This paper synthesizes current knowledge on the impacts of the Gibe III dam and associated large-scale commercial farming in the Omo-Turkana Basin, based on an expert elicitation coupled with a scoping review and the collective knowledge of an multidisciplinary network of researchers with active data-collection programs in the Basin. We use social-ecological systems and political ecology frameworks to assess the impacts of these interventions on hydrology and ecosystem services in the Basin, and cascading effects on livelihoods, patterns of migration, and conflict dynamics for the people of the region. A landscape-scale transformation is occurring in which commodities, rather than staple foods for local consumption, are becoming the main output of the region. Mitigation measures initiated by the Ethiopian government—notably resettlement schemes—are not adequately buffering affected communities from food insecurity following disruption to indigenous livelihood systems. Therefore, while benefits are accruing to labor migrants, the costs of development are currently borne primarily by the agro–pastoralist indigenous people of the region. We consider measures that might maximize benefits from the changes underway and mitigate their negative outcomes, such as controlled floods, irrigating fodder crops, food aid, and benefit sharing. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s13280-018-1139-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Ethiopian government continuously calls for policy-relevant research. However, this admission of policy challenges and attempts to fill the gap cannot ignore the political economy and power dynamics in Ethiopia. This article discusses challenges to an impactful partnership with government, drawing from the experiences of the 'conflict working group', the ESRC-DFID-funded project 'Shifting In/equality Dynamics in Ethiopia: from Research to Application' (SIDERA). We argue that research should empower communities; however, to government, research is a tool to buttress efforts to 'secure' and 'pacify' the lowlands to eventually facilitate extraction. The article also addresses the lack of consensus on basic concepts such as conflict. We argue that it is a rational response to environmental change and state-led dispossessions, while to government, it is an expression of 'backwardness' and 'irrationality'. The development of a meaningful partnership in this context was dependent on navigating meanings and power relations.

While the conceptual models on conflict, security and regionalism have evolved and augmented with time, East African pastoral relations remain subject to simplistic explanatory analyses that view pastoral conflicts as cross-border community conflicts and small arms as part of their cultural heritage. This article strives to find a more nuanced understanding of the relations of pastoralist communities and the role of arms in the perennial cross-border conflict. It uses a regional security complex (RSC) approach, first proposed by Barry Buzan and subsequently moulded in ‘new regionalism’ perspectives, which emphasizes the intricate web of pastoralist relations shaped by their need for security, where their identity and livelihood (cattle) remain at the centre. Taking this further, it develops the concept of a Karamoja security complex (KSC) as an appropriate explanatory framework. Through historical analysis and primary data collected among the Nyàngatom in Ethiopia, the research reveals a regular and complex pattern of conflict moulded primarily by the fundamental need for security.

No abstract

No abstract