Exploring land grabbing in Ethiopia -

narratives & livelihood implications.

By: Linnea Widholm Ivarsson & Aylin Nguyen

Supervisor: Clas Lindberg

Södertörn University | School of Natural Science,
Technology and Environmental Studies.
Bachelor’s essay 15 credits | Spring semester 2022
Programme: Development and International Cooperation
Abstract 3
Keywords 3
Introduction 4
Purpose statement. 6
Research questions 7
Delimitations 7
Theoretical Framework 8
Political Ecology 8
Political Economy 9
Discursive power 10
Previous Research 12
Methodology 14
Secondary Data 14
Narrative Analysis 15
Situating Ethiopia 16
Evidence 19
Narratives - Ethiopian government. 19
Implications on smallholders local livelihoods 22
Case: The Omo Kuraz Sugar Development Project. 27
Analysis 30
Narrative Analysis 30
Analysis of livelihood implications 33
Concluding discussion 36
Reference List 37

2
Abstract
The land grabbing phenomena grew in both reported cases and in scholarly interest after
the 2008 financial crisis. The concept of land grabbing has been greatly debated and some
have chosen the term large scale land acquisition instead, focusing on win-win outcomes
while the land grabbing term rather focuses on the unequal power relations involved. Our
study has defined land grabbing as; a global land rush characterized by transnational and
domestic investors, governments and local elites taking control over land in order to
produce food and other industrial commodities for domestic and international markets. The
study's aim is to examine land grabbings implications on smallholders local livelihoods in
Ethiopia and furthermore to reveal what narratives that are being promoted by the
Ethiopian government to justify these land grabs. This to understand how the implications
on smallholders' livelihoods and the narratives by the government match. The study is
based in a qualitative methodology, basing most of the study's result in a literature review.
The study is examined through a Political Ecology framework, focusing on political
economy with theory influences from both Marx and David Harvey. Furthermore, the
study will also combine the theoretical understanding of discursive power, focusing on
development discourses, with a narrative analysis. Findings of the study show that the
main narratives pushed by the government to justify said land grabs in the country was
economic growth, further enabling a ‘development state’, modernizing pastoralists by
providing stable income and changing living situations for pastoralists and increasing the
food security in the country. Furthermore, the study found that the livelihood implications
for smallholders have been overall negative, with outcomes such as displacement, loss of
land and resources, weakened food security and also negative psychological and social
impacts as well. Therefore the study could conclude that the Ethiopian government's
argumentations have not matched with the lived realities for many smallholders.

Keywords
Smallholders, Agriculture development, Agriculture commercialization, local livelihoods,
Growth and Transformation Plan,

3
Introduction
Reported cases of so-called “land grabbing” increased after the 2008s financial crisis and
the increased scholarly interest in the subject could be seen from the number of articles
published about the phenomena during this time (Fairhead et al. 2012; de Schutter 2011;
Levers 2012 ; Hall 2011a). Acquisitions of land for development of large-scale
plantations and foreign direct investment in agriculture became increasingly popular
during the early 2000s. According to the United Nations Conference of Trade and
Development (UNCTAD) the number of direct investments was on average 600 million
USD in the 1990s and increased to an average of 3 billion in the period 2005-2007. The
financial crisis in 2007/2008 which also caused a food crisis convinced private investors
and governments that the international food market was unreliable, unstable and the risk
for unstable food commodity supply was high. Outsourcing the food production by
investing in farmland became an attractive option rather than investing in the
international markets. Therefore, farmland acquisitions (or land grabs) grew popular after
the 2008s financial crisis (De schutter 2011 p. 251).

There have been many contemporary debates surrounding the concept of land grabbing
(Borras & Franco 2012; Hall et al. 2015; Zoomers et al. 2017). Some have promoted the
term large-scale land investments or land acquisitions instead. The term large-scale land
investments was first introduced and popularized by mainstream development institutions
and by many governments, often focusing on the win-win situation argued to be created
by the phenomena (Borras & Franco 2012 p. 35). The term land grabbing, however, takes
a more critical stance towards processes and focuses more on unfair power relations and
the structural processes behind the phenomena. This thesis defines land grabbing as a;
global land rush characterized by transnational and domestic investors, governments and
local elites taking control over land in order to produce food and other industrial
commodities for domestic and international markets. Land grabs are also associated with
lack of consultation and respect for the rights of local communities that make a living off
the land (Margulies et al. 2013 p. 2). Furthermore, land grabbing will also be understood
from David Harvey’s interpretation of the phenomena, which is defined as; a symptom of
neoliberalism and a response to crisis (Harvey 2004). Examples of such crises are; crisis
of overaccumulation and financial, energy and food crises (Hall 2013).

4
What defines contemporary land grabs are that they are often larger in scale and often
consist of land being leased to international companies for around 30-50 years (Franco et
al. 2013 p. 11). In many African countries the land grabbing process is completely legal,
dispossession and relocation is often supported by the law (Franco et al. 2013 p. 8).
Africa has been especially targeted in the global land grabs. It is difficult to find exact
numbers on how widespread land grabbing is in the continent, however in 2010 it was
estimated that 70% of all land grabs taking place worldwide were happening in Africa
(Hall 2011 p. 1). The reason for Africa being targeted is that land is cheap (Hall 2011b p.
2) and the myth that African land is not being utilized and is unpopulated/empty.
Essentially the idea that there is an excess of land available (Franco et al. 2013 p. 5).
Ethiopia is among the countries with the most land grabs in recent years (Wayessa 2020
p.1). In 2004 the World Bank identified Ethiopia's areas of growth potential, whereas
increased public investments in development in specific geographic areas would conclude
in agriculture growth (World Bank 2004) and in 2011 Ethiopia signed 406 commercial
investments projects, resulting in leasing around one million hectare of land to both
foreign and domestic investors (Damtew 2019). The Ethiopian government has long
promoted a smallholder-agriculture focus on development but in the last 15-20 years
large-scale agriculture have been promoted which have resulted in increased land grabs in
the country (Lavers 2012 p. 796). Around 85 percent of Ethiopia's population are
employed within the agriculture sector and many depend on agriculture for their
livelihoods (Damtew 2019).

The land grabbing phenomena/large scale land acquisitions relates and interacts with
many of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which even further highlights the
importance in studying and understanding the phenomena. SDG number 1 (No poverty)
brings up smallholders rights to land and natural resources and its connection to ending
poverty (UN 2015 p.15). The question regarding food-security is essential when
discussing the phenomena, therefore the SDG number 2 (End hunger for all and Secure
equal access to land) (ibid. p.21) is highly relevant. Studying the land grabbing
phenomena deals with the impacts on both land and water resources and therefore
interacts with SDG 6 (Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and
sanitation for all) which preaches for clean water and sanitation. Furthermore, SDG 15

(Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably

5
manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt
biodiversity loss), which focuses on sustainable land management and reversing land
degradation (UN 2015 p. 18 & 24)

Purpose statement.
The aim of this study is to analyze how smallholders' livelihoods are affected by land
grabbing and therefore also understand the narratives of smallholders. This will be
accomplished by performing a literature review and furthermore, using a Political
Ecology framework. Focusing mostly on Political Economy concepts such as Marx's
primitive accumulation and Harveys Accumulation by Dispossession. This study defines
livelihoods as “ the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and
activities required for a means of living.” (Chambers & Conway 1991 p. 6). Furthermore
smallholders are defined as “small-scale farmers, pastoralists, forest keepers, fishers who
manage areas varying from less than one hectare to 10 hectares. Smallholders are
characterized by family-focused motives such as favouring the stability of the farm
household system, using mainly family labour for production and using part of the
produce for family consumption” (FAO 2012 p.1). The study will strive to be aware of
different power relations within the group “small-holders” and will pay further attention
to how the outcomes on livelihood may differ within the group.

The study also aims to identify and to problematize what narratives are being pushed by
the Ethiopian government to justify land grabs within the country. Therefore the focus of
the study will be national, this because the national/domestic political economy
surrounding large-scale land-acquisitions have not been studied to the same extent as the
international political economy of foreign large-scale land-acquisitions (Gebresenbet
2016 p. 7) highlighting an important potential knowledge gap. The narrative will be
analyzed by doing a narrative analysis, taking part in government documents, interviews
and speeches by government leaders related to the sector. These narratives will be
problematized/analyzed using a Political Ecology framework mostly drawing from ideas
of discursive power, focusing on concepts such as hegemonic creations and
developmentalism. By doing this the study seeks to problematize what arguments are
promoted by the government and what implications land grabbing has had on
smallholders' local livelihoods and how well these match each other.

6
Research questions
- How are smallholders' livelihoods impacted by land grabbing in Ethiopia?
- What narratives are being used by the Ethiopian government to justify land grabs
within the country?
- How well do the arguments promoted by the Ethiopian government and the
implications of land grabbing for smallholders in Ethiopia match?

Delimitations
The study's focus is on contemporary land grabs meaning that the study will focus on
land grabs that have happened from the year 2000 and onwards and specifically after the
land grabbing boom following the financial crisis in 2008. Such delimitation will partly
be made because of the time limit of the study. Taking into account a longer time span
would make the study considerably broader, which would make it difficult to be able to
draw conclusions in the short amount of time available. The nature of contemporary Land
Grabs also differs from historical Land Grabs. As explained in the introduction,
contemporary Land Grabs have a global nature to them and are an effect of the 2008s
financial crisis impact on food and energy security. However a historical background will
be given to provide a more contextual understanding to today's land grabbing in Ethiopia.

Land Grabs today are a global phenomena. However this study will only focus on one
country, namely Ethiopia. This delimitation has been done to be able to draw reliable
conclusions with the resources and time span available to us. Although land grabbing is a
global phenomena, the nature of our research questions are however more national than
global.

7
Theoretical Framework
This study is based in a Political Ecology (PE) framework and draws from multiple
theoretical influences within Political Ecology. Focusing on Marxist concepts such as
Primitive accumulation and Accumulation of dispossession to examine the land grabbing
phenomena. Ideas of discursive power drawing from post-structuralism,
post-development and Marxism will also be explored and used as a tool to further analyze
and examine the narratives that are being pushed by the Ethiopian government
surrounding land grabbing. The study also draws from postcolonial ideas to discuss
developmentalism/modernity.

Political Ecology
PE emerged in the 1970s as a critique towards neo-malthusian arguments (Alimonda
2019), driven by the environmental crises of the time (Leff 2015). Political Ecology
draws from a number of theories and can be seen as a field of reflection or analysis rather
than a theory (Alimonda 2019). Central within PE is the politicization of nature, the
belief that nature can never be apolitical or neutral. Which therefore means that
environmental debates can never be apolitcal (Benjaminsen & Svarstad 2019). Political
Ecology seeks to reveal power-knowledge dynamics and how this influences actors and
in an extension how this affects the environment (Leff 2015). Political Ecology seeks to
reveal existing hegemonies which shape how we see and understand the world (Adger et
al. 2001). The reasoning behind the chosen framework is that Political Ecology discusses
power dynamics and lifts up important questions about land. Using this theory will help
to reveal the underlying and invisible problems that arise within land grabbing. Robbins
(2020) describes how one main focus point within PE is degradation and
marginalization. Here it is explained that systems undergo a transition from
environmentally sustainable to exploitive systems of nature. The systems begin to exploit
the resources which they are dependent on (p. 22). This often results in overexploitation
and sometimes poverty. This exploitation often happens as a result of “state development
interventions and/or increasing integration in regional and global markets'' (ibid. p. 159).
These development interventions often reflect modernist development thinking and when
imposed on local production systems lead to decreased sustainability (Robbins 2020 p.
22)

8
Political Economy
Much of the literature on political economy remains important in understanding today's
land grabbing phenomena. Contemporary land grabbing represents continuity and also
change from historical enclosures (Borras & Franco 2012 p.35). Many scholars agree on
capitalism as a common underlying driver behind land grabbing. Capitalism's role and its
connections to liberalization of the market and the flows of capital as the driver of land
grabbing is central within many articles published in recent years on the subject
(Margulis et al 2013; McMichael 2014; Borras & Franco 2013). Furthermore, the
relationship between state and people relating to global land grabs is also examined in
many contemporary articles. Borras & Franco (2013) identify the role of the state by
pointing out that the history of the development of global capitalism is a combination of
the state and capital alliance. The authors use Marxist concepts such as accumulation of
capital and dispossession (expulsion and exploitation) and how it has occurred hand in
hand and the state's leading role in the process of global land grabbing. In most cases it is
only the land that is needed and not the labor, whereas the people attached to the land get
expelled from their land, as mentioned earlier (Borras & Franco 2013 p. 1728-1730).
Similar to Borras & Franco (2013), Wayessa (2020) also explains the role of the state
when it comes to land grabbing. The author describes that land is a major resource of
state control with liberalization of trade as a force for the ongoing land transactions as
mentioned. The land deal represents a “new phase of capital expansion” (Wayessa 2020
p. 2).

Furthermore, contemporary land grabs have been connected to Marx's concept of

Primitive accumulation. Primitive accumulation is seen as the origin of capitalism. Here
the producers (farmers) are separated from their means of production (land). This to
achieve surplus value by capitalists. Elimination of free and self-sufficient farmers is
central within this process. It pushed producers to become wage laborers, which no
longer are self-sufficient but work for capitalists (Marx 1990 [1867])

David Harvey (2004) has extended Marx's thinking by developing what he calls,
Accumulation by Dispossession. Here land grabbing is seen as a symptom of
neoliberalism and overaccumulation. Land grabbing can therefore be seen as a reaction to
crises, both the crisis of overaccumulation in the 1970s and the financial crisis in 2008.

9
Contemporary land grabs are often seen as a symptom of food and climate crises (Harvey
2004). Marx (1990 [1867]) also discussed crises and argued that crises within the
capitalistic system would occur when the reinvestment in capital would not produce more
profit than its original investment. Harvey (2004) argues that this is when Accumulation
by Dispossession happens. New resources are needed and new places where capital
surplus-investments can happen are needed by capitalists. This often results in
“investments” in “developing” states. This is because many of these states lack capital
but have a surplus of labor and are viewed as having a surplus in unutilized land. Many
global south governments are welcoming of these investments. However, for capital
investments to be possible a process of dispossession needs to take place. Common
resources are made available at low prices to enable the accumulation process. Here
indigenous people and pastoral groups are often removed from their land, which can be
directly connected to processes of land grabs (Harvey 2004).

Discursive power
Political Ecology focuses on how certain groups within society produce discourses,
within Political Ecology this is often referred to as discursive power. In the 1990s
post-structuralism became more popularized within the theory. Norms and values were
looked at and how these shape our understanding of environmental issues. These norms
and values often stem from different “political processes” and then decide what we as
humans view as “truths”. These discourses often mirror dominant/powerful actors'
interests (Benjaminsen & Svarstad 2019 p. 392) and this is a part of how power operates
(Hall 1992 p. 159). Development Discourse produces certain knowledge and therefore
also power. Escobar argues that development discourse is based in 1940/50s and is based
on the idea that modernity is essential for development (Escobar 1995 p. 39). Escobar
(1995) means that we have been conditioned or colonized by development discourse,
which has made other ways of thinking and also existing nearly impossible (p. 5) since
development discourse “forces” people under certain controls. This to transform peoples
(for example peasants) conditions into productivity and to “normalize” their environment
and in other words to create modernity (ibid. p. 156). Development Discourse has shaped
Global South understanding of themselves as in need of development and as
underdeveloped, which coincided with Saids ideas regarding orientalism. Orientalism has

10
to be understood as discourse and by understanding that we can also understand how the
orient (Global South) has been produced by the West (Escobar 1995 p. 6).

Discourse can thus create certain “truths”, or as some would call hegemonies. One could
argue that development or developmentalism is one of these “truths”, hegemonic ideas
which become difficult to see beyond and even more difficult to exist beyond. These
discursive ideas are not only values and ways of thinking, it is also how they are
promoted and also implemented by institutions, meaning how they are legitimized
(Gudynas 2017 p. 85).

11
Previous Research
Many previous studies aim to understand land grabbing and its effects on local
populations using different dynamics to look further into land grabbing and its effect on
food-security and social livelihoods (Nyantakyi-Frimpong 2016; Hausermann 2018;
Damtew 2019). Other agrarian studies have focused on questions such as; if land
grabbing has affected food-security, how land grabbing has affected livelihood by
focusing on class and gender but also focused on large-scale plantations and contract
farming and how it affects the environment (Borras et al. 2011). On the other hand there
are studies that aim to get a broader picture of the effects of land grabbing on local
populations and many of the studies concludes the same outcomes, that land grabbing has
provoked displacement of indigenous and local people and eventually loss of self
sufficiency (Hufe & Heuermann 2017; Regassa et al. 2019; Wayessa 2020). To
summarize, it can be seen that scholars have focused on understanding land grabbing in
different aspects and perspectives. There is also a clear outcome of most of the studies
which is that most land grabbing tends to result in displacement of local people.

Borras et al. (2011) examines the politics of large scale commercial biofuel production
and land-water deals, focusing on land and water use but also how these affect
livelihoods for marginalized people in Mozambique (p. 215). Since Mozambique is a
country where agrofuels such as ethanol, the country has attracted many transnational
corporations. The Mozambican government has argued for these corporations to be
beneficial for development in terms of employment generation and food-security and
would generate incomes among rural population and these projects would only be
established in areas that are empty or unutilized (ibid. p. 217). The authors focused on a
company called Procana that together with the government promised employment
opportunities ending up not providing as many employment opportunities as promised.
By the evidence provided from the study it could be concluded that the corporations
investments have resulted in displacement of local people and that employment was not
possible for everyone (Borras et al. 2011 p. 224). Another case which has also concluded
displacement as an outcome is by Amanor (2012) which focused on resource grabs and
agribusiness and how it affects smallholders in Ghana. Explaining that the agriculture
policies and neoliberal market reforms such as dispossession of smallholders and the
markets will to become monopoly diminishes smallholder productions (p.745). The

12
market also competes for land which results in smallholders being displaced (ibid. p.733).
The land market expansion has affected the smallholders negatively in several ways, such
as smallholders agriculture and their livelihoods, the increasing market for land has
increased insecurity of the smallholders agriculture by taking their land (Amanor 2012
p.745).

Previous studies also focus on the influence of ecotourism in land grabbing. A study by
Ojeda (2012) analyzes the outcomes of ecotourism and land grabbing in Colombia. The
study strives to explore how production of nature for tourism such as national parks
affects the local communities' livelihoods (p. 358). The focus of the study is on a national
park in Colombia where the outcomes of the project have resulted in difficulty to access
resources for the local populations and have made a big impact on their livelihoods (ibid.
p. 370-371). The author defines “ neoliberalism as a global project that seeks to expand
the conditions for capital accumulation” and that “ecotourism is a powerful strategy of
accumulation by dispossession “ (Ojeda 2012 p.345& 371).

In a 2017 study, Hufe & Heuermann (2017) focused on land grabbing in Sub-Saharan
Africa, which aimed to reveal the impacts of large scale land acquisitions by case studies
in a local context. Focusing on food-security, land conflicts and livelihood impacts. The
study concluded that the majority of the outcomes were negative. Outcomes such as
negative impacts on local livelihood, local population facing forced displacement and
furthermore, blockage of common land and loss of self sufficiency which has a negative
impact on food-security. Even if there were some positive results such as job creation,
there was still a recognition of negative effects such as inadequate compensation and land
conflicts that would still be considered and seen as a bigger problem (Hufe & Heuermann
2017 p. 175).

13
Methodology

Secondary Data
The study will perform a literature review which is based on secondary data. Therefore, it
will aim to collect already published literature and data. Using secondary data is
beneficial for our study because it allows us to collect more data than if we made a
primary-data study and provides us with material that covers wider geographical areas
and historical insights. Secondary data could therefore give us a better understanding of
historical contexts while analyzing the data that has been collected in different periods
but still enables us to analyze changes. A literature review can therefore be beneficial to
draw broader conclusions due to large amounts of data. However, you should still be
cautious about drawing sweeping conclusions. When performing a literature review it is
central to cover important literature within the subject and also to strive to contribute to
the scientific field. These contributions could be identifying potential knowledge gaps
and provide new insights to fill these gaps. Secondary data can also be used for
triangulation, whereas we can compare the data to our main findings, this could increase
the validity of the findings (Nachmias et al. 2014 p. 263-264). The study will be mostly
based on a literature review of relevant scientific articles for our subject.

We will be using the “snowball effect”, where we look at what sources the author has
used and then see if they are relevant for our study. Some keywords that will be used to
search for our data are: land grabbing, land grabbing in Ethiopia, peasant and land
grabbing, food-security, land acquisitions, land deals, land leases & large-scale
agriculture. It is important to clarify that we will only take part in documents and
scientific articles in English. Since many of the available sources for our study is in
Amharic we will miss out on some potentially important sources that would provide
some interesting insights. However, there is still a sufficient number of scientific articles
and documents available in English to provide both a study and conclusion with high
reliability.

Furthermore, the study will collect data from interviews, speeches and government
documents made by the Ethiopian government. These sources will be found by looking at

14
documents which are posted on FAO, World Bank and also the official website for the
Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Interviews and speeches will
simply be searched for using search engines such as Google and videos searched for on
YouTube to find relevant interviews and speeches.

Narrative Analysis
To analyze what narratives are being promoted by the Ethiopian government, a narrative
methodology will be included in the study. Here speeches, interviews and government
documents and plans will be analyzed. When doing Narrative Analysis the author reads”
stories” and analyzes these stories from already set theories and categories. Providing a
cultural context and a time-context is also very important to understand the “stories”. We
as authors will essentially narrate the material we read and therefore “create” these stories
by applying the meaning to these stories. Here it is important that we as authors of the
study reflect over our role in the narration (Börjesson 2003 p. 75-77).

The narrative analysis can be understood as a family of methods. It can be used to

interpret oral, written and visual texts or stories. It draws insights from many theoretical
foundations such as discourse analysis. There are two main sections within narrative
analysis, thematic and structural analysis (Kohler Reissman 2008).

The thematic section focuses on what is being spoken or written. It pays minimal focus to
how the stories are told, like what language is used or what contexts that have shaped the
narrative. The structural analysis however focuses on how a story is being told or written.
It analyzes what language is being used and what its intended effect is. It puts stories in a
contextual understanding where understanding discourse and power relation are
important. It focuses on analyzing how it is being said and also why. Who is constructing
this narrative and what is their purpose? (Kohler Reissman 2008)

The study will mostly focus on the latter section within narrative analysis, namely
structural analysis. Since the study strives to understand what narratives are being
promoted but also aims to connect with broader theoretical and contextual understandings
we feel that the structural analysis is most fitting for our aim.

15
Situating Ethiopia
In 1974 Haile Selassie was overthrown. Ending his 44 year reign since 1930. What many
have called a political revolution in Ethiopia allowed for a new political power called
Derg which was a socialst military rule supported by the USSR. The new rule Ethiopia
set the tone for land issues within the country. In 1975 major land reform took place that
abolished existing systems replacing them with state ownership of land (Mousseau &
Sosnoff 2011 p. 11). The land reform in 1975 got rid of the feudal/capitalist system which
had previously existed in Ethiopia. Land was deemed as collectively owned by the people
in Ethiopia (Bellucci 2016 p. 5). After the revolution foregin farms were seized by the
state and turned into state farms. Land was assigned by the state for cultivation to
peasants. The land was meant for both living and working. However, the state farms did
not achieve the hoped-for results and increased the food insecurity in the country
(Bellucci 2016 p. 7). In 1989, Tigray People Liberation Front (TPLF) together with other
regime critical groups, created the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front
(EPRDF) and in 1991 the EPRDF took power in Ethiopia (Embassy of Ethiopia n.d).
Following the fall of the military socialist regime, privatizations followed rapidly
however state ownership or “public ownership” of land was still intact and in the
following 1994 constitution, state ownership was further confirmed (Crewett & Korf
2008 p. 203).

Article 40(3): The right to ownership of rural and urban land, as well as of all natural
resources, is exclusively vested in the State and in the peoples of Ethiopia. Land is a
common property of the Nations, Nationalities and Peoples of Ethiopia and shall not be
subject to sale or to other means of exchange. (Ethiopia's Constitution of 1994)

The constitution also further explained pastoralists' right to land and to make a living in
the country:

Article 40(5). Ethiopian pastoralists have the right to free land for grazing and
cultivation as well as the right not to be displaced from their own lands. The
implementation shall be specified by law. (Ethiopia's Constitution of 1994)

and

16
Article 41(1): Every Ethiopian has the right to engage freely in economic activity and to
pursue a livelihood of his choice anywhere within the national territory. (Ethiopia's
Constitution of 1994)

In the same year as the publication of the constitution, Ethiopia became a ethnic federal
republic consisting of nine regions, divided by ethnicity (Embassy of Ethiopia n.d)

Figure 1: Mapa de las regions d'Etiopia (Wikipedia 2020)

In 1996 leasing of land and land rentals were made legal (Mousseau & Sosnoff 2011 p.
11). The Federal Rural Land Administration and Use Proclamation (Proclamation
89/1997) established that regional governments could make laws regarding land and also
that expropriation shall be compensated. However in Proclamation 29/2001 the federal
government was made responsible for any land deals (local and international) bigger than
5000 ha. Regional government has previously been responsible for all land deals but
accusations of corruption and incompetence in some regions made the federal goverment
to take over all large scale land deals (Mousseau & Sosnoff 2011 p. 15)

Ethiopia is a republic, meaning they have a president. However, it is the prime minister
which has most of the power in the country. The governmental system contains of several
ministries which have been allocated areas of focus and responsibilities. The Ministry of

17
Agriculture and Rural Development is the federal body responsible for agriculture
development in the country. The ministry controls the promotion and expansion of
agriculture in Ethiopia and furthermore, the ministry provides support to private investors
in the agricultural sector. The ministry also has the responsibility of preparing contractual
agreements, maps of potential investment lands and to distribute land to both investors
and stakeholders at a national level (Fisseha 2011 p. 5 & 10).

Ethiopia's government has been accused of many violations of human rights and
corruption. They have also been accused of shutting down, threatening and harassing
political opponents (Mousseau & Sosnoff 2011 p. 5). Resettlements have been very
controversial in Ethiopia. There were large resettlement schemes during Derg in 1975-76.
In 1984 the government resettled around 1.5 million inhabitants. They were moved from
“famine-prone” areas in the north to the south. Here human rights violations and lack of
consent from the resettled people were brought up and criticized. These massive
resettlements resulted in many deaths by diseases such as malaria and also growing
conflicts between local people and new settlers (ibid. p.14). Pastoralists rights have
historically been constitutionally protected, however communal land tenure (often based
in local traditions) have often been disregarded by government policies. Such lack of
secure tenure have often resulted in land loss for pastorals (Mousseau & Sosnoff 2011 p.
12).

18
Evidence

Narratives - Ethiopian government.

The contemporary rural development strategy was first developed during the Rural and
Development Policy and Strategies published in 2003 (Ministry of Finance and
Economic Development). Here it was concluded that Ethiopia has a low level of
development and the agricultural sector within the country has failed to provide
food-security. To combat this, economic growth through a free market economy was
proposed by the government (MOFED 2003 p. 6-7). The Rural and Development Policy
and Strategies foreword states:

By all measures, Ethiopia is clearly at a low level of social and economic development. A large
part of the economy is characterized by semi-subsistence agriculture with exceedingly low
incomes and hand-to-mouth livelihoods. Agriculture, although the dominant sector of the
economy, is constrained by age-old production practices and structural problems. It has failed to
provide moderate and sustained incomes for many who are engaged in the sector. Nor, has it
provided a basis for the accelerated development of other sectors. Indeed, it has even failed to
satisfy national food requirements. The basics are not yet met within the sector, let alone that it
should fulfill the vision of a dynamic basis for growth in the entire economy

(Ibid. p. 6).

Agricultural development is one central piece in the country's economic development

plan and to achieve economic growth (Ibid. p. 9). Then-minister of Agriculture in
Ethiopia, Mr. Belay Ejigu, states in a 2003 speech that Agricultural development-led
industrialization is central in the poverty reduction in the country. He states that it will
create economic growth and that the poor shall reap the main benefits of this economic
growth (Statement by Mr. Belay Ejigu on IFAD 25th Governing Council). The Rural and
Development Policy and Strategies plan furthermore argues that there is a shortage of
capital and an abundance of labor and land in the country. The economic strategy applied
must make use of the land & labor resources (MOFED 2003 p.10). The land should be
used to maximum extent all year around to maximize the agricultural output (ibid. p.15).

Encouraging private investors into the agricultural sector is seen as an important tool and
furthermore the importance of exploring large-scale agriculture for heightened export
(Teshome 2006 p.16-17). The agricultural development process will transform Ethiopia

19
to participate in global development and trade (MOFED 2003 p.12) and it is stated that
private investors who want to engage in large-scale agriculture can access land on
“long-term lease basis” (Ibid. p.24).

The policy is that every Ethiopian who wants to make a livelihood from farming is entitled to have
a plot of land free of charge. Furthermore, private investors, who wish to engage in large-scale
agricultural activities, have a right of access to land on a long-term lease basis. The government,
as a custodian of the land, is responsible for land distribution and has the right to re-distribute
existing holdings whenever it needs to do so to ensure access by all who require land as a means
of engaging in an agricultural livelihood. It can also utilize land not being used by farmers for
various purposes, as it deems necessary. If the government, for whatever reasons, takes land from
peasants, it will fully compensate them for the capital and other resources invested on the land. It
is in this context that land is referred to, as being government owned in Ethiopia.

(Ibid. p.24).

The government emphasizes food-insecure areas and pastoral areas as the main focus and
sees livestock development and resettlement as “pivotal tools of intervention” (Statement
by Mr. Belay Ejigu on IFAD 25th Governing Council 2003). Furthermore, unutilized land
in the western lowlands is argued by the Ethiopian government as particularly suitable for
agriculture development. Here infrastructure such as roads will be developed and
furthermore enabling climate for private investors to set up large-scale commercial farms
(MOFED 2003 p. 63). The development of this area will contribute to the well-being of
the whole country and to rapid and “sustainable” economic growth which will combat
food insecurity and poverty (Ibid. p. 54). Through policy measures the food security, the
sustainable development and poverty reduction will be reinforced (Statement by Mr.
Belay Ejigu on IFAD 25th Governing Council 2003). The Rural and Development Policy
and Strategies states that the land that will be leased to private investors will only be
uncultivated land and therefore there won't be any displacement problems (MOFED 2003
p. 25).

In 2010 the Growth and Transformation Plan 1 (GTP1) was written; this plan was meant
to develop and evaluate the objectives mentioned in the Rural and Development Policy
and Strategies (2003) and lay the development strategy for the period 2010-2014. The
GTP1 follows previous development plans and expresses the importance of a fast
economic growth in the country to eradicate poverty and improve the livelihoods of its
citizens. It focuses on intensified production of marketable farm products for domestic
and export markets by small farm holders and private agricultural investors.

20
Commercialization of smallholder farming is suggested to be a major source of
agricultural growth and support will be given to increase private investments in large-
scale commercial farms. The plan for the five-year period was that agriculture was to
shift to a high growth path in order to meet the food-security needs of the country
(MOFED 2010 p. 22-23). Farmers were encouraged to shift production from low value to
high value products. One of the high value products suggested is plantations of sugar
canes. The GTP1 estimates an expansion of sugar production with additional 200.000
hectares of land for sugar plantation and additional 200.000 job opportunities for citizens
as a result (ibid. p.59). The increased role of the private sector is central within the GTP1.
More efforts to involve the private sector in the agricultural sector, especially in the
lowland areas where land for large scale commercial farming is in demand is stated as
central objectives in the plan:

In the five year plan period. more effort will be made to improve and increase the role of the
private sector in the agriculture sector, in lowland areas where land for large scale commercial
farming is in demand. In addition, in the highlands and areas close to major cities, private
investment will be steered towards high value horticulture products that can be produced on
limited land. using abundant labour (thus generating significant employment) as well as
increasing supply of produce for export. This type of private investment will require considerable
expansion of basic infrastructure and a plentiful supply of labour

(ibid. p. 46).

This was further developed in a 2019 study (Regassa et al.) where it is written that the
Ethiopian government argued that they will “save” farmers/peasants from
underdevelopment by modernizing the agriculture sector and therefore justifying the need
for large scale land acquisitions. As part of the GTP1 the government strives to open up
land resources to large scale agribusiness companies (Regassa et al. 2019 p. 943). During
an interview (Regassa et al 2019), the head of Agriculture and Pastoralist Development
office of BennaTsemai claimed that:

According to the Growth and Transformation Plan, the country wants to transform the life of
these pastoralist people to better and modern life. Moreover, the country wants to benefit from the
rich untapped resources in our zone. We are rich in fertile land. We have big rivers for dams. We
have also livestock that can be traded in the international market. However, the land stayed for
many centuries without proper utilization. I can say it has been an abandoned resource for too
long. That is why we should collect the people into villages and provide them with good social
services. The government or investors can use the empty land for different development projects
(Regional official in Regassa et al. 2019 p. 942).

21
In the same year as the GTP1 was published the Agricultural sector policy and
Investment framework (PIF) was publicized. PIF is a 10-year road map for development
that identifies priority areas for investment and estimates the financing needs to be
provided by the Government and its development partners. Here it is stated that efforts to
decrease food-insecurity in the country will be made by raising national food production
by investing in areas with high agricultural potential, including efforts to attract private
agricultural investment in areas with under-utilized land and water resources (MOA 2010
p.12-13). It is stated that Ethiopia still has large areas of arable land that are not used for
crop production but could be developed for large scale commercial farming.

Ethiopia still has large areas of arable land that are not used for crop production, but could be
developed for large- scale commercial farming. These are largely in the mid-altitude and lowland
areas where smallholder crop farming is not attractive due to the need to cultivate large areas
under mechanised systems. This form of extensive agriculture is rather capital intensive and will
require substantial private sector participation, including possibly foreign direct investment.

(MOA 2010 p. 17).

Implications on smallholders local livelihoods

Gambella, Oromia, SNNPR and Benishangul-Gumuz are the four regions which most
land investments have focused on (Hules & Singh 2016 p. 345). Most investments in
Ethiopia have been targeted in the lowlands since it has been argued that these areas have
an abundance of “unused land” (Lavers 2012 p. 106) which is central in the government’s
plans for land investments. Communities in lowlands and agro-pastoralists are the most
marginalized and vulnerable groups in Ethiopia and are the ones who are the most
affected by land acquisitions (Moreda 2018 p.1333).

Between 2003-2014, 420 firms made land deals in the Gambella region. Of the 420 firms
only 12 were foreign. What defines the foreign firms/deals are that they often get leased
bigger land areas than the domestic firms (Gebresenbet 2016 p. 13). In the Gambella
region, the Anuak zone has received most investments (Gebresenbet 2016 p. 12). Anuak
is an agro-pastoral indigenous group living in the Gambella region. The group practices

22
farming, hunting and pastoralism (GRAIN 2010). It is important to understand that
pastoralists' access to land is a crucial part in the protection from famine since land serves
as a backup for many of the pastoral groups during the dry seasons to be used as grazing
land. When the 2016 drought hit Ethiopia, caused by lack of rainfall, the pastoralist
groups were hit the hardest because of the displacement from their lands due to the
commercial agricultural investments within the country (Damtew 2019 p. 226). The
drought happened because of lack of rainfall, however Damtew argues that famine was
the result of lack or failure of entitlement (ibid. p.225). Due to long standing weak
food-security in Ethiopia many groups in vulnerable areas have developed coping
mechanisms such as shifting cultivation, farming along river banks and relying on forest
resources. However, the land grabbing processes have made these coping mechanisms
impossible (Damtew 2019 p. 226).

In a 2021 study (Guyalo et al. 2021) aiming to analyze the impacts of large-scale
agricultural investment on livelihood assets of Anuak community it was concluded that
the projects had not incorporated local people in a way that would benefit them or
increase their income and assets. Local populations revealed that they were excluded
from the consultation and participation of the project. They saw big machines that started
to destroy the forest which they see as their home, income, food, and even identity
without any explanation from the government. For the local community, investment
means destruction and fear. One participant in the study who is a member of the local
population said, “inside we are crying every day, psychologically and emotionally we are
sick, we are powerless, let them do what they want '' (ibid. p. 374). Furthermore,
interviews revealed that many of the local population believed that the land grabbing
projects took the local people’s resources and took away the chances for them to improve
their living. Another interviewee claims that it is now hard to find resources such as wood
and grass to build a house because the resources are all gone (ibid. p.373). Discussion
groups indicated that rather than supporting the local people, most local investors are
instead creating health problems by using their potable water installed by the government
and driving them to use impure water from rivers. It was explained that the local
population had asked the investors to support the schools by providing iron for the roof,
but the investors refused. (Guyalo et al. 2021 p. 373).

23
In 2010 GRAIN made an interview with Nyikaw Ochalla who is an Anuak and the
Director of the Anywaa Survival Organisation (ASO). He argues that Anuak always have
had a close relationship with nature and the fertile lands which have attracted investors
are created by the Anuaks agricultural practices. Therefore, removing them from the area,
through large-scale agricultural projects, will devastate the soil. He further describes that
there has been no consultation between the government and local populations in the area
regarding the large-scale agricultural projects and many feel that these projects are a
move by the government to show political power. Ochalla argues that the government
does not take the affected people into consideration and doubts the possibility of a
win-win situation. Ochalla argues that the Anuak do not want to trade working the lands,
as they have for centuries, to become daily wage laborers. Furthermore Ochalla argues
that most of the job opportunities created from the projects will go to people outside the
region (GRAIN 2010). In 2013s Indian-Ethiopian Civil Society Summit on Land
Investment Ochalla spoke on behalf of the affected communities of large-scale
agricultural investment in the Gambella region. He illustrates how the government has
relied on scare tactics such as harassment, displacement and imprisonment without trial
to get their projects through. Ochalla describes how over 90% of the area is small-scale
farmers and the villagization and displacement that have taken place is not only from
farmlands but also from religious sites and ancestral burial sites. Since Anuaks
livelihoods depend on hunting, fishing, small-scale farming along the riverbanks and
pastoralism the “foreign investments” have threatened their livelihoods (Statement by
Nyikaw Ochalla in Oakland Institute 2013).

The Oromia region has also been heavily targeted by land grabs. Karuturi Agro Products
PLC is the company who has made the biggest acquisitions, both in the Gambella and
Oromia region (Hules & Singh 2016 p. 346). In 2008 Karuturi Agro Products leased
11.700 hectares of land from Oromia Regional Government in a 45-year contract (Shete
& Rutten 2015 p.283). The company aimed to export food crops to India. The leased land
had previously been used as communal grazing land by the local communities. The deal
forced many of the local population to sell their livestock due to lack of fodder. Access to
water was also seriously restricted due to the company's land grabs. Due to this, the local
communities' livelihood were threatened (Damtew 2019 p. 227-228). Around 2008 many
of the households owned 13 tropical livestock units but the units dropped to 6,7 tropical
livestock units in 2012 because of the lack of pasture during the land lease to Karuturi.

24
Therefore, the loss of land also resulted in less ownership of herds by the local
community (Shete & Rutten 2015 p. 286). Because of the lack of grazing land, these
households needed to replace the grazing animals such as cows to ruminants such as
sheeps, this affected their food-security and income since milk products were an
important source of income for the households (Shete & Rutten 2015 p. 289). In a
household survey in the affected area, 100 % of respondents said that they had used
communal grazing land before but had now lost it due to the project and had not received
any compensation. Only 11 % of the respondents said that they had gained employment
from the project. The overall conclusion was that the community had not benefited from
the project besides some of the men gaining employment as night/day guards (Fisseha
2011 p. 20-21). Karuturi had made promises on delivering community improvements
such as schools and water wells but none of these promises were ever materialized
(Damtew 2019 p. 228). The Ethiopian government had argued that this project would
create greater food-security in the country, in line with the GTP. However, much like in
many other projects the Ethiopian government encouraged the large-scale investors to
export their produce, thus increasing foreign exchange. This has even further affected
food-security in the country since much of food produced is now exported elsewhere
(Damtew 2019 p. 226). In an interview with the CEO of Karaturi in 2013, it was
explained that the produce from the project would be sold to the international and
regional markets since the domestic market is not profitable (Hules & Singh 2016 p.
346). Therefore, the investments would not contribute to strengthening the food-security
in the country.

A 2017 study (Moreda 2017) of large-scale land acquisitions impacts on ethnic minority
groups in the Benishangul-Gumuz region it was revealed that many of the farmers had
been relocated to villages that had been implemented by the regional governments, also
called villagization programs. An informant pointed out that where they have been
relocated is worse than where they lived before because of the lack of land in the new
village (ibid. p.705). The objective of the villagization program was to deliver
infrastructural expansion and to help the indigenous communities, but the informants
from the regional government revealed that its aim was also to facilitate the expansion of
commercial agriculture investment (Moreda 2017 p.706). Villagization programs have
taken place in many regions in the country and in connection to different
development/agricultural projects. It often comes with promises of improved access to

25
government services but rarely delivers on these promises. Gebresenbet argues that the
villagization process disempowers local populations and is a political process that
guarantees further accumulation by the state (Gebresenbet 2016 p. 21). Furthermore, the
villagization process has often resulted in loss of livelihoods and highetened food
insecurity (Damtew 2019 p. 227). For example In Gambella thousands of people have
been displaced from their fertile lands and been relocated to poor quality lands. Many of
the communities that had been able to feed themselves now found themselves in need of
food-aid after being displaced (ibid. p. 227). Furthermore, there have also been numerous
reports about people being beaten up and arrested when refusing the displacement that
the villagization projects bring (Damtew 2019 p. 227).

Similar outcomes through resettlement such as displacement, loss of livelihood and

food-security have been recognised in Omo valley. Agro-pastoralist communities were
resettled during the leasing of land to three cotton plantations owned by investors from
the highlands of Ethiopia, these investors only employed migrants and the indigenous
people were excluded (Regassa et al 2019 p.937). The Ethiopian government settles
pastoralists in relocation sites, resulting in their grazing land becoming empty to facilitate
investments in the areas. In the relocation sites the government has provided agriculture
extension programs (chemical fertilizers and improved seeds) through Development
agents to the newly sedentarized pastoralists (ibid. p. 936 & 945). Through interviews
with locals in the villages it could be concluded that the government intruded in their
grazing land before the investors came and approached them to relocate to another village
without leaving them any choices. The locals also pointed out that programs resulted in
undermining their livelihood strategies, the villages that they have been relocated to did
not have any water for their crops and lack of pasture for their livestock. The resettlement
programs in the new villages also raised concerns when the government provided only
0,5 hectares of land per household no matter the amount of household members. Since
some households had up to 20 members, the limited access to land created problems for
these bigger households in supporting the family through cultivation (Regassa et al 2019
p. 944 & 945).

26
Case: The Omo Kuraz Sugar Development Project.

In 2010 the state owned Ethiopian Sugar Corporation initiated the Kuraz sugar
development project (KDSP). The project is placed in the South Omo zone, the Maji zone
and the Keffa zone (Ethiopian Sugar Corporation n.d.). However this case will mostly
focus on the South Omo zone part of the project. During a 2011 speech by then-Prime
Minister Meles Zenawi the KDSP was announced to the public during the 13th Annual
Pastoralists Day celebration in Jinka. Zenawi argued that one aim of the KSDP was to
improve pastoralists' lives by solving water shortage. The project should “create
opportunities for pastoralists to live securely according to their own interests” (Zenawi
2011). Furthermore, Zenawi argued that the project would benefit the whole area and also
thousands of other Ethiopians by creating job opportunities. He concluded his speech by
calling those concerned and wanting to protect pastoralists from change for “promoters of
backwardness and poverty” and that the KSDP will “provide sustainable income and
modern life for pastoralists” (Zenawi 2011). The people of South Omo has often been
referred to as pastoralists by the government although traditionally having relied on
farming of both maize and sorghum (a type of cereal) (Stevenson & Buffavand 2018 p.
115), so more correct would be to refer to them as agro-pastoralists, instead of simply
pastoralists. This misunderstanding is based on the misconceptions that the inhabitants of
the lower Omo valley are unacquainted with agricultural practices (Stevenson &
Buffavand 2018 p. 115). The lower Omo valley is home to many agro-pastoralist groups
such as Bodi, Mursi and Northern Kwegu. Many of these groups are flood-cultivators,
cattle herders and practices rain-fed cultivation (The Oakland Institute 2019 p. 6-7).

According to the Ethiopian sugar corporation the factories can produce up to 12000 tons
of sugarcane, 25000 tons of sugar and 28 million liters of ethanol. Furthermore, it states
that implementation of local life-style-changing activities that will benefit local society
has been done (Ethiopian Sugar Corporation n.d.). In a progress report of the Kuraz
project from 2018 it is argued that Ethiopia has more than 500,000 hectares of land
suitable for sugarcane development. The land is described as “untouched fertile as well as
irrigable land” (UNESCO 2018 p. 2). The project is described as beneficial to the natives
of the area. Here the people living in the area are described by the government as
pastoralists who “wander around” searching for grazing land and water. The sugar

27
corporation claims that the people living in the area have never been victims of
displacement. People who have resettled have voluntarily taken part in a villagization
program initiated by the government and describes that locals have gotten the “privilege”
of infrastructural developments such as schools, roads, ponds and irrigable land. It is
claimed that the project has made the lives of all natives in the project area much easier
and that the lower omo heritage has not been impacted by the project (UNESCO 2018 p.
8-9).

However, in a 2016 study (Kamski 2016) it is argued that the results of the KSDP have
differed from its set goals. Goals such as increased sugar revenues, employment creation
and “further development” such as improvement of agro-pastoralists livelihoods and
modernisation have not had satisfactory results (p. 568). The KSDP is strongly connected
with the Gibe III dam project which began in 2000. The project has enabled the
construction of the KSDP in the lower Omo valley. The change in the annual flood has
altered and ended the flood-recession agriculture which is an important part of the local
agro-pastoralists livelihoods (Kamski 2016 p. 573). Since many of the people located
along the Omo river are dependent on the river for example flood-cultivation, they have
faced hunger, displacement, threats to their culture and their livelihoods by the Gibe III
and the KSDP (The Oakland Institute 2019 p. 4).

One part of the KSDP is the villagization/resettlement plan. The resettlement plan’s goal
was to change the social and economic situation for the agro-pastoralists and to make
them outgrowers for the sugar factory (Stevenson & Buffavand 2018 p. 114). People
living in the allocated villages were given 30 kg of grain per household as a food aid.
They also gained access to irrigated land allocated by the Ethiopian Sugar Corporation to
grow maize. However delays in infrastructural developments and implementations made
most of the harvest fail (ibid. p.115). The villagization project has also affected social
relationships. In interviews, many women in the villages now describe themselves as
day-laborers. Before the villagisation process they had shade to rest in during their work
but trees providing shade had been cut down. The farm work was mixed with breaks and
socializing. Furthermore the irrigated plots were now allocated around half an hour walk
from the new villages. The fields used to be a place of both life and work, a place of
socializing and providing for families, now it is simply hard work. The villagisation

28
process and the changed living standards have amounted to a feeling of powerlessness for
many of the agro-pastoral women (Stevenson & Buffavand 2018 p. 121).

It is important to note that the local populations of the lower Omo valley were not
consulted about the project. Therefore the government has taken a top-down approach to
the project and little to none effort was made to accommodate local livelihoods
(Stevenson & Buffavand 2018 p. 115). Many pastoralists see these development projects
as an attempt of further political power by the government (The Oakland Institute 2019 p.
14). Both the Mursi and Bodi groups were pressured to get rid of their cattle and abandon
“pastoral livelihoods” by the government. They were told to sell their cattle and were
threatened that their cattle would be taken away from them if they did not sell it. The
northern Kwegu population lost almost all of their territory to the KSDP. They were
forced to resettlement sites due to lost livelihoods and losing their ability to support
themselves due to forest areas for honey and wild plants gathering being lost (ibid. p. 13).
One of the biggest promises from the government was to create new job opportunities,
however these promises have not materialized for most people. Most jobs created have
been given to migrant workers from other regions in Ethiopia (ibid. p.4). Some men in
the Northern Kwegu are employed seasonally by the KSDP to hunt buffalo which eat the
sugarcane. The jobs offered to women (removing crushed sugarcane) were badly paid
(only 18 USD per month) (The Oakland Institute 2019 p. 13- 14).

29
Analysis

Narrative Analysis

In this section we will provide an analysis and discussion of the main narratives that we
have found being promoted by the Ethiopian governments in our study of government
plans, policies, speeches and interviews. The narratives will be divided by four thematic
headings; The empty-lands narrative, Developmentalism narrative, The modernity
narrative and The food-security narrative. It is important to note that even if these
narratives are divided for the purpose of providing a more structured analysis and
discussion they are all interlinked with each other and all contribute to further
understanding and answering the study's research questions.

The empty-lands narrative.

Central in the government's plans is the narrative of “empty” or “unused” lands existing
in an abundance (MOFED 2003 p. 9). This echoes the discourse of the World Bank,
which has been in the forefront of designating “unproductive” and “underutilized” for
large scale land acquisitions and commercial farming (Makki 2013 p.83). An example of
the government's “empty-lands” narrative is that almost 42 % of the land in Gambella
region was deemed as “unused” by the government (Gebresenbet 2016 p.14). This has
been called the “preparation phase”, meaning the phase when regions were made “ready”
for land grabs or large scale land investments by deeming land empty and therefore
making them more controllable by the state and justifying interventions in these areas
(Gebresenbet 2016 p. 14). This can be connected to Harvey's theory of Accumulation by
Dispossession, whereas land is made available, often to a low price to enable the
accumulation process (Harvey 2004). Furthermore, Borras and Franco (2013) argues that
governments facilitate land grabs through capturing “marginal lands” often through
policy and administrative tasks. Here the state provides the needed justification for land
grabs which can also be applied to the Ethiopian context. Furthermore, Borras and Franco
(2013) argues that when lands do not have “formal farm production activities” they are
often deemed empty and unused (p. 1729), which has been clearly demonstrated in the
evidence of this study. Agro-pastoralist groups have been extra vulnerable regarding the
implication of land grabbing in Ethiopia and also the land utilized by pastoral groups
have been especially targeted by the government in the pursuit of land investments

30
(Moreda 2018 p.1333). Here we can see the dominating discourses shaping the
understanding of Ethiopia's construction, as a country overflowing with land resources
and therefore shaping the land grabbing processes within the country. These ideas are
further created, shaped and confirmed in the country's policies and have therefore
legitimized the interventions that have taken place.

Developmentalism narrative.
One of the primary objectives expressed by the government is to become a
middle-income country. Economic growth is seen as the solution to achieving such goals
and therefore focusing on development measures such as agricultural development to
achieve this. Land investments are supposed to increase foreign capital and lead to further
capital accumulation by the state. Gebresenbet (2014) argues that Ethiopia's public
discourse has been dominated by the idea of creating the “development state” and in
order to achieve this “freeing the country from the shackles of poverty” is seen as crucial
in achieving the ideas of a “development state” (p. 64). Much of the promoted arguments
by the government reflects a developmentalist narrative. For example, the Ethiopian
government promoting free market economy and echoing ideas of economic growth as
the solution and how its effects will be broadly distributed to the people in the country the
government is therefore aligning themselves with political economic ideas such as the
trickle down effect. Here the government is clearly reproducing ideas promoted by the
World Bank and overall neo-liberal ideas regarding the prosperity economic growth will
result in for the whole population. In 2021s Ten year development plan - A pathway to
prosperity, the Ethiopian government admits that the country's economic politics have not
provided decent employment opportunities and have not brought the desired increased
living standards for its citizens. However, the government is still persistent in its goals of
becoming a middle-income country and still promotes rapid, “sustainable” and
broad-based economic growth with even further involvement from private investors
(Planning and Development commission 2021 p. 5 & 10).

Gebresenbet (2014) argues that Ethiopia has framed poverty as a threat to the nation and
therefore framed it as a “fight against poverty” where this issue takes absolute priority
and extraordinary measures are normalized since it is in the name of “fighting poverty”
(p.36). Understanding the government's actions from this analysis can help us understand
why the government has prioritized increased foreign capital and commercialization

31
instead of a smallholder perspective and ignored the loud critique they have received for
their so-called land deals. This could maybe also help us understand why these land grabs
haven't been fought by both regional and federal rule. The idea of fighting for “the greater
good” makes it easier to ignore or maybe even deem negative outcomes such as
displacement as necessary for increased prosperity within the country.

The modernity narrative

As Escobar (1995) argues, development discourse can “force” people under certain
controls. Often to transform people's productivity conditions and therefore create
modernity (156). Furthermore Escobar (1995) argues that modernity has come to be seen
as essential in dominant development discourses (p. 39). Central in Ethiopia's economic
politics and furthermore in the facilitation of land grabs is the “modernization” of
agro-pastoralists. As seen in the results, the government describes these groups as simply
walking around looking for grazing land (UNESCO 2018 p. 2) and therefore dismissing
any existing structures and traditional farming customs. The agro-pastoralists represent
poverty and backwardness to the government and they are in need of modern life such as
stable outcomes and sedentarization. Makki (2013) explains that historically modernity
efforts have involved discourses describing traditional spaces as backward and stagnant
(p. 94). Here the modernity narrative intertwines with the developmentalism narrative.
The absolute need of economic growth and the framing of poverty as a threat then calls
for modernity. If “pastoralists” are seen as an expression of poverty they are also subjects
of development and in need of modernization. These land deals and development projects
are therefore not only framed as helping the country's economic growth by increasing
foreign capital and investments, they are also framed as removing what the government
views as “backwardness” (Zenawi 2011). Regassa et al. (2019) describes how the
government sees themselves as the “ultimate agent of civilization” (Regassa et al. p.935)
and therefore sees themselves as saving the pastoralists from a pre-modern lifestyle (p.
136). The argumentation of “we are helping these people” recalls arguments often related
to North-South relations historically, such as “white-savoiourism”. Here the relationship
is between the state and its inhabitants but the clear power relations are still intact,
however, containing different actors. As shown in the evidence of the study, many
agro-pastoralist groups have argued that these projects are an expression of political
power. Villagization programs are an example of such power displays; these processes
enable state power and disable communities by making pastoralists subjects for the state

32
to control (Gebresenbet 2016 p. 19). Furthermore, the villagization programs come with a
“high-modernist” vision (Regassa et al. 2019 p. 939) often accompanied with
“improvement schemes” such as infrastructural development or increased job
opportunities. These “improvement schemes” legitimizes displacement, resettlement and
dispossession under the guise of modernization and development (Regassa et al. 2019 p.
939).

The food-security narrative

One main objective expressed in the government's plans regarding land deals and
agricultural commercialization is to increase the food-security in the country. Although
promoting this as an outcome of increased land deals to the public. The Ethiopian
government has encouraged private investors to sell agricultural products to outside
markets by giving incentives such as tax breaks (Damtew 2019; Hules & Singh 2016).
This creates a contradictory situation whereas, although more products may be produced,
it will not contribute to the domestic food security. Furthermore, in studying the
implication of the land grabbing projects we could also see that the food-security has
decreased for many of the local communities due to the loss of land, and therefore loss of
self- sufficiency (Shete & Rutten 2015; Regassa et al 2019; The Oakland Institute 2019).
Many smallholders have now become more vulnerable to weather conditions such as
drought (Damtew 2019) and therefore also in increased risk of food-insecurity.

Analysis of livelihood implications

The land-lease contracts of the Ethiopian government with domestic and international
companies have resulted in various outcomes for the local smallholders' livelihoods as
seen in the evidence provided in our study. By leasing out the highly requested lowland to
investors, significant impacts on the pastoralist livelihoods have been the result. Such as
loss of livelihood, undermined livelihood strategies, loss of land and furthermore, even
displacement in many cases (Moreda 2017; Regassa et al 2019). Since many of these land
deals occur near the pastoralists' lands, cases have shown that some households have lost
a big part of their own land to the investors. Losses of not only cultivation land but also
grazing land and water assets which have caused them to change their production of
income assets such as milk products or even cut some production of important crops

33
(Guyalo et al. 2021 p. 373; Damtew 2019 p. 227-228). The exclusion of pastoralists in
consultation by the government has also been a problem during the land deals. Fear and
chocks by the local communities has arisen during the implementation of the projects,
watching forests being cut down by the machines, the forest they also perceive as their
home and identity (Guyalo et al. 2021). Franco & Borras (2013) points out that there are
three different outcomes of dispossession of local people; people getting expelled and
having nowhere to go and without compensation, people getting expelled and gaining
compensation and people that are getting expelled and relocated to another area (Borras
& Franco 2013 p.1732). In our study we have found that most of the projects have led to
both expulsion from their land and relocation to another era. As found in our evidence
many people are moved to so called villagization programs. These processes of
dispossession can be seen from Marx's understanding of primitive accumulation (Marx
1990 [1867]). In Ethiopia, farmers have been separated from their means of production
which is their land. This has resulted in loss of self-sufficiency and forced many to
become wage-laborers. In our study we can see this happen due to forced resettlements
but also due to loss of land resources that would allow people to continue to make a
living on smallholder agricultural practices.

Similarly to what many of the previous studies have concluded we have seen that
dispossession is one of the main implications on smallholders, often happening through
villagization. The villagization processes are a form of dispossession, even if it is framed
as voluntary, many smallholders find themselves without any other options due to loss of
resources, water and grazing land, essentially making it in-voluntary. This coincides with
Harveys ideas of how dispossession needs to take place in order for investments to be
possible and that common resources then are made available to enable further
accumulation processes (Harvey 2004). Even though there are many cases presented in
our study where local people faced relocation to another village and have been promised
to be able to continue what they have previously been doing, in many cases, they do not
have the opportunity to live the life they did before. When Governments make empty
promises about providing water and land in the new relocation areas, it often ends up
with a situation where people have to face water shortage and struggles to keep their
crops alive, which has then affected their livelihood strategies (Regassa et al 2019 p. 944
& 945). When smallholders no longer can be self-sufficient and become wage laborers,
they must now also buy all or some of their food instead of consuming what they have

34
themselves produced. Due to the low salaries in the available jobs and also the lack of job
opportunities presented, especially for agro-pastoralist this is doomed to result in
decreased food-security, which we have seen in many of the cases presented in the study.
As mentioned in our evidence the land grabbing projects have not generated the job
opportunities for local smallholders as promised by the government. The job
opportunities were often much less than promised and many of the jobs have gone to
people from other regions or even other countries. Makki (2013) argues that the
knowledge and skills of pastoralists are often dismissed when seeking employment at the
commercialized farms which has led to job opportunities going to other groups (p. 91).

As seen in the evidence of our study there are many cases where smallholders have been
promised compensation for their land but ended up without any compensation (Fisseha
2011 p. 20-21). However it is important to reflect on what compensations means and if
everything can be compensated for economically. As seen in the Kuraz Sugar
Development Project case, dispossession does not only affect material loss it can also
affect social well-being and a way of living. Makki (2013) argues that land grabbing also
can conclude in cultural erasure (p. 94). Our study also has found that the loss of land can
also implicate loss of ancestral and religious sites which poses even further ethical
questions regarding land grabbing. Dignified (economic) compensation for loss of land
would of course be a step in the right direction, however dispossession should only
happen when absolutely necessary. It also poses questions regarding if all loss of land can
be compensated and brings up interesting reasoning of the value of land often being more
than only material.

In our study we have found that lowlands have been especially targeted for “land
investments” and pastoralists have been the most vulnerable group when experiencing
land loss. We have also found some evidence of women being significantly affected by
dispossession and land loss, especially when becoming wage laborers and making
significantly lower salaries. However to draw more reliable conclusions regarding how,
especially women have been affected, a more in-depth study would have to be done.

35
Concluding discussion
Our study have found that the main narratives used to justify and promote “land-deals” or
land grabs in the country has been the argumentation that it will achieve objectives such
as; economic growth which will be distributed broadly within the country, heightened
food security and more job opportunities with stable incomes, especially for pastoralists.
The land grabbing has been framed as contributing to the overall development of the
country through the previously mentioned objectives. Much of the land grabs have been
justified by the argumentation of the abundance of “empty” or what the government calls,
“un-utilized lands”. However, our study has concluded that smallholders have not reaped
the claimed benefits of these “investments”. These projects have negatively affected their
livelihoods and also their food security due to loss of land for cultivation, loss of water
resources and grazing land for cattle. Many who had previously been self-sufficient have
been forced to become wage-workers due to loss of land and resources. However, the few
jobs made available have been low paid, resulting in even further poverty and
food-insecurity. Nonetheless, when smallholders have been able to continue with farming
it has often been with small land areas which have not provided sufficient produce to
support most families. Therefore, we have found that the promoted narratives by the
government to justify land grabbing in Ethiopia have not matched the lived reality for
many smallholders in the country and have in many cases affected them and their
livelihoods negatively.

For future studies it would be interesting to perform further studies in Ethiopia and in the
affected areas focusing on what has happened after the projects. Since many investors
have left Ethiopia today, further studying the impacts of these terminated projects on
livelihoods today would be very interesting . It would also be interesting to further study
the relationship between the highlands and the lowlands in Ethiopia and how they have
been affected differently by land investments and commercialization of agriculture since
that is something that we found in our study but did not have enough time to investigate
any further.

36
Reference List
Adger, WN., Benjaminsen, TA., Brown, K., Svarstad, H., (2001) 'Advancing a political ecology
of global environmental discourses', Development and Change, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 687-715.
[Link]

Alimonda, H. (2019). The Coloniality of Nature: An Approach to Latin American Political

Ecology. Alternautas [blog]
[Link]
n-political-ecology [2021-11-20]

Amanor, K.S., (2012) Global resource grabs, agribusiness concentration and the smallholder: two
West African case studies. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(3-4), pp.731–749.
[Link]

Bellucci, S., (2016) The 1974 Ethiopian Revolution at 40: Social, Economic, and Political
Legacies. Northeast African Studies, 16(1), pp.1–14.
[Link]

Borras Jr, S.M. & Franco, J.C., (2012) Global Land Grabbing and Trajectories of Agrarian
Change: A Preliminary Analysis. Journal of Agrarian Change, 12(1), pp.34–59.
[Link]

Borras, S., & Franco, J. (2013). Global land grabbing and Political Reactions 'From Below'. Third
World Quarterly, 34(9), 1723-1747. [Link]

Borras, S., Fig, D., Suárez, S., (2011) The politics of agrofuels and mega-land and water deals:
Insights from the ProCana case, Mozambique. Review of African Political Economy, 38(128),
215-234. [Link]

Borras, S., Hall, R., Scoones, I., White, B., & Wolford, W. (2011). Towards a better understanding
of global land grabbing: An editorial introduction. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(2),
209-216. [Link]

Börjesson, M., (2003) Diskurser och konstruktioner : en sorts metodbok. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Chambers, R., Conway, G., (1991) Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st
century, IDS Discussion Paper 296, Brighton: IDS.
[Link]

Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (1995). Addis Ababa: FDRE.
Available at: [Link] [Accessed 2022-02-10]

Damtew, S., (2019). Land-grabbing and the right to adequate food in Ethiopia. African Human
Rights Law Journal, 19(1), 219-245. [Link]

37
De Schutter, O., 2011. How not to think of land-grabbing: three critiques of large-scale
investments in farmland. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(2), pp.249–279.
[Link]

Dell’Angelo, J., D’Odorico, P. & Rulli, M.C., 2017. Threats to sustainable development posed by
land and water grabbing. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26-27, pp.120–128.
[Link]

Embassy of Ethiopia (Washington D.C) (n.d) Overview about Ethiopia.

[Link] [2022-03-25]

Escobar, A., (1995) Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World.
Princeton: Princeton University Press

Ethiopian Sugar Corporation (n.d.) Omo Kuraz Sugar Development Project.

[Link] [2022-02-15]

Fairhead, J., Leach, M., & Scoones, I. (2012). Green Grabbing: A new appropriation of nature?
The Journal of Peasant Studies,39(2), 237-261. [Link]

FAO (2012) Smallholders and Family Farmers

[Link]
[Link] [2022-03-05]

Fisseha, M., (2011) A case study of the Bechera agricultural development project, Ethiopia.
International Land Coalition.
[Link]
a_web_110311pdf.pdf

Franco, J. et al., (2013) The Global Land Grab: A primer. The Transnational Institute.
[Link] [2022-01-15]

Fratkin, E., (2014) Ethiopia’s Pastoralist Policies: Development, Displacement and Resettlement.
Nomadic peoples, 18(1), pp.94–114. [Link]

Gebresenbet, F., (2014) Securitisation of development in Ethiopia: the discourse and politics of
developmentalism. Review of African Political Economy, 41(sup1), pp.S64–S74.
[Link]

Gebresenbet, F., (2016) Land Acquisitions, the Politics of Dispossession, and State-Remaking in
Gambella, Western Ethiopia. Afrika Spectrum, 51(1), pp.5–28.
[Link]

GRAIN (2010) Land grabs threaten Anuak. (Interview with Nyikaw Ochalla)
[Link] [2022-02-25]

38
Gudynas, E., 2019. Value, Growth, Development: South American Lessons for a New
Ecopolitics. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, 30(2), pp.234–243.
[Link]

Guyalo, A.K., Alemu, E.A. & Degaga, D.T., (2021) Impact of large-scale agricultural investment
on the livelihood assets of local community in Gambella region, Ethiopia. International Journal
of Social Economics, 48(3), pp.363–[Link]://[Link]/10.1108/IJSE-09-2020-0610

Hall, D., (2013) Primitive Accumulation, Accumulation by Dispossession and the Global Land
Grab. Third World Quarterly, 34:9, 1582-1604, [Link]

Hall, R. et al., (2015) Resistance, acquiescence or incorporation? An introduction to land

grabbing and political reactions 'from below'. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 42(3-4),
pp.467–488. [Link]

Hall, R., (2011a). Land grabbing in Southern Africa: the many faces of the investor rush. Review
of African Political Economy, 38(128), pp.193–214.
[Link]

Hall, R., (2011b) Land grabbing in Africa and the new politics of food. Future Agricultures
[Link]://[Link]/en/document/read/41291123/land-grabbing-in-africa-and-th
e-new-politics-of-food-future-

Hall, S., (2019) [1992]. The West and the Rest: Discourse and Power. In: Essential Essays. Vol. 2:
Identity and Diaspora, edited by David Morley. Duke University Press: Durham & London, pp.
141-184.

Harvey, D., (2004) The New Imperialism. Oxford University Press Inc., New York

Hausermann, H. et al., (2018) Land-grabbing, land-use transformation and social differentiation:

Deconstructing “small-scale” in Ghana's recent gold rush. World Development, 108, pp.103–114.
[Link]
[Link]

Hufe, P. & Heuermann, D.F., (2017) The local impacts of large-scale land acquisitions: a review
of case study evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Contemporary African Studies,
35(2), pp.168–189. [Link]

Hules, M. & Singh, S.J., (2017) India’s land grab deals in Ethiopia: Food security or global
politics? Land Use Policy, 60, pp.343–351 [Link]

IFAD (2003) Statement by Mr. Belay Ejigu, Acting Minister of Agriculture, the Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.
[Link]
of-agriculture-the-federal-democratic-republic-of-ethiopia?p_l_back_url=%2Fen%2Fweb

39
%2Flatest%2Fspeeches%3Fmode%3Dsearch%26catYear%3D39437427%26catCountries
%3D39090754 [2022-03-29]

Kamski, B., (2016) The Kuraz Sugar Development Project (KSDP) in Ethiopia: between ‘sweet
visions’ and mounting challenges, Journal of Eastern African Studies, 10:3, 568-580.
[Link]

Kohler Riessman, C,. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Sage Publications, Inc

Kusiluka, M.M. et al., (2011). The negative impact of land acquisition on indigenous
communities’ livelihood and environment in Tanzania. Habitat international, 35(1), pp.66–73.
DOI: 10.1016/[Link].2010.03.001

Lavers, T., (2012) Patterns of agrarian transformation in Ethiopia: State-mediated

commercialisation and the 'land grab'. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(3-4), pp.795–822.
[Link]

Lavers, T.,( 2012) 'Land grab' as development strategy? The political economy of agricultural
investment in Ethiopia. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(1), pp.105–132. DOI:
[Link]

Leff, E., (2015) The power-full distribution of knowledge in political ecology: A view from the
South. In Perreault, T., Bridge, G., McCarthy, J., (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Political
Ecology (first ed.) London, Routledge.

Makki, F., (2014) Development by Dispossession: Terra Nullius and the Social-Ecology of New
Enclosures in Ethiopia. Rural Sociology, 79(1), pp.79–103. [Link]

Margulis, M.E., McKeon, N. & Borras, S.M., (2013) Land grabbing and Global Governance:
Critical Perspectives. Globalizations, 10(1), pp.1–23.
[Link]

Marx, K. (1990 [1867]). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Vol. I. New York: Penguin.

McMichael, P., (2014) Rethinking Land Grab Ontology. Rural Sociology, 79(1), pp.34–55.
[Link]

MOA (Ministry of Agriculture) (2010) Ethiopia's Agricultural Sector Policy and Investment
Framework (PIF) 2010-2020.
[Link]

MOFED (Ministry of Finance and Economic Development) (2003) Rural Development Policy
and Strategies. Addis Ababa: MOFED.
[Link]
pdf

40
MOFED (Ministry of Finance and Economic Development) (2010) Growth and Transformation
Plan. Addis Ababa: MOFED.
[Link]
A%29%20Growth%20and%20Transformation%20Plan%20I%2C%20Vol%20I.%20%282010%2
C11-2014%2C15%[Link]

Moreda, T., (2017) Large-scale land acquisitions, state authority and indigenous local
communities: insights from Ethiopia. Third World Quarterly, 38(3), pp.698–716.
[Link]

Moreda, T., 2018. The right to food in the context of large-scale land investment in Ethiopia.
Third World Quarterly, 39(7), pp.1326–1347. [Link]

Mousseau, F., Sosnoff, G., (2011) Understanding Land investment deals in Africa - Country
Report: Ethiopia. The Oakland Institute.
[Link]
[Link]

Nachmias, C.F. et al., (2014) Research Methods in the Social Sciences. (8th ed.) New York:
Macmillan Learning.

Nyantakyi-Frimpong, H., & Bezner Kerr, R. (2017) Land grabbing, social differentiation,
intensified migration and food-security in northern Ghana. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 44(2),
421-444. [Link]

Ojeda, D., (2012) Green pretexts: Ecotourism, neoliberal conservation and land grabbing in
Tayrona National Natural Park, Colombia. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(2), pp.357–375.
[Link]

Planning and Development commission (2021) Ten year development plan - A pathway to
prosperity 2021-2030. Addis Ababa: Planning and Development commission

Regassa, A., Hizekiel, Y., & Korf, B., (2019). 'Civilizing' the pastoral frontier: land grabbing,
dispossession and coercive agrarian development in Ethiopia. The Journal of Peasant Studies,
46(5), 935-955. [Link]

Robbins, P. (2020). Political Ecology : A Critical Introduction (Third ed.) Hoboken, New Jersey:
Wiley-Blackwell.

Shete, M. & Rutten, M., 2015. Impacts of large-scale farming on local communities’ food
security and income levels – Empirical evidence from Oromia Region, Ethiopia. Land Use
Policy, 47, pp.282–292. [Link]

Speech by Meles Zenawi during the 13th Annual Pastoralists’ Day celebrations (2011)
[Link]

41
Stevenson, E.G.J. & Buffavand, L., (2018) “Do Our Bodies Know Their Ways?” Villagization,
Food Insecurity, and Ill-Being in Ethiopia’s Lower Omo Valley. African Studies Review, 61(1),
pp.109–13 DOI: [Link]

Svarstad, H,. & Benjaminsen, T. (2019) Political Ecology. In Fath, B. (ed.) Encyclopedia of
Ecology (2nd ed). Elsevier.

Teshome, A., (2006) Agriculture, growth and poverty reduction in Ethiopia: policy processes
around the new PRSP (PASDEP). Future Agricultures Research Paper 004., pp. 1–30.
[Link]

The Oakland Institute (2019) “How they tricked us” Living with the Gibe III Dam and Sugarcane
Plantations in Southwest Ethiopia
[Link]
[Link]

The Oakland Institute (2013) Statement by Nyikaw Ochalla, Director, Anywaa Survival
Organisation-ASO
[Link]
n-aso [2022-03-10]

UNESCO (2018) State party report on the state of conservation of Lower Valley of the Omo.
Addis Ababa. Available at: [Link]

United Nations (2015) Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
[Link]
inable%20Development%[Link]

Wayessa, G.O., (2020) Impacts of land leases in Oromia, Ethiopia: Changes in access to
livelihood resources for local people. Land Use Policy, 97, p.104713.
[Link]

White, B., Borras Jr, S., Hall, R., Scoones, I., & Wolford, W. (2012). The new enclosures: Critical
perspectives on corporate land deals. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(3-4), 619-647.
[Link]

Wikipedia (2020) Mapa de las regions d'Etiopia.

[Link]
[2022-03-18]

Willis, K (2006) Interviewing. In Desai, V., Potter, R, (red.) Doing development research,
London: SAGE ss.144-152.

World Bank (2004) Ethiopia: Country Economic Memorandum. For Ethiopia: A regional
characterization. Washington DC. World Bank.

42
Zoomers, A. et al., (2017) The Rush for Land in an Urbanizing World: From Land Grabbing
Toward Developing Safe, Resilient, and Sustainable Cities and Landscapes. World Development,
92, pp.242–252. [Link]

43