dw.com
Ethiopia's GERD: Death Toll, Funding, and Opposition
Construction of Ethiopia's Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) may have resulted in at least 15,000 deaths, according to a report, while the dam was primarily funded domestically and faces opposition from Egypt and Sudan over water-sharing concerns.
- How was the GERD funded, and what is its significance?
- Ethiopia funded the GERD primarily through domestic means: government bonds, public donations, and contributions from civil servants. This self-funded approach avoided reliance on international lenders, granting Ethiopia complete control and potentially serving as a model for other African nations.
- What is the reported death toll during the construction of the GERD, and what is the official response?
- An Ethiopian magazine reported at least 15,000 deaths during the GERD's construction, encompassing workers, security forces, and residents. The Ethiopian Water and Energy Minister neither confirmed nor denied these claims, directing inquiries to relevant institutions.
- What are the main points of contention surrounding the GERD, and what is the current status of negotiations?
- Egypt and Sudan oppose the GERD due to concerns about reduced water supplies, despite Ethiopia's assertions of adherence to the 2015 Declaration of Principles and data sharing. Negotiations continue under the African Union, with the dam now complete and transitioning to operations.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article presents a balanced view of the GERD project, including both positive and negative aspects. However, the high death toll is presented early and prominently, potentially influencing reader perception before other viewpoints are fully explored. The minister's refusal to comment is also highlighted, adding to the negative portrayal.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral, although phrases like "existential threat" (regarding Egypt's concerns) and "bold move" (regarding Ethiopia's self-funding) carry some connotation. The description of the minister's response as a dismissal of claims could also be interpreted as biased. More neutral alternatives could include "concerns" instead of "threat" and "significant undertaking" or "ambitious project" instead of "bold move.
Bias by Omission
The article omits discussion of potential benefits to downstream countries from the dam's electricity generation. Also, while mentioning negotiations, the article lacks detailed analysis of the arguments made by Egypt and Sudan, or an in-depth examination of the 1959 Nile Waters Treaty's implications and the perspectives of other riparian states beyond a brief overview. This omission could lead to an incomplete understanding of the complexities of the conflict.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic eitheor framing by emphasizing the conflict between Ethiopia's development goals and the concerns of downstream countries. It does not delve deeply into the possibility of compromise or mutually beneficial solutions. The article could benefit from exploring alternative water management strategies that address the needs of all stakeholders.
Sustainable Development Goals
The dam project, funded through domestic bonds and public donations, fostered national unity and potentially improved the livelihoods of those involved in its construction and those who benefited from the increased electricity generation. However, the reported high death toll during construction negatively impacts this assessment.