This article discusses the contention between the state and local Guji people on issues of development and conservation of a Protected Area-Nech Sar National Park in southern Ethiopia. The park, which covers over 514 square kilometers, is a contested space between different actors, not only for its economic values, but it is also an arena of contestation over development and conservation perspectives. Since its inception as a national park in 1974, it has been administered with strict protectionist conservation approach, and later in 1990s, the ‗modernist' development program was introduced in the form of ecotourism. On the contrary, the Guji people had strong determination for conservation embedded deep in their worldviews and beliefs. By tracing the genesis of the philosophies behind protected areas in Africa, particularly how it was adopted by the Ethiopian state and its implications, I argue that contrasts in environmental cosmologies between the western and indigenous perspectives have ultimately resulted in unsustainable resource management and also disrupted local livelihood conditions. Despite its existence as an independent country, Ethiopia also experienced similar conservation models that were imported to colonial Africa. In this article, I argue that conservation, particularly in the form of protected areas, is a form of hegemonic control over territories, people and their spaces (historical, economic, cultural and political spaces).
This study investigates ecocultural discourses and practices among the Gedeo in southern Ethiopia within the contexts of globalizing commodification of nature, successive governmental extractivist and conservationist discourses, and increasingly influential colonial present religious systems. Our analysis illustrates ways in which indigenous Gedeo understandings of reciprocal ecological coexistence are rooted in cultural knowledge, values, and customs. However, competing forms of knowledge introduced in the form of governance, commerce, conservation, and religion have resulted in an in-process shift from traditionally, spiritually maintained mutualist human-environment relations to dualist commodified relations, particularly among youth, and dualist expert-reliant conservationist relations emanating from governmental bodies. By examining a traditional meaning system during an explicit process of erasure, the study points to ways local meanings of, and narratives about, ecocultural interactions are produced and communicated within wider contexts of power, and illustrates tensions among traditional, governmental, capitalist, conservationist, and religious environmental ontologies in everyday and institutional practice.
Frontier making in Ethiopia has historical roots from the formation of the modern Ethiopian state in the late-19th century through wars of conquest. The conquest, which was inspired by political and economic motivations of the highland Christian kingdom, used the notion of a “civilizing mission”—civilizing the “backward” and “underdeveloped” people, and “underutilized” spaces—through imposition of an imperial state system and Orthodox Christianity. The foundation and horizontal expansion of Addis Ababa or Finfinne by displacing Indigenous inhabitants was part of the state building project under successive regimes. Over the last century and a half, the city has continued its unchecked expansion in a process involving multilayered actors whose interests overlapped in terms of grabbing the land they considered “underutilized.” More specifically, the last three decades evince commoditization of farmlands, grazing areas, and cultural and sacred spaces through land lease, which eventually dissolve existing customary systems, values, and practices. This paper critically analyzes the dynamics of frontier making in or from Addis Ababa or Finfinne, the political economy behind such unchecked frontier expansion and how it activated the power of resistance in 2014. The paper concludes that frontier making in or from Addis Ababa through dispossession of Oromo farmers has been part of the broader political establishment in Ethiopia and should be viewed within the same lens.
The politics of ethnicity was formally institutionalised in Ethiopia in 1991 with the introduction of ethnic federalism. This study deals with emerging ethnic identities and the dynamics of the inter‐ethnic relationship between the Guji and Burji peoples in south Ethiopia. The article argues that, following the enunciation of ethnicity as a leading political order in 1991, identities have been articulated in such a way that past historical incidents and memories have been reactivated and old labels have been redefined by ethnic entrepreneurs for various motives. This promotes (re)construction of ethnic identities and inter‐group polarisation. In the Guji–Burji case, it is this fragile relationship that is easily changed into inter‐ethnic conflict as a result of competing interests over resources. The article concludes that while the cause of the current Guji–Burji conflict is primarily economic in nature, it took on an ethnic dimension within the context of politicised ethnic identities that hardened group boundaries. Synchronising past relationships – both conflicting and harmonious – with the contemporary scenario, the article tries to shed some light on the dynamics of the Guji–Burji relationship, focusing particularly on the post‐1991 political order in Ethiopia and its local implications.
The persistent claims of indigenous peoples across the world for recognition of their distinctive culture, ownership of land and empowerment of their traditional political institutions have been brought into international forums since the 1970s. Despite the fact that the movement brought different levels of “recognition” of indigenous peoples as distinct groups with varying degrees of entitlements, there are contrasting paradigms. The rhetoric politics of recognition under the tenets of democracy and protection of human rights on the one hand, and the increasing trend in ideologies of developmentalism that increased the scale of “development” projects on traditional lands of indigenous peoples on the other, are the major contradictory trends. While the former puts nation states and international institutions under incompatible policy options, the latter makes indigenous peoples prey to “neo-development” approaches. This paper assesses background contexts of some indigenous peoples’ claims for resource rights and the challenges they face in achieving recognition, by addressing competing perspectives on the ideologies of developmentalism and international human rights as related to indigenous peoples.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.