. General Assembly's adoption of the Optional Protocol to the ICESCR. As of 2013, enough
states (although few African states) had ratied the Optional Protocol so that it did go into force. A Working Group on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights within the ACHPR is actively cooperating with an international network to promote
ratication by African members states.
A major complaint has been brought against the Ethiopian government by the Survival International Charitable
Trust (SICT), citing the GOEs violation of at least four Articles of the African CharterArticles recognizing the right to
5
Broader interpretations of GA 64/292 consider the Resolution to go directly together with the rights to food. Both interpretations consider it to
address an adequate standard of living. See, for example, R.P. Hall et. al. (2013).
6
The present Ethiopian ACHPR Commissioner is Chairperson of the ACHPR's Working Group on Extractive Industries, Environment and Human
Rights Violations.
Self-Determination, to Natural Resources, to Development and to Environment. SICT has brought these charges to the
ACHPR on behalf of multiple indigenous peoples in the South Omo7. At the time of this books submission for printing in
2015, the case is pending with the ACHPR.
An important milestone in ACHPR recognition of ICESCRs recognition of the human rights to food, livelihood
(standard of living) and water transpired in February of 2015, when the ACHPR adopted Resolution 300 on the Right to
Water Obligations. In specifying the obligations of African States in implementing the right to water, the Commission
has taken a rather broad view. The Resolution was in part the product of cooperation between the Commission and a
group of civil society organizations (CSOs).8 Resolution 300 explicitly refers to the Commission's guidelines on Eco-
nomic, Social and Cultural Rights (adopted in Tunis in 2011) which require States:
to protect water resources from pollution, to prioritize the provision of water for personal and domestic use and
to protect the right to water and other related rights, the realization of which directly depends on water resources
management. [Emphasis added.]
to strengthen natural resources governance...using a human rights approach...with the participation and in the
interest of the population.
[Observe] Resolution 64/292 of the United Nations General Assembly and Resolution 15/9 of the United Nations
Human Rights Council.
The ACHPR expresses concern over the negative effects of overuse...and other development activities threatening the
rights of present and future generations, the realization of which depends on access to water, and urges African states to
protect the quality of national and international water resources and the entire riverine ecosystem. [Emphases added]. It
remains to be seen how the Commission will apply Resolution 300.
The Ethiopian Governments Violations of Human Rights in the Transboundary Region
The Ethiopian government (GOE) has blatantly ignored ICESCR recognized human rights in its single-minded
pursuit of the Gibe IlI and linked Omo River basin developments, despite predictable massive scale livelihood and
human destruction throughout the transboundary region.
GOE violations of ICESCR recognized rights stem from several major dimensions of its actions:
(i) The planning, design and construction of the Gibe III dam, dam-dependent irrigated agricultural commercial farms
(and infrastructure for it), and an electricity export system (EHPP)all without regard for the survival needs of
affected indigenous peoples in Ethiopia and Kenya.
(ii) The radical reduction of Omo River flow volume and inflow to Lake Turkana, causing widespread desiccation of the
lowermost riverine zone in the lower Omo basin and major lake retreatin turn, destroying pastoral, agropastoral and
shing livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of residents (see Figs. 5.2, 7.14 and 9.10).
(iii) The forceful, even brutal expropriation of indigenous lands and eviction of communities from their village areas along
the Omo Riverwith ongoing denial of their right to political expression or dissent.
The Ethiopian government's actions in the lowermost Omo basin have consistently violated Articles of the Constitution of
Ethiopia (for example, Article 40), its own environmental laws, and government agency as well as ministry operational
requirements. Even a partial list of Ethiopian standards being violated must include:
The Environmental Policy of Ethiopia (EPE) addressing environmental and social accounting.
The National Conservation Strategy.
7
The complaint led by SICT does not explicitly address the borderlands between Ethiopia and Kenya, however, nor the hundreds of thousands of
indigenous peoples residing around Kenya's Lake Turkana.
8
The CSOs include the Platform for International Water Law (University of Geneva), WaterAid, the Legal Resources Centre, WaterLex and Green
Cross.
The Ethiopian Governments Violations of Human Rights 197
Required procedures of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)since 2013, renamed the Ministry of Environ-
mental Protection and Forestry.9
Proclamations including No. 299/2000 requiring environmental impact assessments to address sustainable development
and EIAs to be conducted for policies, programs and plans, as well as development projects.10
The Ethiopian governments violations of even its own mandated actions include its failures to:
Conduct a downstream environmental/socioeconomic impact assessment (ESIA) for the Gibe III dam until more than two
years after construction beganeven then, producing only a geogaphically fragmentary assessment rather than
addressing the actual impact area (the transboundary zone) with major omissions, misrepresentations and falsications
(see Chap. 6 for a detailed enumeration and discussion of Ethiopias ESIAs).
Consider the cumulative and synergistic effects of the linked developments in the Omo basinthe Gibe III dam, its
linked irrigated agricultural enterprises and electricity export transmission system.
Observe indigenous land and resource use rights, including those in Ethiopian land administrative law pertaining to
pastoralists. Instead, state sponsored/approved forcible encroachment by private interests into communal lands
predominates.
Genuinely inform and consult populations prior to the inception of developmentrather than manufacture consent
from orchestrated and government (or donor) controlled gatherings.
Implement a valid assessment of the efcacy of compensation or mitigation for the hundreds of thousands of
indigenous residents, even if such were a genuine GOE intention.
Implement its own dened Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF)after such is shaped with
community consultations.11
Repeated assertions by the Ethiopian government, particularly EEPCO, that the benets of Gibe III generated
electricity would serve the needs of Ethiopians so far without access to power contradicted by two realities. Firstly, a
high proportion of Gibe III generated electricity is slated for export, as outlined in prior chapters and in the section below.
Secondly, since electricity costs in Ethiopia are predicted to rise by a minimum of 200 % in the near term, according to the
World Bank, the overwhelming proportion of Ethiopian citizens would have no means to purchase available electricity. This
is true even with the unlikely scenario that the GOE subsidizes energy costs for large numbers of the poor. The major
consumers of electricityin Ethiopia, Kenya and elsewhere in eastern Africaare projected to be industry, agroindustry,
commerce and government entities, along with relatively better well-off domestic consumers.
Systematic actions taken by Ethiopias institutional nexus of river basin development policy (see description in Chap. 2)
over more than ve decades for more than ve decades reveal a clear pattern of ignoring the human and environ-
mental consequences of major hydrodam developmentthe Gibe III being the worst case, to date. The close coordi-
nation and overlapping objectives among GOE Executive ofces, international development banks (playing the key role
among aid agencies in large capital projects) and global consulting industry membersboth rms and individualsform the
functional core of bringing about such massive dam and infrastructural projects as the Gibe megadam.
The GOEs dismissive approach to the survival and well being of its own indigenous population within the lower Omo basin
residents is evident from these two statements by Meles Zenawi, the late Prime Minister of Ethiopia, at Ethiopias Annual
Pastoralists Day in 2011.
On this occasion, I assure the people of South Omo, especially the pastoralists, that the time of losing your cattle or
life because of the Omo flood is over. In the coming ve years, there will be a very big irrigation project and related
agricultural development in this zone. 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
9
The former head of the EPA became an advisor to the new Environmental Protection and Forestry Ministry.
10
See Sect. 4.1.3 of Proclamation No. 299/2000, for example.
11
The Environmental and Social Management Framework, established in 2007 with World Bank funding of about USD 100 million, requires
integrated consideration of social and environmental aspects and outcomes, including with account of cumulative, additive and synergistic
effects of projects in development. The planning procedures actually enforced by the GOE were antithetical to such integral consideration.
in this area on infrastructure and social development will continue stronger than ever. I want to assure you again that
all our development work will be in line with protecting the environment and the friends of backwardness and poverty,
whatever they say or do, cant stop us from the path of development we are taking. [Emphasis added.]12
These people [dam critics] are concerned that butterflies will be disturbed by such projects and they will not allow
the disturbance of butterflies even if this means millions of people have to be subjected to the deadliest killer diseases
of all, poverty, in order to not disturb the butterflies.
Ethiopias top ofcials frequently issue comparable statements regarding both the backwardness of the indigenous peoples
in the Omo region and the colonial perspectives or ignorance on the part of organizations and individuals who have
strongly objected to Gibe III dam and agricultural enterprises and the GOE's repressive policies in the Omo basin (see for
example, the EEPCO website, http://www.gibe3.com/et).
GOE violations of ICESCR and African Charter recognized human rights in the lower Omo basin should be viewed
within the broader Ethiopian context. GOE rights violations are abundantly documented in news accounts and at the
websites of numerous Ethiopian diaspora groups and individuals. These violations detail the detention and imprisonment of
political dissidents including journalists, scholars, artists and community activists; summary eviction of rural peoples for the
privatization of their lands, and use of brutality in countering political resistance to these and other GOE actionsespecially
in minority pastoral and agropastoral areas. The western Ethiopia Gambella area is one of the most widely publicized areas
of such actions within western and southwestern Ethiopia. Conditions there are well documented by Anuak and other local
activists (see Gambella Today 2014, for example).
When viewed within the national context of GOE violations of the human right to water but also to health and sanitation,
livelihood and freedom from political repression should be viewed within the broader national context. The reality of the
GOE human rights violations among its citizens are abundantly documentedin news accounts, policy documents of
international aid agencies and heir foreign governments, and numerous websites spearheaded by Ethiopian diaspora groups.
These and other sources detail the detention and imprisonment of political dissidents, including journalists, including
journalists, scholars, artists and community activists. Summary eviction of rural peoples by the GOE.
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other groups have produced numerous detailed accounts of human rights
violations by rights violations by the GOE in the lower Omo basinreports that directly contradict government accounts.
consistently contradict Ethiopian government Human Rights Watch, Survival International, the Oakland Institute, Inter-
national Rivers, Mursi Online (a website) Oxford Universitys African Studies Center and the Africa Resources Working
Group are among the most active in reporting on-the-ground conditions. Much of the reporting has focused on the Mursi and
Bodi peoples who reside well upstream from the Dasanech and Nyangatom along the Omo River (Fig. 1.3), since travel from
Addis Ababa and government restriction of independent investigators is less severe in the former. Field based investigation
along the southernmost reaches of the Omo River in Ethiopia has become nearly impossible, due to strict government
exclusion of independent restrictions. The GOEs allegedly voluntary resettlement and community development projects
(CDPs) in the lowermost Omo basin, including those outlined in its Environmental and Social Management Plan for the
Gibe III, are challenged by a number of these reports, which instead report citizens accounts of forced relocation and
riverine/delta land expropriationoften imposed with physical force and uniformly with suppression of any dissent.
GOE ministry and Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (EEPCO) ofcials have consistently denied any such actions and
generally dismiss even the most documented allegations of abuse as simply reflections of ignorance on the part of
foreigners (even researchers familiar with the area for many years) or a colonial bias against Ethiopia's national interest
and progress through its Growth and Transformation Program.
Major donor countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, have sent investigative teams for brief visits to
region (especially the Mursi/Bodi region, where major sugar plantation development is advancing). These investigations,
dubiously described as independent of GOE influence, have issued only mild criticism of the GOE.
Meanwhile, billions of dollars of international aid continue to pour into the country each year. Much of this is direct aid
that is generally unmonitored and easily utilized in support of GOE policies in the lower Omo basin, as detailed in a section
below.
12
13th Annual Pastoralists Day celebrations, Jinka, South Omo, January 25, 2011.
The Ethiopian Governments Violations of Human Rights 199
Hundreds of thousands of northern Turkana residents around the northern and central portions of Lake Turkana and in
contiguous upland plains are facing a similar future to that of their northern neighbors, the Dasanech and Nyangatom.
The commonality of full-scale livelihood destruction among transboundary ethnic groups, paradoxically, only
intensies cross-border armed conflict among them (Fig. 5.4).
Emerging Human Rights Violations in Kenyas Lake Turkana Region
The Kenyan state (GOK) is legally bound by the ICESCR treaty to take deliberate and very specic steps to ensure
the realization of human rights. Yet the GOKs disregard for the Covenant is starkly evident in the Lake Turkana
region. Hundreds of thousands of indigenous Kenyan citizens face catastrophic level destruction of their means of survival
from the Gibe III and associated developments. Chapter 9 and preceding sections of this book have detailed the mounting
livelihood crisis among the northern Turkana. The Kenyan governments roles in these developments and their impacts on
the transboundary region range from complicity and active collaboration, in the case of the Gibe III dam and the extensive
irrigated farm enterprises, to full partnership as in the case of the Ethiopia-Kenya Eastern Electricity Project (EEHP)the
rst phase of the planned Eastern Africa Power Pool (EAPP), funded by international aid (see below).
Despite public statements by the Kenyan government that it has investigated the possible impacts of the Gibe III dam on
Lake Turkana and that it has negotiated with the Ethiopian state to guarantee the safety of Kenyas indigenous
population, the GOK has in fact failed to reach any such accordwhich would be entirely unrealistic in any case, given the
predictable lake retreat and agricultural enterprises without calling for a halt to the Gibe III dam and its linked development
in order to conduct an investigation of such a high magnitude threat to its own citizens.. Instead, the GOK continued with
full complicity throughout both planning and construction phases of the dam, without even minimal effort to study the
lakeside population or the impacts on it by the predictable lake withdrawal and loss of sheries.
Years after construction of the project began, the GOK began citing the deeply flawed African Development Bank reports
(AFDB 2009, 2010; see Chap. 6) and sent delegations to meet with the Ethiopian governmentwith no reprieve for the
Turkana and other ethnic groups residing around the lake.) Quite apart from the GOKs rhetoric about its concern, its
insistence on an guaranteed articial flood to be managed by the GOE and appropriate compensation, the GOK failed in
virtually all dimensions of such measures.13 Moreover, GOK executive ofces have clearly overruled opposition and even
questioning of the Omo basin developments at all levels of administration; a policy explained to SONT investigators on
numerous occasions.
The GOKs demonstrated indifference to the plight of its indigenous population around Lake Turkana is in violation
of its 2010 Constitutionparticularly Articles 43, 69 and 70; Kenyan national legislation; requirements set by the
National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA), as well as the ICESCR. The previous chapters detail how the
destruction of pastoral and shing livelihood among Kenyas lakeside Turkana communities would result from from radical
reduction of Omo River flow and lake retreat (see Figs. 5.2, 7.14 and 9.10)even during what the GOE has described as a
brief reservoir lling period and despite the promised annual, or regularized articial flood programa program also
repeatedly assured by the GOK, the development banks and their contracted consultants. The extreme improbability of this
scenario is detailed in Chap. 6.
Kenyan citizens most affected by the dam and irrigated agricultural enterprises along the Omo River in Ethiopia are not only
the hundreds of thousands of Turkana shers and pastoralists residing around and dependent on the lakes resources, but also
thousands of Dasanech settled in Kenyas portion of the Omo delta (see Fig. 1.2) and around the northeastern shoreline of
the lake (Fig. 1.3), Gabbra pastoralists along its eastern shoreline, the small El Molo group along the southeastern shoreline,
and other pastoral peoples seasonally dependent on the lake for livestock watering and 'last option' grazing (for example, the
Rendille).
13
It should be noted that at least two prominent NGOs changed their demands from stop the Gibe to a call for a guarantee of adequate articial
flood (despite clear evidence that an adequate articial flood was a virtual impossibility and was without precedent in Africa)in the process of
accepting new large external funding. The new funds were in fact forthcoming and neither group lost GOK tolerance of its more limited demands.
Turkana villagers urgent requests that the GOK stop the threat to the lake from the Gibe III have been sidelined or
ignored altogether. Even widespread pleas by northern Turkana shing communities for GOK support of their shing
rights in the face of Ethiopia-based commercial shing fleets exploiting Kenyas northern Lake Turkana waters have gone
unheeded. Members of the Beach Management Units (government controlled but locally based sheries management
bodies) at Lake Turkana continually complain about the governments refusal to respond to their extreme fear of their
livelihood being destroyed by the Omo basin developmentsand in immediate terms by the large, Ethiopia based com-
mercial shing boats taking major catch from the northern reaches of Kenyas lake.
The GOK failed entirely to inform its vast population in the lake region regarding the actual impacts of the
Gibe III and its associated development on their communities, let alone earn for their free and informed
consent, as mandated by the United Nations, the African Union and the GOK itself. Chap. 9 briefly described how
community consultations with the AFDBs socioeconomic impact assessment consultants were orchestrated events
with what were clearly predetermined outcomes. Villagers in two different communities where such consultations were
held reported to SONT (South Omo/North Turkana Research Project) researchers that the AFDB visitors gave them
assurances that the Gibe III dam would bring major amounts of food, clothing, health care and schooling to their
communities. No mention was made of lake retreat or its effects on their shing, their livestock raising or their
households. To the contrary, the consultants repeatedly stressed that the lake would not be harmed by the dam. In their
written report for the AFDB (in 2009), the socioeconomic consultants stated in their report (AFDB 2009) that their role
was to describe the benets of the dam for local communities.
By all accounts, Kenyan police, local government ofcials and translators were highly intimidating in these meetings (one of
which SONT researchers attended.) Despite the consultants assurances to communities regarding the Gibe III and positive
conclusions regarding the socioeconomic impacts of the dam in their report back to the AFDB, the consultants did notate
(although inconspicuously in the reports main textsee Chap. 6) extreme anger expressed by village elders over the dam
project, which they had learned from other sources would bring destruction to their shing and livestock raising at the lake.
The exceptionally low quality of information gathering and analysis by the AFDB socioeconomic impact consultants
for the Lake Turkana region, combined with their obvious bias (even self described) throughout the process,
underscore the assessments invalidity. There has been no adequate socioeconomic or environmental comprehensive
impact assessment of the Lake Turkana region facing extreme crisis.
A major proportion of Turkana pastoralists and shers settled in villages along Lake Turkana (see Fig. 9.4 and in
nearby lands were either omittedor in some cases. vastly underestimatedin the GOKs 2009 census. These
communities are therefore unlikely in the extreme to be accounted with the dismantlement of their shing and pastoral
from the effects of lake retreat. Those households and communities surviving destruction from lake retreat who do
manage to relocate to a town with the hope of receiving assistance are likely to be regarded as drought victims rather than
development victims. Given the highly aridic conditions of the region and the immense distances required, few would be
able to reach Kenyas international borders to be counted as refugees.
When discussing their situation and their fear of changes to come, comments such as, You will just come across our bones
on the land are commonplace among village elders at the lake. Ironically, these types of comments by the Turkana are also
common among their northern neighbors, the Dasanech, with whom they are locked into increasing armed conflict in the
face of their equally desperate efforts to survive (Fig. 5.3).
Fear of Kenyas security forces prevails throughout the northernmost Turkana territory, as these forces are widely known to
operate with impunityincluding with brutality, in some areas. Although to date, the GOK has not exercised politically
repressive measures equal to those of the GOE, the government is intolerant of opposition, whether to the Gibe III
development or to the widespread incursion of oil corporations into Turkana lands (see Appendix A). Such threats have
caused major curtailment of community voice throughout the area.
In 2012, Kenya and Ethiopia, along with the World Bank and the AFDB, announced their partnership to build a
USD 1.2 billion energy transmission line from Ethiopia to Kenya: the Eastern Electricity Highway Project, or
Emerging Human Rights Violations in Kenyas Lake Turkana Region 201
EEHP (World Bank 2012a). The Gibe III dam (along with planned additional dams in Ethiopia) was clearly envisaged
from the beginning as a source of electricity for the broader Africa region, even though this partnership was announced
was six years after the 2006 signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Ethiopia and Kenya for energy
export from Ethiopia to its southern neighbor.
The transmission line is designed to extend from Sodo, Ethiopiaa short distance from the Gibe III damto a major
electricity hub at Suswa, near Nairobi, Kenya (see map in the section below.) After intense negotiations between the two
countries over pricing (ESI-Africa 2012), Kenya agreed purchase a continuous supply of 400 MW from Ethiopiawith an
arrangement whereby Kenya would pay for all of the agreed upon amount of Ethiopias hydro-generated electricity, whether
or not it uses all of it.14
Like the Gibe III dam, the energy transmission system was actually planned years earlier. The World Bank, African
Development Bank, key African state executives and international investors have long considered the 45,000 MW
hydropower potential of Ethiopia as a tower of hydropower for the broader African region, not just the tower of water
extolled by Ethiopias Haile Selassie (see Chap. 2).
The EEHP constitutes the rst phase of a planned power-sharing network throughout eastern Africathe Eastern Africa
Power Pool (EAPP)a matter detailed further in the next section. The macro plan, in fact, is for an even more compre-
hensive network of energy systemsone linking entire regions of Africa (World Bank 2012b). This vision is reflected in
many documents, among them the 100 % state-owned Kenya Electricity Transmission Company, Ltd. (KETRACO) report
on the project, with this comment:
The proposed high voltage transmission line linking Ethiopia to Kenya will form a major part of the interconnection and
will serve to close a major gap on the high voltage grid within the Eastern Africa Power Pool (EAPP) countries, because
it will ultimately serve as one of the links between Northern and Southern Africa region. (GOK, KETRACO 2012).
KETRACO was incorporated recentlyin 2008, with limited liability, for the purposes of establishing a complex, high
voltage electricity transmission infrastructure in line with the Kenya Vision 2030 program, building over 4000 km of
transmission lines and establishing linkages for power export to the broader region. The 2012 document cited here focuses
on mitigation and resettlementon the one hand, complying with the Operational and Safeguard policies of the World
Bank and AFDB (the chief funders of the Ethiopia-Kenya energy highway project) by conducting such a study, while on
the other hand, concluding that mitigation measures, including resettlement and compensation, need be applied only when
feasible.
As in the Ethiopian context, a major gap exists between the Kenyan governments rhetoric concerning the EEHP as servicing
Kenyas national interestexpressed in GNP growth termsand electricity for the poor, on the one hand, and the
reality that hydroelectricity transmitted through the highway would be largely purchased by commercial and industrial
enterprises as well as middle to upper income groupsnot the poorer elements without power, on the other. According to
World Bank calculations, the price of electricity (in Kenya as well as Ethiopia) is expected to rise sharply. Certainly the
electricity would not benet the pastoralists and shers in the Lake Turkana region and north central Kenyathose facing
the direct impacts of the EEHP and its electricity supplier, Gibe III dam. Instead, all of the basic needs of the Turkana along
the lake will be precipitously decreased or destroyed by the complex of developments.
International Development Bank Collaboration with Human Rights Violations
While the Ethiopian and Kenyan governments are most immediately responsible for the human rights violations
underway in transboundary region, the international development banksparticularly the World Bank and the African
Development Bankhave been collaborators in these violations.
14
The agreement was formally concluded between Kenya Power and the Ethiopian Electric Corporation (EEPCO).
Actions taken by the World Bank and African Development Bank with regard to the Gibe HI dam and its closely
linked developments violate the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and
other international standards, as well as their own internal operational policies. While the development banks are not
under formal obligation to observe United Nations declarations and covenants recognizing specic human rights, they have
established safeguard policies and operational procedures consistent with U.N. derived principles (see Chap. 6). World Bank
required procedures pertaining to the Omo River basin developments are delineated in the banks Safeguard Policies and
Performance Standards, its Operational Policies series (OP 4.0) and Bank Procedures (BP). These include requirements and
procedures concerning environmental and social impact assessment, indigenous peoples, involuntary resettlement, partici-
pation and informed consent, and a host of related issues. AFDB safeguard policies largely parallel those of the World Bank.
The cumulative and synergistic effects between the Gibe III dam and dam-dependent irrigated agricultural enter-
prises along the lower Omo River, as well as between the Gibe III dam and the EEHP, are ignored in development
bank assessments, despite the banks own procedural requirements. Large-scale irrigation systems are calibrated and
inflexible systems that depend on effective regulation of the river by the megadam. Previous chapters have documented how
their combined radical reduction of Omo River flow volume and inflow to Lake Turkana would compromise already
borderline potable water (due to lake salinity) for humans and livestock, eliminate annual flooding of recession agricultural
lands as well last resort grazing for livestock, and eliminate a massive proportion of critical sh habitat. The mandate for
integral consideration of these developments is explicit not only in the development bank's general operational policies, but
also in the specic requirements for considering specic country requests for funding, and in the ofcial interpretations of the
ICESCR. The 2010 EIB report, as well as the 2009 and 2010 AFDB impact assessments, are fundamentally flawed in failing
to draw these connectionscompromising their validity as adequate assessments.
The World Bank and the AFDB have repeatedly asserted that they are not involved in the Gibe III dam and
associated Omo basin developmenta false assertion by any substantive examination of their roles in the complex of
development activities. It is true that no direct bank funding was nalized for the Gibe III dams actual construction, since
direct funding was precluded by the GOEs multiple violations of bank operational procedures. Both development banks
were reportedly in the process of declining nancing requests for the Gibe III by 2010 when the GOE secured alternative
funding for dam constructionover USD 460 million from the state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (see
Chaps. 2 and 6).15 However, the AFDB and World Bank have supported the Gibe III dam project and its linked devel-
opments through a multiplicity of other means.
The two banks collaboration with the Gibe III dam and its agricultural and electricity export and thus, with the human rights
violations accompanying them, include the following activities.
(i) Technical and feasibility studies of hydrodam, irrigation agriculture and energy development potential within
Ethiopia, including the lower Omo River basin.
The AFDB, for example, has funded multiple efforts regarding such development, including the more than USD 6
million direct funding for the 1996 Master Plan for development of the Omo-Gibe river basin (Woodroofe &
Associates 1996), as well as its recent impact assessments regarding the Gibe III dam and Kenya's Lake Turkana
region (AFDB 2009, 2010). For its part, the World Bank has conducted numerous assessments of Ethiopia's
hydropower potential since its rst presence in Ethiopia, in the 1950s. It has been active in many aspects of the
Gibe III dams planning and legitimation, despite its preclusion from funding it directly. World Bank explicit support
for the project has been explicit, as evidenced in these 2004 comments (notable for their major errors of fact):
The Omo River is particularly important, both for its large annual flow and its irrigation and hydroelectric
potential, and its being one of the principal basins where there is un-likely to be any objection by downstream
countries.
There is no signicant use of the Omo River by any other country and the river enters Lake Turkana within the
boundaries of Ethiopia. It should, therefore, be relatively easy to negotiate a no objection from Kenya(ibid.)d should
that is required for multilateral/bilateral funding. (World Bank 2004)
15
The GOE issued public statements stating that the Ethiopian government withdrew its requests for funding. For a brief time, non-governmental
organizations in the U.S. and elsewhere, celebrated what they believed to be a victory when it was clear that development bank funding for the dam
did not materialize, when in fact, the project was progressing on several fronts.
International Development Bank Collaboration with Human Rights Violations 203
(ii) Environmental and socioeconomic baseline studies and impact assessments that exclude identication major human
and environmental and social impacts (sometimes through specications in the Terms of Reference, or scoping, such
as in the AFDB 2009 and 2010 assessments) environmental and socialdimensions that are commonly dened out
of contract terms of reference (as, for example, in the AFDB 2009 and 2010 assessments (see Chap. 6).
(iii) Active reinforcement or promotion of false information justifying the Gibe III development, including but not
limited to the false characterization of (a) the Omo River as causing disastrous floods with major loss of human life
as well as livestock and property destruction; (b) no seismic danger in the Gibe III region; (c) no signicant damage
or loss of water in Kenyas Lake Turkana, (d) false characterization of the Omo River as only within Ethiopia, when it
is clearly a transboundary river, including with part of its active delta within Kenya's national bordersamong
numerous other examples.
(iv) Planning and funding of the Eastern Electricity Highway Project (EEHP)a roughly USD 1.3 billion project with
major World Bank and AFDB loans, with false assertion of no relation to the Gibe III dam (see for example, AFDB
2013). Major coordination and organizational support for the East Africa Power Poola major distributional network
for EHPP product.
(v) Major nancial support for the Ethiopian regime, both the institutions directly engaged in building and managing the
Gibe III dam and its linked developments, as well as political repression. This support involves multiple levels of
funding, including direct aid (see below).
The Ethiopia-Kenya Eastern Electricity Project (EEHP) is a major electricity export project planned as the rst
phase of an ambitious multi-nation, integrated power-trading network in eastern Africathe East Africa Power Pool
(EAPP). This project, planned for completion by 2017 (briefly described in the previous section) is an electricity trans-
mission line under construction for 1045 km, from Wolayta Sodo in Ethiopia (near the Gibe III dam) to Suswa outside of
Nairobi, Kenya (Fig. 10.1).
Its power carrying capacity of 2000 MW is comparable to the 1600 MW generating capacity of the Gibe III dam. After years
of planning the EAPP, the World Bank and AFDB announced their approval of slightly above USD 1.2 billion in nance for
the Ethiopia-Kenya transmission and AFDB announced their approval of slightly above USD 1.2 billion in nance for the
Ethiopia-Kenya transmission line.16 This project cost includes minor funding by the government of France. The total loan
package, not including ancillary developments and later measures, was set as follows.
World BankUSD 684 million (USD 243 for Ethiopia, USD 441 for Kenya)
African Development Bank (AFDB)USD 354 million
Agence Franaise de Developpement (AFD)USD 118 million
The member countries of the EAPP are Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Burundi, Sudan, Djibouti, Rwanda and the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (Fig. 10.1).
The World Bank and the AFDB have repeatedly stated that their funding for the Ethiopia-Kenya transmission
line (EEHP) is unrelated to the Gibe III dama patently false statement.
To support their claim of no connection between the two projects, the banks point to the approximately 50-km separation
between the Gibe III dam and the substation (point of origin) of the Ethiopia-Kenya transmission line at the town of Wolayta
Sodo (Fig. 10.2) and contend that the Gibe III dam is not necessary for the economic viability of the transmission line
(World Bank 2012b).
In actual fact, electricity generated by the Gibe III dam would inevitably enter the transmission line for export of
power to Kenya. The AFDB and the World Bank avoid two realities in making their disclaimers.
In the rst place, a 51 km, 400 kV connecting line from the dam to the substation at Wolayta Sodo was planned prior to the
EEHP announcement, so power generated at the Gibe III was assured for the export system (Fig. 10.2). Construction of the
transmission line from the dam to Sodo substation was nalized with 85 % nancing from the Chinese EXIM/Export-Import
Bank. The banks purport to be free of any involvement in funding the Gibe III project, since GOE procedural violations of
16
Chapter 1 lists the Megawatt (MW) capacity of hydrodams within Ethiopia.
Fig. 10.1 The planned eastern Africa electricity export and distribution system. Source Eastern Africa Power Pool (GOK/EAPP and EAC 2011)
Fig. 10.2 Chinese-nanced 51-km transmission connection between the Gibe III dam and the Ethiopia-Kenya Energy Highway Project. Source
Base map from World Bank map, reproduced in AFDB Project Appraisal Report (2012b). Labels for Gibe III to Sodo, Ethiopia, and Sodo to
Kenya, along with Kenya transmission line labels, added by ARWG
their procedures prohibited them from such support. The fact that Gibe III electricity would be integrated into both domestic
and export transmission systems was known to all agencies involved.
Moreover, the banks have long planned for a major proportion of Gibe III energy to be transported to export markets in Kenya,
and beyond. Even prior to the launching of dam construction, the Ethiopian Power System Master Plan update by EEPCO
(GOE, EEPCO 2006a) stated the following with regard to the signicance of the dam in linking to the export system.
The link starts from Gilgel Gibe-III power plant and passes through Mega substation in Ethiopia and end [sic] at the
towns of Nairobi or Eldorate in Kenya. (Fig. 10.2) The link from Gilgel Gibe-III to Mega might be double circuit 400
kV HVAC. HVDC link of at least 500 kV with transfer capacity of about 600 MW is anticipated from Mega substation
to Kenya (Nairobi or Eldorate).
GOE ofcials have stated that the development banks, in nancing the EEHP, insisted that the Gibe III dam be directed to
major export markets; government spokespeople have routinely referenced the dams generated electricity as for export.
When specic proportions of Gibe III hydropower slated for export are specied at all, they have generally been 50-60
%. The following are representative of GOE statements on the matter.
The objectives of the project are the generation of 1870 MW electric power and enhancing economic integration in
Africa through the export of surplus power by erecting a regional interconnection transmission system.17 (GOE,
EEPCO 2012)
The 1870 MW Gibe III hydropower plant is expected to nearly double Ethiopias current power generating
capacity. Ethiopia plans to export a portion of that electricity to Kenya with a power purchase agreement already
signed between the two neighboring countries.18 [Aiga Forum 2014]
We will denitely have surplus power for export when construction of Gibe III is nalized. It is a matter of only one
year and in order to secure loans for our power projects, we have to export power. When we ask for loans,
nanciers ask us if we will export power to neighboring countries. Our government subsidies power tariff rate as our
people do not [sic] afford to pay. At the local market, the power purchasing power is minimal. So we should support
our power development projects by exporting power.19[Mihret Debebe, CEO, EEPCO; Emphases added.]
Of particular note is the 2013 statement by the CEO of EEPCO, in 2013:
Of the total power generated from Gilgel Gibe III, 900 Mw will be exported to foreign countries, such as Kenya,
Sudan and Djibouti. Kenya will get 500 Mw, the largest amount of exported power and Gibe III will increase the
generation capacity of Ethiopia by 234 % and makes the power export program of the country viable. (Mihret
Debebe, CEO of EEPCO, Quoted in Addis Fortune, 2013).
Kenyan government ofcials have also released numerous statements identifying the Gibe III dam as the major
source of their electricity import from Ethiopia. Kenyas fully state-owned Kenya Electricity Transmission Co., Ltd.
(KETRACO) was incorporated in 2008 to design, construct and maintain about 4000 km of transmission lines. The Sodo
(Ethiopia) to Suswa (Kenya) line constituted a quarter of this total. KETRACO initiated an assessment of the GIBE III
projects environmental impacts on Kenyas resourcesa report that minimized the dam's environmental impacts. Like
the GOE, EIB and AFDB impact assessments, this GOK assessment was anything but independent of Gibe III
development interests. The assessment (ESIA) contract was awarded to the global consulting industry rm, Panafconan
Africa-focused consulting company that was formed in the early 1990s as a subsidiary of the Netherlands-based global
rm DHV International Group of Companies and later bought out by a group of Kenyan investors.20 Panafcon is
partnered with Italian-based ELC-Electroconsultitself a major contractor in Ethiopian river basin development. ELC,
for example won contracts for Gibe dam projects where it won contracts (along with France based Coyne et Bellier) to
represent the GOE in a supervisory role for quality control of the design and construction of the Gibe III.
The United States has recently moved into a key role among multilateral and bilateral promoters of hydroelectricity
generation and distribution with in Africa. In its July 2012 U.S. Position statement concerning the EEHP, the U.S.
17
News at the government website specically for the Gibe III project.
18
Aiga Forum is an Ethiopian government focused website.
19
Stated in GOE (EEPCO) (Reported in: https://www.thereporterethiopia.com).
20
http://panafcon.net/index.php/about-panafcon.
Department of Treasury uncritically supported both of the World Bank claims. With the launching of Power Africa by
President Obama in 2013, the U.S. took a key role in actively promoting donor groups for launching an unprecedented major
system of interconnecting electricity grids, with the EAPP (and therefore, the IHPP) occupying a prominent role. The U.S.
role, detailed in its 2015 Power Africa report, explicitly demonstrates the operating assumption within the U.S. Executive
that developing such electricity networks is intrinsically positive, with no substantive qualication regarding segments of
societyand natural resourcesthat bear the brunt of this development.
The World Bank and AFDB have major loans to the Ethiopian government in recent yearsloans that both
reinforce and legitimize GOE policies in the lower Omo River basin and their devastating impacts on transboundary
peoples and environments. The two banks have long played a key role in promoting Ethiopia as a showcase country for
the positive effects of aid: assistance totaled USD 4 billion in 2014, for example. World Bank loans alone increased
markedly to Ethiopia: from USD 988 million in 2010 to USD 1.64 billion in 2014, for example. The AFDB is also a
dominant funderranking fourth amongst donors. Ethiopia has remained the second highest recipient of Ofcial Develop-
ment Assistance (ODA) in recent years, garnering about 7 % of the total (OECD 2014). It has also ranked second as a
recipient of debt relief in Africa.
Coordinating multi-donor nancingboth as general support and as loans for specic projects within Ethiopiahas been a
World Bank function since its initial presence there, following WW II. Bilateral agencies including USAID and DFID, along
with the EU are also lead funders of the Ethiopian government. Their assistance basically conforms to that of the devel-
opment banks in turning a blind eye to the GOEs undemocratic, highly repressive policies, while pursuing their own
economic, political and military interests.21
In view of the geopolitical and economic interests of the major donor nations to the eastern Africa/Horn region and the
importance they attach to Ethiopia as a partner in those interests, such studies are likely generated to contribute evidence
for the positive nature of such partnership. Consideration of these interests, moreover, also provides at least partial
explanation for the blind eye approach to GOE policies both governmental and bank failure to conduct adequate social and
environmental impact assessments that address the cumulative and synergistic effects of the Omo River basin and hydro-
electric transmission developments.
There are abundant efforts in World Bank and AFDB documents to rationalize their exceptionally high level of
nancial and other support for the Ethiopian government. Some of these empirical studies freely incorporate rights
language and references to quantitative data, implying scientic investigation. The African Development Banks recently
updated study20042013 Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA) is one of many such efforts (AFDB 2014).
The classicatory system designed for this assessment assigns values to ve different clusters of policy measures for forty
African nations. These measures include social equity, property rights, environmental and social protection and corrup-
tion.22 Using this system, the AFDB ranks Ethiopia among the highest in the continent almost across the board. For
example, the AFDB concludes that Ethiopia is the top-rated nation for Environmental Policy and Regulation, among the
top three nations for Equity of Public Resource and Policies for Social Inclusion/Equity, and among the top four nations
for Transparency or Accountability.
The consistency of gaps between such measures described and conclusions drawn in the 2014 AFDB report, on the one
hand, and widely available evidence of social inequity, seizure of property, lack of implementation of regulations and
protections, lack of transparency and repression of political dissent, on the other, is fundamental and suggests both the
arbitrariness of such measureshowever quantitatively expressedand the banks predetermined design for generating
evidence in support of its policies within Ethiopia.
Much of the international aid to the GOE is allocated as direct budget support, or direct aida form of aid largely
decentralized and unspecied by donors. Prior to the GOEs no-bid tendering of contracts for the Gibe III dam
construction, direct budget support to Ethiopia from major agencies totaled about a third of all aid. Since direct aid is
unmonitored by international funders, relying instead on Ethiopias self-reporting, this type of aid is highly fungibleand
therefore easily used by the GOE to support its preferred policies.
21
U.S. national interests, for instance, involve strong geopolitical, military and investment objectives in the Horn region and the broader East
Africa regionin no small part, involving oil and gas and related energy development.
22
The policy clusters measured (to hundredth values on a scale of 1 to 5) are: Economic Management, Structural (both primarily macro economic
measures), Social Inclusion/Equity, Governance and Infrastructure and Regional Integration.
The origin of the direct aid program to Ethiopia rests with the GOEs repressive policies and domestic popular resistance to
them. Following social uprisings in 2005sparked by election corruption and GOE arrests of more than 30,000 people, the
27-member Development Advisory Group (DAG) for Ethiopia suspended funding for the government. The World Bank,
AFDB and their partners quickly installed the new direct aid program, a centerpiece of which was the Promoting Basic
Services Program (PBS)for the rst years of its existence, termed the Protecting Basic Services Program.
The PBS was launched only months after the DAG suspension was imposedin 2006, as a multi-donor form of direct aid.
In the words of a senior World Bank staff member, as a creative solution whereby aid to Ethiopia could be continued
despite criticisms of the GOEs repressive policies. In its carefully nuanced statement, the Bank stated, in an interim report (a
draft provided to this writer by a World Bank staff member for the Banks Implementation Status & Results Report in 2014):
In the uncertain environments following a contested general election in Ethiopia in 2006, Development Partners recognized
the imperative to continue supporting the Governments signicant progress towards achieving the MDGs [Millennium
Development Goals] through strengthened decentralized basic services.
Often cited by the development banks and major bilateral agencies as justication for their extraordinary level of nancial
support for the GOE, the PBS programin realityexemplies the lack of accountability for billions of dollars received in
loans to the Ethiopian government. A little known World Bank report issued in 2012, entitled Diagnosing Corruption in
Ethiopia (World Bank 2012c), raised this problem in at least muted terms, but there is no evidence of any impact on the
exceptionally strong support for the regime, which continues to be regarded in aid circles as simply needing improvement.
The new PBS program constituted a symbolic change rather than a substantive one and it has been described as such in
numerous aid accountseven within major aid agencies (Knoll 2008).23
Dispersal of PBS aid within Ethiopia involves block grants to decentralized political units for expanding and
protecting basic services, or pro-poor policies, as they are dubbed. These services include road-building, mod-
ernization of agriculture, education, water supply, and payment of local salariesall under the rubric of strengthening local
nancial management systems, supporting local civil society organizations of the GOE's choice, and evencontinuing to
develop transparency and accountability (World Bank 2013). Block grants are issued to ten rural dominated regions within
Ethiopiaincluding the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples Region, or SNNPR. which is one of the nine ethnic
divisions (kililoch) within Ethiopia and where the lower Omo River basin is located, as noted in earlier chapters.
Phase I of the PBS Program was replaced by Phase II in 2009the latter version receiving highly mixed reviews even by
limited World Bank and AFDB criteria, and nally by Phase III in September of 2012 (activated in January of 2013). when it
was both refunded at a higher level and given its present name Promoting Basic Services.24
According to World Bank gures, the most recent approved nancing for these programs is as follows.
PBS IIIUSD 4.887 billion
PBS IIUSD 3.364 billion
PBS IUSD 2.562 billion
The overall PBS regional block grants increased after 2006 and this increase reflected development bank and major
bilateral agency support for the GOE. Of the USD 4.88 billion for direct aid to Ethiopia, the World Bank portion is USD
600 million, with terms common to the its soft loan window, the International Development Association (IDA)that is,
40 year loan terms, with negligible interest a 10 year grace period. AFDB nance terms, issued by its own soft loan
window, basically parallel those of the World Bank. While the World Bank and the AFDB are overwhelmingly dominant
in aid PBS funding (as in Ethiopias aid portfolio overall), the U.K.s DFID has been a major contributor among the
bilateral agenciesproviding more than 740 million in support.25Other co-nancers of Phases II and/or III, although
23
Knoll (2008) details the PBS program within the context of budget support in African aid more generally, as it unfolded from the mid 1990s.
24
Unless otherwise specied, information regarding the development bank expenditures for the PBS programs are drawn from reports by the
AFDB (2012a) and the World Bank (2013, 2014), as well as annual reports.
25
Major political pressure has been exerted on DFID by non-governmental organizations (e.g., Survival International and Human Rights Watch) to
terminate its funding for the PBS III program. This pressure has been largely fueled by HRW (and other) reports concerning the GOEs eviction
and political repression policies in the Gambella region (see below)
much smaller contributors, are the European Union and the bilateral agencies of Austria, Italy, Ireland, Canada, Spain,
Germany and the Netherlands. While not a direct contributor to the PBS III, the United States remains the largest bilateral
donor to Ethiopia.26
All aspects of the PBS are implemented at the discretion of the GOE, without effective oversightin spite of periodic
development bank public assurances of independent evaluation. A 2013 analysis of PBS program funding and GOE
human rights violations by Inclusive Development International (IDI 2013) quotes one World Bank ofcer's disclaimer
regarding the GOEs usage of funds:
The PBS itself has no direct mechanism to influence choices made at the local government level.
The SNNPR receives a substantial amount of the PBS III funds and program support, which is readily used by
local ofcials for a multiplicity of activities that further the major impacts on not only Ethiopia's lowermost Omo
River Basin population, but also on the major population residing around Kenyas Lake Turkana. These GOE
activities include: road building and other infrastructural construction, for political structures and security apparatus,
expropriating resources of indigenous communities, and serving the needs of the large commercial plantations that
replacing indigenous communities. In the name of decentralized developmenteffectively unmonitored, PBS funds
can be used for the eviction process itself and the political repression that accompanies it.
AFDB and World Bank appraisal documents make frequent assertions of the PBS Programs success. Such statements are
explicit in the AFDBs (2012a) PBS appraisal, for example:
The 84.3 million citizens of Ethiopia will be the main beneciaries of the PBS III program. The direct beneciaries
will be the citizens in woredas from 10 regions that receive federal block grants.
The report continues with a summary dismissal of PBS: The programme has been classied under category III and is not
expected to have any negative environmental impact.
Such blatant exclusion of even the possibility of environmental and social negative outcomes of the program, let alone
highly probable and disastrous ones, has avoided triggering of development bank Safeguard and Operational Policy pro-
cedures. The development banks (and large bilateral agencies) steadfastly maintain the rhetoric of an in place accountability
mechanism for the PBS program and insist that the programs are for the promotion of civil society organizations and the
engagement of civil society.
The reality, however, is altogether different. The Social Accountability sub-component of PBS III is under the control of
the GOEs Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MOFED)one of the key ministries directly promoting the
Omo River basin developments. Participating civil society organizations (CSOs) are selected by the GOE, so only those
conforming to government policies are selected. This is even true for independent auditing of PBS policies, the results of
which are submitted to the banks for their appraisal. Predictably, bank appraisers of this direct aid are generally complicit
with their client institutions perspectives. So-called external peer reviewers selected by the AFDB for its PBS III Project
appraisal, for example, were selected from three other PBS funding agenciesthe World Bank, DFID and Irish Aid.27
Human Rights Watch produced a report on the PBS program (HRW 2012a) focusing on the relatively more accessible
Gambella region of western Ethiopia, where strong local resistance to major expropriation and political repression has
transpired and an active Anuak diaspora-based organization (the Anywaa Survival Organisation, or ASO) has been
effective. The HRW report underscores the World Banks failure to consider its responsibility for the debacle underway
there, even by the Banks own internal procedural requirements. The Gambella accounts underscore the seriousness of
26
For details regarding U.S. assistance, see the U.S. State Department, USAID and CIA websites; also see Oakland Institute (2013).
27
The measures used for assessing the PSB are comparable to those used for Ethiopias general economic advancement of GTP and MDG goals
namely, aggregate and per capita indicatorsbut applied to the regional level. Data for regional level services delivered, infrastructure
constructed, water resource developments undertaken, local personnel newly salaried, and so forth exclude on-the-ground realities and certainly
the matter of who benets and who bears the costs of the GOEs development actionsin the SNNPR, the Dasanech, Nyangatom, Kara, Bodi,
Mursi and neighboring indigenous peoples in the lower Omo River basin.
this problem as it applies to the less documented crisis unfolding in the lowermost Omo basin within the SNNPR
certainly, in the for the Dasanech and Nyangatom region.28
Specic reports on the SNNPR PBS III and related projects, including the One Water, Sanitation and Hygiene National
Program (OWNP) in the region reflect such omission and misrepresentation. The OWNP (the ONE WASH program) is the
worlds largest sector-wide approach (SWAP) to Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH)sponsored by UNICEF and
extolled as a major success already in achieving Ethiopias Growth and Transformation Program and MDG goals. The
recent OWNP social assessment report, written on behalf of the Ministry of Water Resources (GOE, MOWR 2013), is
illustrative of the bias at play.29 While identifying the Dassench [sic] Woreda district as having a human population of
more than 56,000, with the Dassench constituting more than 97 % of that number, the report barely mentions traditional
water resource management and recession agriculture and makes mention of the Gibe III dam or irrigated agricultural
schemes and their full-scale impact on the regions water resources.
While the OWNP assessment outlines what it terms progress underway from the program, the reality of tens of
thousands of indigenous residents being evicted and expropriated with collapse of their livelihoods already underway, is
omitted altogether. Such reporting, if not directly unethical, is irresponsible in the extreme and reinforces the massive
scale human destruction already beginning to manifest in the region due to the Gibe III dam and its linked developments.30
The World Bank commonly objects to complaints regarding their human rights recordin general as well as within
Ethiopiaas well as their obligation to observe U.N. recognized human rights, in two ways.
Firstly, the Bank refers to its own Articles of Agreement (Sect. 10) that dene it as a non-state actor, meaning that it
should not interfere in the political affairs of any member state.
Secondly, the Bank contends that while demands for it to observe human rights are issued in the abstract, the specics of
exactly how it might implement such concerns remain vague.
With regard to the rst assertion, it is true that international law applies only to individual states. A considerable literature
and discourse has emerged, however, which leads to a different interpretation of non-state actors and internationally
recognized human rightsnamely, one whereby the development banks should be held accountable.31
The past thirty years have witnessed repeated clashes between the World Bank and civil society organizations from
both developed and developing, (or Global South) countries with respect to the human rights dimensions of bank
policies. The World Banks elaborate set of Standards and Operational Policieslargely replicated in the regional
development banks, including the AFDBare now challenged at a far more detailed and informed level.
Regarding the Bank's second contentionthat human-rights concerns are generally formulated only in abstract terms, the
human rights issues in the developments impacting the peoples of the lower Omo River Basin and Lake Turkana region are
certainly not abstract. They center upon the denial of ICRCS recognized rights for hundreds of thousands of indigenous
peoplesone articulating with the violation of rights to health, livelihood and freedom from political repression.
Because the World Bank and AFDB have actively collaborated in (and have even encouraged, with funding and
promotional activities) Ethiopian and Kenyan governmental human rights violations in the transboundary region,
informed challenge to the banks breach of their own Safeguard and Operational Policies is entirely appropriate.
28
The World Bank has responded to non-governmental and other protest of its PBS support for the GOEs policies in Gambella, with an Inspection
Panel investigation. Released in November, 2014, the Banks report was equivocal and fragmentary (World Bank 2014b), and was countered by
NGO critics (including Human Rights Watch and IDI).
29
This social assessment was carried out with the support of U.K.s DFID.
30
An April, 2014 AFDB assessment of the One Water program notates (in its summary tables and briefly in text) the issue of dam development
(without mention of the Gibe III), and even adverse impacts of pastoral water supply systems in general. The points remain abstract ones,
however, so its omissions and misrepresentations largely parallel those of the GOE's ministry report.
31
See for example the writings of Skogly (2001), Ghazi (2003), Alston (2005) and Clapham (2005). Moreover, the U.N. Committee on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), described earlier in this chapter, in its General Comment No. 14, asserted that non-State actors were obligated
to observe the international human right to health (Coomans 2007).
The Stark Policy Choice: Catastrophic Level Destruction 211
The Stark Policy Choice: Catastrophic Level Destruction or Sustainable Development Within
a Human Rights Framework
If the Ethiopian and Kenyan governments continue their present course of violating internationally dened
human rights, particularly those recognized in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights Treaty (ICESCR), their actions may well be regarded as criminal.
The crisis unfolding in the Ethiopia-Kenya-South Sudan transboundary region is fundamentally one of policy
objectives and accountability. Ethiopian government and international development bank ofcials have consistently
described the purpose of the Gibe III dam and its associated developments as essential to Ethiopias national interest and
its growth and transformation program and Ethiopias electrication needs, including electrication for the rural poor.
Yet the on-the-ground effects of this development in the lower Omo basin and Lake Turkana regionalready in evidence
during the early phases of this developmentsuggest the makings of a humanitarian crisis with massive scale hunger and
vulnerability to disease, cross-border inter-ethnic armed conflict, major government expropriation and political repression of
citizens, and irreversible environmental destructionoutcomes that can hardly be regarded as progress. Despite these
predictable effects already emerging in the transboundary region, however, both government and bank statements continue
to label the development a sure success, based on GNP and per capita income, energy and other projections for the nation
as a whole.32 Sorting out the differences between such macro level projections and ground level realities for the half million
citizens struggling to survive in three-nation transboundary area is key to a rational discourse concerning the economic and
political future of the region.
At the most general level, the policy choice is an unambiguous one. Either continue along the present road to
social and natural resource devastationa road rife with human rights violationsor bring a halt to the
destruction underway in order to initiate a new pathway for actionone consistent with internationally rec-
ognized human rights and geared to creating a sustainable future for the peoples of the transboundary region
as well the three nations involved.
Continuing along the present road is an unacceptable option by any measure of project outcomes that includes the trans-
boundary region's indigenous peoples. Even if the alternative pathway dened above were to be pursued, major questions
emerge as to how to proceed. For example, how is it possible to take account of the increasingly desperate survival needs of
the pastoral, agropastoral and shing peoples in the transboundary region that is most impacted by the development, while
simultaneously addressing the aspirations of citizens in the region as a whole?
Although insufcient as full answers to this question, two matters require immediate attention if a solution to this challenge
is to be constructed.
First of all, there is legal imperative for action. Based on violations of human rights in the transboundary regionrights
recognized by the ICESCR that must be restored. This requires restoring indigenous communities' access to food and the
necessary means to produce it as part of their right to an adequate standard of living. Compliance with the ICESCR is not a
choiceit is a legally binding treaty.
This action could be accomplished with at least a temporary suspension of the plans for Gibe III hydrodam electricity
generation, an end to the withholding of downstream river flow and the reinstatement of Dasanech and Nyangatom
communities to their lands and resources along the Omo River. Reinstatement of the Omo Rivers flow would allow inflow
to Lake Turkana, bringing at least temporary reprieve to hundreds of thousands of pastoralists and shers depending on the
lakes resources. Such a suspension should trigger at least a pause in temporary suspension of large-scale irrigated plantation
construction as well, while an acceptable future scenario is being constructed.
32
Because of the high capital outlay for major dams, the international development banks are by far the key funders and coordinators of these
developments. See Chap. 2 for a history of river basin development within Ethiopiadubbed by Emperor Haile Selassie himself as the water tower
of Africa.
Restoration of the specic human rights involved should also be a triggering force for major evaluation and assessment
of the Gibe III dam and its linked developments which were never responsibly dealt with by the Ethiopian or Kenyan
governments, nor by the international development banks that have substantively backed the development from early
planning phases to the present.
Given the actions already taken by the Ethiopian Government, it is most unlikely that the GOE would cease its
human rights violations of its own accord or even pause its headlong pursuit of the Gibe III dam and its linked
developments. Their reversal of these actions would be even less likely following the inception of actual electricity
generation at the dam. Interruption of the human rights abuses and humanitarian disaster unfolding in the trans-
boundary region, coupled with the GOE's prohibition of independent eyes-on-the-ground in the lowermost Omo
basin and its policies of political repression would almost certainly require leverage by external institutions
The reality is that the World Bank and the AFDB, along with other major aid agencies and their donor states, have
such leverage and could exert it by taking any of a broad range of action, including include withholding of funds
allocated, imposition of conditions for new project lending or continued institutional support, and a host of other
political and economic measures. The fact that major donor countries have strong economic interests (in oil and gas
development, for example) and geostrategic objectives of in the region, however, and their political judgment that
supporting the present Ethiopian regime adequately serves those interests suggests that any leverage applied by them
would require substantial pressure from their own public constituencies.
Secondly, in-depth and accurate information in the form of environmental and socioeconomic baseline studies or impact
assessments (EIAs, or ESIAs) for the Gibe III dam and its linked developments are essential to sound decision making
regarding the future of the regions peoples and environments. Both national governments and development banks, however,
have failed to make any such effortin breach of international standards, the two countries Constitutions and domestic laws
and the development banks own operational principles. In addition to the pressing human rights violations requiring
attention, two required ESIA failureseven considered individuallymerit leveraging a suspension of Gibe III dam,
irrigated agriculture and energy transmission line completion and operationalization, at least until such time that they are
resolved. (See Chaps. 2 and 6 for detailed discussion).
The Gibe III dam and its closely linked developments have clear transboundary impacts, so any adequate
environmental and socioeconomic impact assessment (ESIA) must be conducted within transboundary framework.
None of the assessments producedby either African government, the EIB or the AFDB, have produced such an ESIA.
Instead, all assessments have addressed only fragments of the impacts requiring attention and even these with multiple
failings (see Chap. 6) and only for Ethiopia or Kenya. It is striking that the predictable negative impacts of the Gibe III
project are strongest in the tri-nation border regionthe area most neglected in all reports. All assessments done by the
governments and development banks have addressed only fragments of the regions environmental and social dimensions
concerns in one or another country, despite the fully veriable transboundary character of the project, not to mention the
reality that the strongest impacts are in the border region of Ethiopia, Kenya and the Ilemi Triangle/South Sudan.33
The cumulative and synergistic impacts of all three components of development must be dealt with as one unitary
system. The Gibe III dam has been documented in preceding chapters (as well as by Oxford University scholars and
several NGOs cited earlier) as having cumulative effects with the irrigated agricultural enterprises along much of the
Omo River downstream from the Gibe III dam. The Gibe IIIs linkage with the energy highway system from Ethiopia to
Kenya (the EEHP) is documented in the previous section, World Bank and AFDB statements to the contrary
notwithstanding.
Considering two internationally established commitments by Statesnamely, to protect ICESCR recognized human
rights (including the right to food, an adequate standard of living, and water) and to promote environmentally and
socially sustainable developmentquestions inevitably arise as to who actually controls environmental and socioe-
conomic impact assessments and related studies, and who participates in them.
33
Ironically, all the ethnic groups in the regionalthough excluded from substantive participation in the assessments produced (GOE 2009a,
2009b; EIB 2010; AFDB 2009, 2010) conduct their lives with full cognizance of transboundary social and environmental dy live their lives with
full cognizance of transboundary social and environmental dynamics.
The Stark Policy Choice: Catastrophic Level Destruction 213
It has become commonplace among development specialists and researchers with extensive eld-based experience in
some bilateral aid agencies (particularly in Scandinavia) and non-governmental organizations to regard cooperative
investigation with communities as essential to the production of accurate, thorough and useful analysis of a regions
socioeconomy and environmental status, as well as identication of the local residents' most pressing needs. Multiple
forms of community/investigator cooperative approaches to considering livelihood systems, natural resource use patterns
in relation to possible development (or conservation) policies have transpired in ways that actually assist communities in
improving their life circumstances, rather than undermine them.
Local communities likely to be most affected by the development in question need to be included as active participants in all
phases of impact assessments and related studies, including:
identifying the socioeconomic and environmental parameters, or bounding of the task at hand,
gathering information and data (eld derived components, at least), with ongoing interpretation, and
drawing conclusions and summarizing the key issues derived from the effort, including their signicance for the
future of local communities and their environment.
Much has been learned about cooperative processes between external investigators and local communities that increase
accurateness of results. In pastoral and agropastoral contexts, for example, it is clear that local participants need to be
selected through dialogue with traditional leaders, rather than government appointed ones. Broad-based and community-held
discussions are a critical component and these need to be held in all phases of the work and throughout the geographic area
being considered. At community gatherings, local participants, including community leaders, male and female elders and
both genders of youth need to actively engage in the above dimensions of the collective effort. Those community members
involved in core roles of the investigation have a major roles in planning items for open community discussion and
community feedback, while working closely on a daily basis with external investigators. The results from open meetings (as
well as from feedback surveys, etc.) need to be incorporated into the nal assessment, or reportincluding its summary
and conclusions. Results and conclusions need to be made presented to communities prior to releasing them to policymakers
and client institutions. Finally, all such documents must be fully transparent and available to the public.
Constructive baseline studies and environmental/socioeconomic impact assessments (ESIAs) and the like need to be
unrestricted in their ability to question the project or development approach in question, based upon its ndings. This
contrasts sharply with the existing arrangement for the Omo basin projects detailed in Chap. 6, for example, where
implementation of the project is presumed to be a result of the ESIAa situation permitting opportunity only for suggested
after-the-fact mitigation or monitoring actions, or additional studies, while the project moved to completion. The Gibe III
assessment scenario, unfortunately, is indication of the predominant pattern in assessment related study contractingone
involving major reciprocity and revolving door relationships.
Changes in both perspective and method of this order obviously necessitate a signicant shift in accountability
relations. Clearly, investigators have some basic accountability to those who contract them. Yet to assure a cooperative
outcome, with accuracy of the work produced, they must also have genuine accountability to local communities which
have sufcient authority to ensure that the content and outcomes of investigation represent the realities of their lives and
their environments, and authority to guarantee that their voice will be heard well beyond their immediate localitiesin
fact in the distant ofces of policymakers and politicians. It should be clear that global consulting industry corporations
and individualsparties well-equipped and experienced in accepting accountability only to their client institutions in a
system that amounts to a contract treadmill and too often, a complicity treadmill involving very large sums of money,
are ill-equipped for such an orientation.
A participatory, community-inclusive approach to studies and impact assessments for consideration of development
programs is best implemented by non-governmental organizations, academics (research units or groups, individuals),
relatively small consulting organizations, rather than by global consulting industry representatives. Lead investigators
should be able to demonstrate qualications including:
In-depth familiarity with the geographic region concerned, including with substantive eld-based experience in the
region or one closely paralleling it.
Appropriate professional training credentials in socioeconomic or human ecological (broadly dened) elds.
Experience and commitment to studies weighted to eld-based investigation rather than desk studies with uti-
lization of available printed information, etc., and brief eld visits.
A clear and demonstrated record of genuinely participatory work with local communities.
Absence of nancial contracts or agreements with governments, development agencies or private rms engaged in
any substantive way with the project or program under considerationfor example, for a ve-year period. Additional
participants in studies, such as technical experts (e.g., for seismic, geological, hydrologic, agricultural or cultural
studies) should to be held to the same standard.
Full public transparency of funds received for study and the major parameters of the study underway.
The approaches outlined above for impact assessment and related investigations a may well be objectionable to in
mainstream development circles, as impractical and unachievable in remote areas and among culturally tra-
ditional peoples. To the contrary, there are plentiful accounts by seasoned investigators and aid practitioners that support the
conclusion that communities in highly remote and marginalized contexts are not only receptive to genuine inclusion in such
processes that help determine their own futuretheir participation is in fact essential to the success of development or
conservation planning with equitable and sustainable objectives.
Such understanding is long overdue in major agencies and government policymaking ofces.
Changing the course of existing development and broader social policies directed to the Ethiopia-Kenya-South
Sudan transboundary region offers the possibility of sparing the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands
of citizens and rethinking the regions social and environmental future within a human rights framework.
Embracing humane and sustainable development prospects for upcoming generations in eastern Africa remains
a possibilityeven at this eleventh hour.
Literature Cited
African Commission for Human and Peoples Rights (ACHPR). 2004. http://www.achpr.org/about/achpr/.
African Commission for Human and Peoples Rights (ACHPR). 2015. Resolution on the Right to Water Obligations - ACHPR/Res.300. http://
www.achpr.org/sessions/17th-eo/resolutions/300/.
African Development Bank (AFDB). 2009. A. S. Kaijage, N. M. Nyagah, Report, socio-economic analysis and public consultation of Lake
Turkana Communities in Northern Kenya. Tunis.
African Development Bank (AFDB) 2010 (Nov.), S. Avery, Assessment of Hydrological Impacts of Ethiopias Omo Basin on Kenyas Lake
Turkana Water Levels, Final Report, 146 pp.
African Development Bank (AFDB), African Development Fund. 2012a (July). Ethiopia. Promoting Basic Services Programme (PBS III).
Appraisal Report/.
African Development Bank (AFDB). 2012b (Sept). Ethiopia-Kenya Electricity Highway. Project Appraisal Report. 41 pages.
African Development Bank (AFDB). 2013 (July 5). AfDB launches $ US 1.26 billon Kenya-Ethiopia Electricity Highway. http://www.afdb.org/
en/news-and-events/article/afdb-launches-us-1-26b-kenya-ethiopia-electricity-highway-11733.
African Development Bank (AFDB). 2014 (Apr). 20042013 Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA). http://www.afdb.org/en/
documents/project-operations/country-performance-assessment-cpa/country-policy-and-institutional-assessment-cpia/.
Africa Resources Working Group (ARWG). 2009 (Jan). A Commentary on the Environmental, Socioeconomic and Human Rights Impacts of the
Proposed Gibe III Dam in the Lower Omo River Basin of Southwest Ethiopia. http://www.arwg-gibe, 29 pages.
Aiga Forum. 2014 (June 12). Ethiopia to ll Gibe III dam, rejects renewed calls for halt. http://aigaforum.com/news/gibe3-news-061214.php.
Alston, P. (Ed.). 2005. Non-State Actors and Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carr, C. J. 2012 (Dec). Humanitarian Catastrophe and Regional Armed Conflict Brewing in the Border Region of Ethiopia, Kenya and South
Sudan: The Proposed Gibe III Dam in Ethiopia, Africa Resources Working Group (ARWG). https://www.academia.edu/8385749/Carr_
ARWG_Gibe_III_Dam_Report, 250 pages.
Clapham, A. 2005. Human Rights Obligation of Non-State Actors. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coomans, F. 2007. Application of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Framework of International
Organisations. In: von Bogdandy and Wolfrum, R. (Eds.), Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Vol. 11, 359390. Koninklijke
Brill N. V.
ESI-Africa. 2012 (Jan 23). Kenya and Ethiopia sign power purchase deal. ESI-Africa.com.
Ethiopia, Government of (GOE), Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (EEPCO). 2006. Ethiopian Power System Master Plan.
Ethiopia, Government of (GOE), (Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation). 2009a. CESI and Mid-Day International Consulting Engineers 2009,
Gibe III Hydroelectric Project, Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, Report No. 300 ENV RC 002C.
Ethiopia, Government of (GOE), Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (EEPCo). 2009b Agriconsulting S.p.A. and Mid-Day International
Consulting 2009 , Level 1 Design, Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, Additional Study of Downstream Impacts. Report
No. 300 ENV RAG 003B.
Literature Cited 215
Ethiopia, Government of (GOE), Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (EECPO). 2009c. Salini MDI Consulting, Environmental and Social
Management Plan.
Ethiopia, Government of (GOE), Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (EEPCO). 2012 (April), Gibe III News http://www.gibe3.com.et/EEPCo.
html
Ethiopia, Government of (GOE), Ministry of Water Resources (MOWR). 2013. Social Assessment of the Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene
ProgramOWNP. Ethiopia. http://www.mowr.gov.et.
Ethiopia, Government of (GOE), Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA). 2014 (April). The Fifth and Sixth Periodic Country Report (20092013) On
The Implementation Of The African Charter On Human And Peoples Rights In Ethiopia. Addis Ababa.
European Investment Bank (EIB). 2010 (Mar). Sogreah Consultants, Independent Review and Studies Regarding the Environmental & Social
Impact Assessments for the Gibe III Hydropower Project. Final Report, 183 pages.
Gambella Today. 2014. Ethiopia: Lives for land in Gambella.
Ghazi, B. 2003. The IMF, The World Bank Group and the Question of Human Rights. Transnational Publishers.
Hall, R.P., B. Van Koppen and E. Van Houweling. 2014. The Human Right to Water: The Importance of Domestic and Productive Water Rights.
Sci Eng Ethics (2014) 20:849868.
Human Rights Watch (HRW). 2012a (Jan). Waiting here for death: Forced Displacement and Villagization in Ethiopias Gambella Region.
www.hrw.org, 13 pages.
Human Rights Watch (HRW). 2012b. What will happen if hunger comes? Abuses Against the Indigenous Peoples of Ethiopias Lower Omo
Valley. www.hrw.org, 91pages.
Human Rights Watch (HRW). 2013. Abuse-Free Development. How the World Bank Should Safeguard Against Human Rights Violations. http://
www.hrw.org. 60 pages.
Human Rights Watch (HRW). 2014a (Feb. 18). Ethiopia: Land, Water Grabs Devastate Ethiopia. https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/02/18/ethiopia-
land-water-grabs-devastate-communities.
Human Rights Watch (HRW). 2014b. World Report: Ethiopia. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/ethiopia.
Inclusive Development International (IDI). 2013 (Oct). Human Rights and the World Bank Safeguards Review: Lessons from Ethiopia. Forced
Villagization and the Protection of Basic Services Project. www.inclusivedevelopment.net.
Kenya, Government of (GOK), Eastern Africa Power Pool (EAPP) and East African Community (EAC). 2011. SNC Lavalin, Final Master Plan
Report Vol. IV. Regional Power System Master Plan and Grid Code Study.
Kenya, KETRACO (Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited). 2012 (Jan). Proposed Ethiopia-Kenya Power Interconnection Project.
Final Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) Report.
Knoll, M. 2008. Budget Support: A Reformed Approach or Old Wine in new Skins? UNCTAD/OSG/DP/2008.5.
Knox, J. 2014. United Nations Mandate on Human Rights and the Environment. http://srenvironment.org/tag/un-mandate/.
Oakland Institute. 2013. Overlooking Violence, Marginalization, and Political Repression. http://www.oaklandinstitute.org.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2014. http://www.oecd.org/countries/ethiopia/aid-at-a-glance.htm.
Skogly, S. 2001. The Human Rights Obligations of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Cavendish Publications.
Survival International. 2013a (Mar 24). Concern mounts over humanitarian crisis in Lower Omo, Ethiopia. http://www.survivalinternational.org/
news/10094.
Survival International. 2013b (Apr 15). Aid agencies turn blind eye to catastrophe in Ethiopia. http://www.survivalinternational.org/news/9125.
Survival International. 2013c (Nov 27). Top human rights watchdog investigates Ethiopia and Botswana. http://www.survivalinternational.org/
news/9777.
Survival International. 2014. The Omo Tribes. http://www.survivalinternational.org/tribes/omovalley/gibedam
United Nations, General Assembly. 2007. The U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
United Nations, General Assembly. 2010 (July 28). Resolution GA Res 64/292. The human right to water and sanitation. http://www.un.org/en/ga/
64/resolutions.html.
United Nations, OHCHR and UNEP. 2012. Human Rights and the Environment. Joint Report. http://www.unep.org/environmentalgovernance/
Portals/8/publications/JointReport_OHCHR_HRE.pdf.
United Nations, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) 2002 (Nov). General Comment No. 15, The Right to Adequate
Food. http://www.refworld.org/docid/4538838c11.html
United Nations, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) 2002 (Nov). General Comment No. 15, http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/
doc.nsf/0/a5458d1d1bbd713fc1256cc400389e94.
United Nations, Ofce of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). 2012. Human Rights Treaty System: An
introduction to the core of human rights treaties and the treaty bodies. Fact Sheet No. 30. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/
FactSheet30Rev1.pdf.
United Nations, General Assembly. 2013 (Dec). The human right to safe water and sanitation. Resolution A 68/157. http://www.un.org/en/ga/
search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/68/157.
United States, USAID. 2015. Power Africa. https://www.usaid.gov/powerafrica.
Winkler, Inga. 2012. The Human Right to Water: Signicance, Legal Status and Implications for Water Allocation. Hart Publishing, Oxford and
Portland, Oregon.
Woodroofe, R. & Associates, with Mascott Ltd. 1996. Omo-Gibe River Basin Integrated Development Master Plan Study, Final Report. Vols. I
XV.
World Bank. 2004. Ethiopias Path to Survival and Development: Investing in Water Infrastructure. Background Note for FY04CEM.
World_Bank_CP-WaterMila01.pdf.
World Bank. 2012a (Jul). AFCC2/RI-The Eastern Electricity Highway Project under the First Phase of the Eastern Africa Power Integration
Program. http://www.worldbank.org/projects/P126579/regional-eastern-africa-power-pool-project-apl1?lang=en.
World Bank. 2012b (Jul). Fact Sheet: Ethiopia-Kenya Eastern Electricity Highway Project. First Phase of Regional Eastern Africa Power
Integration Program. http://www.worldbank.org, http://search.worldbank.org/all?qterm=EEHP.
World Bank. 2012c (June). Diagnosing Corruption in Ethiopia: Perceptions, Realities and the Way Forward for Key Sectors. (Janelle Plummer).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-9531-8.
World Bank. 2013 (Dec). Implementation Completion and Results Report on IDA Grants to the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia for a
Ethiopia Protection of Basic Services Program Phase II Project. Report No. ICR2574.
World Bank. 2014a (Mar.). Ethiopia - Promoting Basic Services Program Phase III Project: P128891 - Implementation Status Results Report.
World Bank. 2014b (Nov 21). Ethiopia, Promoting Bassic Services Phase II Projet (P128891). Inspection Panel. Report No. 91854-ET.
Appendix A: Activation of Oil Exploration
and Development in the EthiopiaKenyaSouth
Sudan Transboundary Region1
Joshua S. Dimon2 with Claudia Carr

While the Gibe III component of the Omo River basin development constitutes the most urgent, intensive and extensive
threat to livelihoods along the lower Omo River and Lake Turkana, the peoples in this region are also under threat from other
large-scale development programs. These too promise further restrictions of access to livelihood resources, including land
grabs for large agri-business plantations along the lower Omo and, on an even larger scale, oil development. There has been
a major expansion of oil exploration and development activities along Lake Turkana and the lower Omo basin in the last ve
years. The impacts of these developments will only compound Gibe IIIs negative impacts on livelihoods in the region by
further restricting pastoral territories, further abstracting water from the Omo and Lake Turkana for drilling, further reducing
the water quality of the remaining water in the Omo River and Lake Turkana, and increasing the militarization of the region
and potential for armed conflict.
Current concessions for oil exploration in the region cover the entirety of Lake Turkana and the south Omo River, extending
along the so-called tertiary rift valley zone of Ethiopia and the eastern branch of the East African Rift Valley. Exploration
and, more recently, development of oil has been accelerating for the last ve years in the region, although it is part of a much
longer history of oil exploration.
Contrary to news of brand-new interest/discoveries, exploration in this region has been going on for many years, without the
prior knowledge of those living in the zones of exploration. The rst exploration in the region was in the 1950s, with the rst
hints of oil resulting from shallow boring for water in Northwest Kenya in 1952 (Hedburg 1953). Exploration picked up
again in the 1980s with help from the World Bank in both Kenya and Ethiopia (Rachwal and Destefano 1980; McGrew
1982; Hartman and Walker 1988). This zone is part of a larger regional exploration history starting in the 1940s. The Africa
Resources Working Group (ARWG) has been investigating this history across thirteen countries covering seventy years and
over three hundred companies, and has documented this in several forthcoming papers.
With decades of exploration history in the zones, oil companies currently investing in this region generally already know
what exists in the area, and where, and accelerate quickly to exploration drilling, which is a far more damaging phase than
seismic exploration, and requires a greater amount of auxiliary support infrastructure, including security, where the company
deems the area a potential risk to their property or employees. Given the growing tensions due to the Gibe III impacts, and
the increasing conflict in South Sudan, private security forces are likely in use here, further heightening the potential for
violent conflict in this region.
1
This Appendix was written in July of 2014. Since that time, major expansions of Tullow Oil, Africa Oil and other petroleum and associated
interests have been underway in the region. This discussion offers an outline and perspective regarding the genesis and basic character
of the fast-moving development now underway.
2
Joshua S. Dimon is completing a doctoral degree in Environmental Science, Policy and Management at the University of California, Berkeley
specializing in extractive industry development within Africa.
The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017 217

in Eastern Africa A Policy Crossroads, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-50469-8
218 Appendix A: Activation of Oil Exploration
Currently, Africa Oil and Tullow are the two dominant companies involved in the region, although over 15 companies are
involved in the tertiary rift valley all together. Tullow has been very active in the broader region, with oil discoveries in the
Ugandan portion of the Western branch of the rift valley. Africa Oil is a more recent addition to the region, but includes
individuals with many years of geologic experience in the region. Perhaps more problematic, Africa Oil gained its con-
cessions along the Omo River in Ethiopia through an intermediary that initially gained the concessions as agricultural
plantation project land. The inter-changing roles of the investors engaged both across industries, and across countries in the
region demonstrates both the unied front facing the pastoral peoples of the Southern Omo, northern Lake Turkana region,
and the strategic advantage these companies have in negotiations with regional governments.
Given the evidence from the past seven decades of exploration, and current upsurges in interest in the broader northern
Rift Valley Area and Horn of Africa, the oil companies are arguing this region is likely to become next West Africa.
The convergence of this massive expansion of the oil industry in the same impact zone as that of the Gibe III dam will
decimate livelihoods in this region. The impacts from all of these developments together far exceed the sum of the
individual impacts, as livelihoods will already be stressed beyond their coping points by the Gibe III dam.
Seismic exploration, while progressing for decades, has rapidly expanded in recent years. Additionally, two wells have
already been drilled by Tullow Oil in the lower Omo area near the EthiopiaKenya border by Tullow Oil, and many more
South of the Lake in Kenya where development drilling is already in progress. These developments will directly and
severely impact pastoral livelihoods in the region. Seismic exploration requires the clearing of vast swaths of land from flora,
fauna and people including for the placement of explosives or large thumper trucks every 100 m. This is carried out for
distances of hundreds of kilometers in order to generate seismic waves. These operations involve security measures to
prevent people from approaching the seismic lines during clearing, placing of trucks and explosives, and seismic testing
itself which can extend for months. For pastoral peoples, these actions mean major disruption of settlements, livestock
movements and access to grazing and water sources.
Drilling involves the same securitization of the location of the drilling rigs. It also involves the production of a very large
amount of drilling waste, including toxic drilling muds, drill cuttings (rock) contaminated with drilling muds and possibly
hydrocarbons, and produced water (from injection during drilling) also contaminated with drilling muds and hydrocarbons.
If the drilling is on land, in areas such as this region, the wastes will be left near the drill site in waste ponds, likely unlined,
risking contamination of any groundwater that may be accessed in the region, as well as nearby land. If the drilling is on
water, the wastes are generally dumped directly into the water system next to the drilling platform. This would be concern
enough without the impacts on Lake Turkana water levels from the dam, as it can seriously impact benthic organisms,
chemical oxygen demand, and sh life (Patin 1999; Satterly 2003). However, with any reduction in Lake level from the Dam
itself, this would be far worse.
Each of these phases of oil and gas development involve security, generally from either private security forces, or the
military forces of the hosting country. In a region already experiencing the livelihood tensions noted in throughout this book,
as well as the impending tensions from the impacts of the Dam itself, this increased militarization of the region will only
augment armed conflict and humanitarian concerns. The exploration programs that have been progressing in the South Omo,
North Turkana regions have already sparked conflict when residents of the region rst encountered oil company trucks that
said they had authorization from the government to commence work in the region, despite community members knowing
nothing about it.
Literature Cited
Hartman, J.B., and T.L. Walker. 1988. Petroleum developments in Central and Southern Africa in 1987 (Part b). Bulletin of
the American Association of Petroleum Geographers 72(10b):196227.
Hedberg, H. 1953. Petroleum developments in Africa in 1952.
McGrew, H.J. 1982. Petroleum developments in central and Southern Africa in 1981. Bulletin of the American Association
of Petroleum Geographers 66(11):22512320.
Appendix A: Activation of Oil Exploration 219
Fig. A.1 Concessions for oil and gas exploration in the EthiopiaKenyaSouth Sudan transboundary region2014. Source Map by Africa
Resources Working Group (ARWG), compiled from relevant oil industry documents/websites
220 Appendix A: Activation of Oil Exploration
Fig. A.2 Cumulative concessions for oil and gas exploration in Eastern Africa. Source Mapping by J. Dimon, A. Gray and C. Carr of Africa
Resources Working Group (ARWG) with data from relevant petroleum literature and oil industry websites
Appendix A: Activation of Oil Exploration 221
Patin, S.A. 1999. Environmental impact of the offshore oil and gas industry. New York: Eco Monitor Publishing.
Rachwal, C.A., and E.R. Destefano. 1980. Petroleum developments in central and Southern Africa in 1979. Bulletin of the
American Association of Petroleum Geographers 64(11):17851835.
Satterly, N. 2003. PCR inhibition and toxic effects by sediment samples exposed to drilling muds. Masters Thesis, submitted
to Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College.
Appendix B: Species Collected in the Lower Omo
River Basin and Transborder Region
Collection by C. Carr (Taxonomic Update by F.H. Brown)
Acanthaceae
Barleria acanthoides Vahl
Barleria eranthemoides R. Br.
Barleria linearifolia Rendle
Blepharis persica (Burm. f.) Kuntze (syn of B. ciliaris L.) B.L. Burtt
Crossandra nilotica Oliv.
Ecbolium anisacanthus (Schweinf.) C.B.Cl.
Ecbolium revolutum (L.) C.B.Cl.
Hypoestes verticillaris R. Br.
Justicia anselliana T. Anders.
Justicia caerulea Forssk.
Justicia flava Forssk.
Justicia odora (Forssk.) Vahl (syn. J. scheri Lindau)
Justicia sp.
Justicia striata (Flotsch.) Bullock
Peristrophe bicalyculata (Retz.) Nees
Ruellia patula Jacq.
Actiniopteridaceae
Actiniopteris radiata (Sw.) Link
Aizoaceae
Corbichonia decumbens (Forssk.) Exell
Trianthema triquetra Willd.
Zaleya pentandra (L.) Jeffrey
Amaranthaceae
Achyranthes aspera L.
Aerva javanica (Burm.f.) Schult.
Celosia argentea L.
Celosia populifolia (Forssk.) Moq.
Celosia schweinfurthiana Schinz
Cyathula orthacantha (Hochst.) Schinz
Dasysphaera prostrata (Gilg) Cavaco
Digera muricata (L.) Mart.
Psilotrichum elliottii Bak.
Psilotrichum gnaphalobryum (Hochst.) Schinz
Pupalia lappacea (L.) A. Juss.
Sericocomopsis pallida (S.Moore) Schinz
Heeria reticulata (Bak. f.) Engl.
Lannea floccosa Jacl.
Rhus natalensis Krauss
(continued)

224 Appendix B: Species Collected in the Lower Omo River Basin and Transborder Region
Annonaceae
Uvaria leptocladon Oliv.
Apocynaceae
Adenium obesum ( Forssk.) Roem. & Schult.
Saba florida (Benth.) Bullock
Araceae
Pistia stratiotes L.
Arecaceae
Hyphaene compressa H. Wendl. (H. thebaica is syn.)
Aristolochiaceae
Aristolochia bracteolata Lam.
Asclepiadaceae
Calotropis procera (Aiton) W.T. Aiton
Caralluma acutangulata (Decne.) N.E. Br.
Caralluma somaliea N.E. Br.
Curroria volubilis (Schtr.) Bullock
Gomphocarpus fruticosus (L.) Ait
Leptadenia hastata (Pers.) Decne
Pergularia daemia (Forsk.) Chiov.
Sarcostemma viminale (L.) R. Br.
Tacazzea apiculata Oliv.
Asparagaceae
Asparagus sp.
Balanitaceae
Balanites aegyptiaca (L.) Del.
Balanites orbicularis Sprague
Balanites sp. (= Carr 859)
Balanites zeylanicum (Burm.) R. Br.
Boraginaceae
Cordia crenata Delile
Cordia sinensis Lam.
Heliotropium indicum L.
Heliotropium ovalifolium Forsk.
Heliotropium somalense Vatke
Heliotropium steudneri Vatke
Heliotropium supinum L.
Trichodesma zeylanicum (Burm. f.) R. Br.
Burseraceae
Boswellia hildebrandtii Engl.
Commiphora africana (A. Rich.) Engl.
Commiphora edulis Engl. (C. boiviniana is syn.)
Commiphora kua J.F. Royle (Vollesen) var. kua (C. madagascariensis is syn.)
Commiphora sp.
Capparaceae
Boscia angustifolia A Rich. var. angustifoliaBoscia coriacea Pax
Cadaba farinosa Forssk. subsp. farinosa
Cadaba gillettii R.A. Graham
Cadaba glandulosa Forssk.
Cadaba rotundifolia Forssk.
Capparis fascicularis DC. var. fascicularis
Capparis tomentosa Lam.
Cleome brachycarpa DC.
Cleome parvipetala R.A. Graham
Crateva adansonii DC.
Maerua crassifolia Forssk.
Maerua decumbens (Brongn.) De Wolf (Maerua subcordata (Gilg.) De Wolf is syn.)
Maerua oblongifolia (Forssk.) A. Rich.
(continued)
Appendix B: Species Collected in the Lower Omo River Basin and Transborder Region 225
Celastraceae
Hippocratea africana (Willd.) Loes.
Maytenus senegalensis (Lam.) Exell
Ceratophyllaceae
Ceratophyllum demersum L.
Chenopodiaceae
Suaeda monoica J.F. Gmel
Combretaceae
Combretum aculeatum Vent.
Terminalia brevipes Pamp.
Commelinaceae
Commelina benghalensis L.
Commelina forsskaolii Vahl
Compositae (Asteraceae)
Delamerea procumbens S. Moore
Helichrysum glumaceum DC.
Kleinia longiflora DC.
Kleinia squarrosa Cufod. (Syn is Kleinia kleinioides (Sch. Bip.) M.R.F. Taylor)
Pluchea dioscoridis DC.
Pluchea ovalis DC.
Sphaeranthus ukambensis Vatke & O. Hoffm.
Vernonia cinerascens Sch.-Bip
Vernonia sp. ( = Carr 333)
Convolvulaceae
Hildebrandtia obcordata S. Moore
Ipomoea aquatica Forsk.
Ipomoea sinensis (Desr.) Choisy subsp. blepharosepala (A. Rich) Meeuse
Seddera hirsuta Hallier f. var. hirsuta
Cucurbitaceae
Coccinia grandis (L.) Voigt
Cucumis dipsaceus Spach.
Cucumis garei Naud.
Kedrostis foetidissima (Jacq.) Cogn.
Kedrostis gijef (J.F. Gmel.) C. Jeffrey
Luffa ?echinata Roxb.
Momordica rostrata A. Zimm.
Cyperaceae
Cyperus alopecuroides Rottb.
Cyperus articulatus (Cav.) Steud.
Cyperus laevigatus L.
Cyperus longus L.
Cyperus maritimus L.
Cyperus rotundus L.
Cyperus teneriffae Poir.
Scirpus maritimus L.
Dichapetalaceae
Tapura scheri Engl.
Dracaenaceae
Sansevieria ehrenbergii Schweinf. ex Baker
Ebenaceae
Diospyros scabra (Chiov.) Cufod.
Diospyros sp.
Elatinaceae
Bergia suffruticosa (Del.) Fanzl
Euphorbiaceae
Acalypha fruticosa Forssk.
Acalypha indica L.
Euphorbia grandicornis Goebel
(continued)
Euphorbia heterochroma Pax

Euphorbia hypericifolia L.
Euphorbia tirucalli L.
Euphorbia triaculeata Forsk.
Jatropha ellenbeckii Pax (J. ssispina is syn.)
Phyllanthus amarus Schumach. and Thonn.
Phyllanthus maderaspatensis L.
Phyllanthus reticulatus Poir.
Phyllanthus sp. (= Carr 411)
Ricinus communis L.
Securinega virosa (Willd.) Pax and K. Hoffm.
Tragia hildebrandtii Muell. Arg.
Fabaceae (Caesalpinioideae)
Cassia didymobotrya Fres.
Cassia italica (Mill.) F.W. Andr. var. micrantha Brenan
Cassia nigricans Vahl.
Cassia occidentalis L.
Delonix elata (L.) Gamble
Tamarindus indica L.
Fabaceae (Faboideae)
Canavalia cathartica Thou.
Canavalia virosa Wight and Arn.
Crotalaria polysperma Kotschy
Crotalaria pychnostachya Benth.
Indigofera arrecta Hochst. ex A. Rich.
Indigofera ciferrii Chiov.
Indigofera coerulea Roxb.
Indigofera hochstetteri Baker
Indigofera oblongifolia Forsk.
Indigofera schimperi Jaub. & Spach
Indigofera spicata Forsk.
Indigofera spinosa Forssk.
Indigofera tinctoria L.
Indigofera volkensii Taub. forma
Ormocarpum trichocarpum (Taub.) Engl.
Rhynchosia minima (L.) DC.
Rhynchosia pulverulenta Stocks
Sesbania sericea (Willd.) Link
Sesbania sesban L. Merr. var. nubica Chiov.
Sesbania somalensis Gillett
Tephrosia purpurea (L.) Pers. var. pubescens Bak
Tephrosia uniflora Pers.
Vigna luteola (Jacq.) Benth.
Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczck. var. sublobata (Roxb.) Verdc.
Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. var. unguiculata (Syn. of Vigna unguiculata (L.)) Walp. subsp. cylindrica (L.) Van Eselt
Acacia drepanolobium
Dichrostachys cinerea (L.) W. and A.
Mimosa pigra L.
Senegalia (Acacia) mellifera (Vahl) Benth.
Senegalia (Acacia) senegal (L.) Willd.
Senegalia brevispica Harms
Vachellia (Acacia) drepanolobium Harms ex Y. Sjstedt
Vachellia (Acacia) horrida (L.) Willd.
Vachellia (Acacia) nubica Benth.
Vachellia (Acacia) paolii Chiov.
Vachellia (Acacia) reciens Wawra
Vachellia (Acacia) sieberiana DC.
Vachellia (Acacia) tortilis (Forssk.) Hayne subsp. spirocarpa Chiov. (Hochst. ex A. Rich.) Brenan
Vachelliia (Acacia) seyal Del.
Gentianaceae
Enicostema axillare (Lam.) A. Raynal subsp.axillare (Syn of Enicostema hyssopifolium (Willd.) Verdoor
(continued)
Hyacinthaceae
Urginea indica (Roxb.) Kunth
Lamiaceae
Basilicum polystachon (L.) Moench
Hyptis pectinata (L.) Poit.
Leonotis nepetifolia (L.) R. Br.
Leucas ?glabrata R. Br.
Leucas nubica Benth.
Ocimum americanum L.
Ocimum forsskaolii Benth (syn. = O. hadiense Forssk.)
Ocimum kilimandscharicum Baker ex Grke
Orthosiphon somalensis Vatke
Plectranthus hadiensis (Forssk.) Schweinf. ex Spreng. (Syn. of Ocimum hadiense) Forssk.
Plectranthus sp. (= Carr 739)
Loranthaceae
Loranthus sp. ( = Carr 880)
Plicosepalus sagittifolius (Sprague) Danser
Tapinanthus aurantiacus (Engl.) Danser
Malvaceae
Abelmoschus esculentus (L.)
Abutilon garianum Webb
Abutilon fruticosum Guill. and Perr.
Abutilon graveolens W. and A.
Abutilon hirtum (Lam.) Sweet
Fabaceae (Mimosoideae)
Abutilon pannosum (Forsk. f.) Schlecht.
Hibiscus micranthus L.f.
Hibiscus sp.
Pavonia patens (Andr.) Chiov.
Pavonia zeylanica Cav.
Senra incana Cav.
Sida rhombifolia L.
Trichilia roka (Forsk.) Chiov.
Menispermaceae
Cissampelos mucronata A. Rich.
Cocculus hirsutus (L.) Diels
Moraceae
Ficus sycomorus L.
Nyctaginaceae
Boerhavia erecta L.
Commicarpus helenae (Romer & Schultes) Meikle syn of C. stellatus (Wight) Berhaut
Commicarpus plumbagineus Standl.
Nymphaceae
Nymphaea lotus L.
Olacaceae
Ximenia americana var. caffra (Sond.) Engl.
Jasminum abyssinicum Hochst. ex DC.
Onagraceae
Ludwigia adscendens subsp. diffusa (Forrsk.) P.H. Raven (Syn. of Ludwigiastolonifera) (Guill. & Perr.) P.H. Raven
Ludwigia leptocarpa (Nutt.) H. Hara
Passifloraceae
Adenia venenata Forssk.
Pedaliaceae
Pterodiscus ruspolii Engl.
Sesamothamnus busseanus Engl.
Sesamum latifolium J.B. Gillett
(continued)
Poaceae
Aristida adscensionis L.
Aristida kenyensis Henrard
Aristida mutabilis Trin. & Rupr.
Cenchrus ciliaris L.
Cenchrus setigerus Vahl
Chloris roxburghiana Schult.
Chloris virgata Sw.
Chrysopogon aucheri (Boiss.) Stapf var. aucheri
Cymbopogon schoenanthus (L.) Spreng.
Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.
Dactyloctenium giganteum Fischer and Schweickt.
Dactyloctenium sp. nov.
Digitaria macroblephara (Hack.) Stapf
Dinebra retroflexa (Vahl) Panz.
Echinochloa haploclada (Stapf) Stapf
Enneapogon brachystachyus (Jaub. and Spach) Stapf
Enneapogon cenchroides (Roem. and Schult.) C.E. Hubb
Enteropogon macrostachyus (A. Rich.) Benth.
Eragrostis cilianensis (All.) Vignolo ex Janch.
Eragrostis namaquensis Nees
Eriochloa fatmensis (Hochst. & Steud.) Clayton (Syn is E. nubica)
Heteropogon contortus (L.) Roem. & Schult.
Lintonia nutans Stapf
Loudetia phragmitoides (Peter) CE Hubbard
Panicum coloratum L.
Panicum maximum Jacq.
Panicum monticola Hook. F (Syn = P. meyeranum Nees)
Panicum poaeoides Stapf
Perotis patens Gand. var. parvispicula Robyns
Phragmites ?karka (Retz) Steud.
Phragmites australis (Cav.) Steud.
Schoenefeldia transiens (Pilger) Chiov.
Sehima nervosum (Rottl.) Stapf
Setaria acromelaena (Hochst.) Dur. and Schinz
Sorghum verticilliflorum (Steud.) Stapf
Sorghum virgatum Stapf
Sporobolus consimilis Fresen.
Sporobolus mbriatus Nees var. latifolius
Sporobolus helvolus (Trin.) T. Durand & Schinz
Sporobolus ioclados (Trin.) Nees (Syn. is S.marginatus)
Sporobolus pellucidus Hochst.
Sporobolus pyramidalis Beauv.
Sporobolus spicatus (Vahl) Kunth
Stipagrostis hirtigluma (Trin. & Rupr.) de Winter
Tetrapogon cenchriformis (A. Rich.) Clayton
Tetrapogon tenellus (Roxb.) Chiov.
Tragus berteronianus Schult.
Urochloa setigera (Retz.) Stapf
Vossia cuspidata (Roxb.) Griff.
Polygalaceae
Polygala erioptera DC.
Persecaria senegalensis f. albotomentosa (R.A. Graham) K.L. Wilson (Syn. is Polygonum senegalense Meisn. f. albotomentosum R.A. Graham)
Portulaca foliosa Ker-Gawl.
Portulaca oleracea L.
Portulaca quadrida L.
Talinum portulacifolium (Forssk.) Asch. ex Schweinf.
Rhamnaceae
Ziziphus mauritiana Lam.
Ziziphus mucronata Willd.
Ziziphus pubescens Oliv.
(continued)
Rubiaceae
Kohautia caespitosa Schnizl.
Tarenna graveolens (S. Moore) Brem.
Rubiaceae
Fagara chalybea (Engl.) Engl. (Syn of Zanthoxylum chalybeum)
Salvadoraceae
Dobera glabra (Forssk.) Poir.
Salvadora persica L.
Sapindaceae
Allophylus ferrugineus Taub. var. ferrugineus (Syn = A. macrobotrys Gilg.)
Cardiospermum halicababum L. var. halicababum
Glenniea africana (Radlk.) Leenh. (Syn =Melanodiscus oblongus Radlk. Ex Taub., in Engl.
Haplocoelum foliolosum (Hiern) Bullock
Lepisanthes senegalensis (Juss. ex Poir.) Leenh. (is Syn. of Aphania senegalensis)
Scrophulariaceae
Stemodia ?serrata Benth.
Striga hermonthica (Delile) Benth.
Simaroubaceae
Harrisonia abyssinica Oliv.
Solanaceae
Lycium sp.
Nicotiana tabacum L.
Solanum hastifolium Dunal
Solanum incanum L.
Solanum nigrum L.
Solanum sepicula Dunal
Withania somnifera (L.) Dunal
Sterculiaceae
Melochia corchorifolia L.
Sterculia sp.
Tiliaceae
Corchorus olitorius L.
Corchorus trilocularis L.
Grewia bicolor Juss.
Grewia fallax K. Schum.
Grewia tenax (Forssk.) Fiori
Grewia villosa Willd.
Typhaceae
Typha sp.
Ulmaceae
Celtis integrifolia Lam.
Vahliaceae
Vahlia goddingii E.A. Bruce
Verbenaceae
Chascanum laetum (Walp.) (Syn = Svensonia laeta (Walp.) Moldenke)
Phyla nodiflora (L.) Greene
Premna resinosa (Hochst.) Schauer
Priva adhaerens (Forsk.) Chiov.
Vitaceae
Cayratia ibuensis (Hook f.) Suess.
Cissus cactiformis Gilg.
Cissus quadrangularis L.
Cissus rotundifolia (Forssk.) Vahl
Cyphostemma sp.
Zygophyllaceae
Tribulus cistoides L.
Tribulus terrestris L.
Zygophyllum simplex L.
Appendix C: Reference set of Selected Major Figures
Content by C. Carr represented in graphic form by Laura Daly

232 Appendix C: Reference set of Selected Major Figures
Appendix C: Reference set of Selected Major Figures 233
Open Access This book is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 International License (http://
The images or other third party material in this book are included in the works Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the

Servicios Sociales

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Servicios Sociales

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Claudia J.

River Basin Development and Human

ISBN 978-3-319-50468-1 ISBN 978-3-319-50469-8 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016959399

Photographs by Claudia J. Carr

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

to my son Calen and niece Leahand those who follow them

1 At Stake with River Basin Development in Eastern Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

3 The Seismic Threat to the Gibe III Dam: A Disaster in Waiting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

4 Transboundary Survival Systems: A Profile of Vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

5 Components of Catastrophe: Social and Environmental Consequences of Omo River

6 The Rush to Rationalize: Public Policies and Impact Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

The False Promise of an Artificial Flood Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

8 Nyangatom Livelihood and the Omo Riverine Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

9 Turkana Survival Systems at Lake Turkana: Vulnerability to Collapse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

10 Human Rights Violations and the Policy Crossroads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Appendix A: Activation of Oil Exploration and Development in the EthiopiaKenyaSouth Sudan

Appendix C: Reference set of Selected Major Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

AFD French Development Agency/Agence Franaise de Dveloppement

UNESCO United Nations Educational Scientic and Cultural Organisation

River Basin Development in Africa: Development Versus Disaster

The Author(s) 2017 1

The Transboundary Character of Emerging Crisis in Eastern Africa

Fig. 1.3 Ethnic groups in the tri-nation transboundary region

Fig. 1.6 Interethnic exchange network in the transboundary region

Early River Basin Development in Ethiopia

The Author(s) 2017 23

The Resurgence of Western Dominance in River Basin Development

Overseeing environmental impact assessments.

Fast Track to the Gibe III Megadam

ETHIOPIAN STATE* INTERNATIONAL GLOBAL CONSULTING

High Seismicity in the Gibe III Dam Region

The Author(s) 2017 43

Reservoir Seepage and Landslide Danger at the Gibe III Dam

Failed Government and Development Bank Seismic Review

Indigenous Livelihoods and Survival Strategy Systems

The Author(s) 2017 53

Small stock , Grain Small stock , Cattle

Fish , Small stack Fish , Grain

Table 4.1 Diversied food production among transboundary ethnic groups

Suri Agropastoral, Pastoral

Lake Turkana Region

Turkana Pastoral*, Fishing**, Pastoral-Fishing**

Major Subsidiary Livelihood Activities (groups vary)

* Recently initiated or increased

From From From From

Animal Sorghum, Sorghum, Animal

Redrawing of national boundaries.

Environments in the Transboundary Region: From Pristine to Degraded

The Lowermost Omo River Basin and Environs

Lake Turkana and Environs

Cross-Border Conflict and Diminishing Resources: The Ilemi Triangle Ingredient

Radical Reduction of River and Lake Waters by Omo Basin Development

The Author(s) 2017 75

Elevation vs Volume for Lake Turkana

Consequences for the Lowermost Omo River Basin

Consequences for the Lake Turkana Region

Consequences for the Ilemi Triangle and the Broader Region

[Turkana man in shoreline village following AFDB consultants visit]

Launching the Gibe III DamAnd a System of Bias

The Author(s) 2017 85

Support for GOE infrastructure projects.

Turkana Pastoral*, Fishing, Pastoral-Fishing