The Debate on Mega-Dam Impacts: A Stakeholder-Based Exploration of Merowe Dam, Sudan

Abstract

Climate change, depleting fossil fuel reserves, and instability in petroleum prices are driving developing economies to explore cost-effective, efficient, and sustainable energy sources such as hydropower. However, there is an ongoing debate regarding the relevance, suitability, and impact of mega-dams. Much of the existing research on mega-dams examines this debate through the lens of development theories. However, mega-dams impact a wide range of stakeholders at local, national, regional, and global levels, necessitating exploration of their role from a socioeconomic perspective. This interdisciplinary case study draws knowledge from management, sociology, and economics and provides a comprehensive account of multi-stakeholder perspectives on the impact of a mega-dam and addresses the research question: How do stakeholders perceive the impact of the Merowe Dam on agricultural livelihoods, and how do they interpret the role of governance processes? Participants included farmers, a focus group with 10 members from the affected communities, and 32 key informant interviews from non-governmental organizations, political actors, academics, businessmen and leaders in the catchment areas of the Merowe Dam, Sudan. The findings suggest that despite some concerns about motivations and processes of mega-dam commissioning, these projects are perceived as beneficial for long-term and sustainable socioeconomic growth and gaining support for renewable energy use in developing economies. The participants reported that modernization of agriculture, following the establishment of the dam, increased crop yields, e.g., wheat production has increased per hectare. Farmers’ income and irrigated land have increased substantially per family due to an increase in land sizes allocated to relocated communities, leading to an overall increase in land size. Therefore, with improved processes in both pre- and post-commissioning stages, transparency, accountability, and deeper stakeholder engagement, mega-dams can facilitate a smoother transition from fossil fuels to large-scale hydropower on one hand and livelihood enhancement through agriculture and other income generating activities on the other.

1. Introduction

Energy is critical for global socio-economic development, and with a growing population, energy demand is increasing across industrial, domestic, and agricultural sectors [1]. Climate change, depleting fossil fuel reserves, and rising instability in petroleum prices are prompting countries to reconsider their energy choices [2]. The deeper integration of renewable energy not only meets growing demands but also aligns emerging economies with global best practices for environmental sustainability, as increasingly adopted by developed nations [2]. Hydropower is a unique resource capable of generating electricity with minimal emissions [1]. It is one of the cleanest energy sources, contributing little to global warming, generating minimal secondary waste, and sustainably meeting societal needs [1]. However, despite its advantages, hydroelectric projects face numerous technical, economic, and institutional challenges [1,3,4]. Mega-dams are controversial.

The commissioning of mega-dams also carries geopolitical implications. Established economies such as the United Kingdom, European countries, and North American nations (collectively recognized as the Global North) have scaled back their reliance on mega-dams in recent decades [5]. Despite skepticism from the Global North, mega-dam projects continue to be promoted in emerging economies as essential solutions to address socio-economic challenges [6]. Emerging economies such as India, Brazil, and China (referred to as the Global South) remain heavily invested in mega-dam projects [6]. Despite ongoing controversy, interest and investment in mega-dam construction continues unabated [7]. Additionally, scrutiny of the ideological standpoints, funding processes, and execution of mega-dam projects, both pre- and post-commissioning, has intensified [8,9].

In Sudan, North-East Africa, the debate over mega-dams is rife [8]. Despite limited financial resources and socio-economic stagnation, the Sudanese government has commissioned several mega-dams, aiming to generate electricity and modernize the country’s economy [5]. One notable project is the Merowe Dam, which sought to address the region’s economic and social underdevelopment [5]. Some scholars suspect that political capital and personal gains may have been the true motivation for the commissioning of the Merowe mega-dam [5]. Additionally, the construction of the dam has been linked to adverse impacts on local communities, including displacement and disruptions to livelihoods [8]. Similar discrepancies between proclaimed objectives and actual on-the-ground impacts have been observed in other projects, such as Rousaris and Sinnar Dam [5]. Despite the ongoing debate, the perspectives of diverse stakeholders, which can provide a holistic understanding of mega-dam projects, is missing from existing literature.

The present paper attempts to close this gap by providing an analysis of the perspective of the diverse stakeholders on the impacts of the Merowe Dam in the Merowe region and the nation. This paper focuses on the differences in stakeholder power, influence of mega-project decision-making processes and prioritization of sustainability development, reflecting on the extent of how powerful stakeholders shape or bias sustainable development perceptions compared to those stakeholders who are less powerful in the process of mega-projects. In doing so, this study is guided by the following research question: how do stakeholders perceive the impact of the Merowe Dam on agricultural livelihoods, and how do they interpret the role of governance processes [10]?

This study is a continuation of previous research by Abdullah et al. (2020) [11] and Abdullah and Rahman (2021) [12], which examined mega-project social, economic and environmental impacts on the stakeholder in the context of the Merowe region. However, the current paper aimed to advance this body of research in numerous imperative ways. First, it presents a critical insight into stakeholder power dynamic in relation to decision-making on the process of mega-dam projects. Second, it offers an informed analysis that emphasizes growing governance and stakeholder relationship issues beyond 2021 and incorporates the broader Global North–South dynamics and divide, stressing how external actors shape local sustainability narratives and influence national and local stakeholder perceptions. This paper also contributes to policy by emphasizing the importance of refining project processes alongside evaluating outcomes. Additionally, this paper offers practical insights for practitioners and government bodies involved in mega-dam initiatives, illustrating how such projects can optimize benefits for a broad spectrum of stakeholders.

2. Renewable Energy and Mega-Dam

Energy is essential for development, as an adequate energy supply drives technological innovation, enhances productivity, expands markets, and promotes social mobilization and interaction with state institutions [13]. Currently, 78.4% of the world’s energy needs are still met by fossil fuels, which have severe environmental impacts, including contributing to global warming, acid precipitation, ozone layer depletion, air pollution, and the emission of radioactive substances, posing significant threats to public health [14]. Growing concerns over environmental degradation caused by excessive fossil fuel consumption to support industrialization have increased pressure on countries to reduce their reliance on non-renewable energy sources. This has led to greater societal awareness of the importance of a clean environment, resulting in reduced fossil fuel consumption and a rise in the use of renewable energy sources [15].

Environmentally friendly and sustainable renewable energies—such as hydropower, biomass, wind, solar, and geothermal, are critical to fostering socio-economic development [1,10]. The global energy consumption is expected to increase by 1.6% by 2030, therefore, clean energy, i.e., dams offer a sustainable, environmentally responsible, and cost-effective solution to meet the electricity demands of a rapidly growing global population [16]. Therefore, sustainable energy resources are vital for a cleaner social and economic future and hydropower stands out, generating 76% of the world’s renewable electricity [1].

2.1. Hydropower and the Debate

Hydropower is a cost-effective, environmentally friendly, and highly efficient method of energy generation for domestic and commercial purposes, with a conversion efficiency of approximately 90% [16]. One of the key advantages of hydropower is its adaptability to meet base-load requirements with a high-capacity factor [16]. Additionally, it can serve as a power input for various types of grids, ranging from small and isolated to large-scale systems [1]. It can be generated using a range of technologies, including pumped storage systems, small hydropower plants, and cascaded reservoir hydropower plants [16]. Hydropower projects are classified based on installed capacity: large (above 100 MW), medium or small (below 30 MW), mini (100 kW to 1 MW), and micro (5 kW to 100 kW). China leads globally in installed hydropower capacity, contributing 26% of the total, followed by Brazil (8.6%), the United States (7.8%) [1].

Beyond energy generation, hydropower infrastructure—particularly large dams—plays a critical role in water regulation, irrigation expansion, and agricultural intensification, linking energy systems with food production. Recent studies emphasize that dams can enhance water availability, reduce variability in supply, and support irrigation-led agricultural productivity, particularly in water-scarce regions [17,18,19]. At the same time, the sustainability of such benefits depends on effective water governance and resource optimization, including equitable allocation, efficient irrigation practices, and long-term ecosystem management [20,21]. These findings suggest that hydropower should be understood not only as an energy system but as part of an integrated water–energy–food nexus, where outcomes depend on how water resources are managed alongside infrastructure development.

Despite its cost effectiveness, high conversion efficiency, and sustainability potential, hydropower—particularly mega-dams—has been the focus of intense debate regarding its long-term viability, including concerns about environmental risks such as regional seismic stability [22]. While many pro-growth and pro-sustainability scholars argue that the primary motivation behind mega-dam projects is to improve human living conditions [23], social scientists and environmentalists often attribute more complex or adverse motivations to these projects. Mega-dam developments are viewed by some as contentious, with the potential to spark political disputes and conflicts between upstream and downstream communities or countries [24]. Critics of megaprojects, including those financed by the World Bank, argue that projections of social and economic benefits are frequently exaggerated, while the existing political-economic context and the social and environmental impacts on local communities receive limited consideration in decision-making processes [25].

Recent literature further highlights that the outcomes of large-scale water infrastructure projects are highly contingent on governance quality, institutional coordination, and stakeholder inclusion, particularly in relation to agricultural water use and resource distribution [17,20]. In many developing economies, particularly those under authoritarian governance, the impacts of mega-dams on local communities can be severe, leading to social and economic injustices and exclusion [26,27]. At the same time, empirical studies increasingly demonstrate that where governance systems effectively integrate stakeholder participation and resource management, large-scale water infrastructure can contribute to improved agricultural productivity and livelihood outcomes [19,21]. Nevertheless, the debate over mega-dams remains partly ideological and contested, reflecting tensions between development objectives, environmental sustainability, and social equity [11,12]. Incorporating the perspectives and aspirations of diverse actors remains essential to ensuring the long-term sustainability and legitimacy of such projects.

2.2. The Geopolitics of Mega-Dams

Mega-dam debate is not confined to the regions and countries where these projects are commissioned but extends to global levels, raising concerns about resource scarcity, climate change, and their impact on communities [28]. In the post-Second World War era, development discourse in the Global South focused on economic modernization, differing from the approaches of the Global North. Several developing economies have invested heavily in large-scale infrastructure such as mega-dam projects for irrigation, flood control, and electricity generation to support economic development and modernization agendas [28]. The social and economic impacts of mega-dams have been extensively examined in countries such as Brazil and China, while projects like the Aswan Dam in Egypt have significantly reshaped the Nile catchment region [6,28,29].

Recent scholarship situates these developments within broader hydropolitical and water–energy–food nexus frameworks, highlighting how large dams simultaneously serve as instruments of economic development and geopolitical influence [20,30]. Mega-dams increasingly function as strategic assets within transboundary river basins, where upstream and downstream dependencies shape regional cooperation and conflict dynamics. In this context, water infrastructure is not merely technical but deeply political, reflecting power asymmetries and competing national interests [30].

Critics, however, argue that commissioning dams has contributed to political uncertainty and power disputes between Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia—countries that share the Nile River basin [28]. Contemporary studies reinforce this view, showing how large-scale hydropower projects can intensify geopolitical tensions, particularly in transboundary basins where water allocation and control are contested [19]. In many African countries, infrastructural projects, including roads, railways, water, and energy initiatives such as mega-dam construction, are financed by China, even when deemed unviable by institutions such as the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund [28]. Scholars (e.g., [25,31,32]) question China’s motivations, suggesting that such investments provide reciprocal benefits in the form of trade, access to natural resources, and increased geopolitical leverage [22]. Chinese development finance is therefore often interpreted as reshaping global infrastructure governance, reinforcing.

More recent literature frames these dynamics within the broader context of infrastructure-led geopolitics and development finance, where emerging actors such as China play a central role in redefining global investment patterns and regional power relations [33]. It is also argued that decision-makers in Africa view dam projects as opportunities to secure funding for economic development, often at the expense of addressing the social and environmental needs of the region [8,34]. At the same time, evidence suggests that the effectiveness of such investments depends heavily on governance arrangements, institutional capacity, and the integration of local stakeholder needs into project design and implementation [17,18,20].

Governments and agencies that support mega-dams argue that such projects are necessary to meet the growing demand for electricity across domestic, agricultural, and industrial sectors [35]. Other stakeholders, such as environmental civil society organizations (NGOs) and scholars (e.g., [36,37,38], contend that mega-dams are politically driven, deliver uneven economic benefits, and generate significant social and environmental costs. Additionally, displacement and relocation of communities, project financing, and compensation have been criticized as politically mediated processes, with local communities frequently excluded from decision-making [8,9,34]. Many communities have experienced negative impacts such as loss of livelihoods, displacement, relocation, and health issues, reinforcing the perception that mega-dam projects are politically motivated [26,39,40].

Recent research further highlights that these outcomes are closely linked to how water resources are governed and allocated, particularly in agricultural contexts where irrigation expansion competes with ecological sustainability and equitable access [21]. Without effective resource optimization and inclusive governance, the potential benefits of large-scale water infrastructure may be unevenly distributed, exacerbating existing inequalities and tensions [20].

The debate on mega-dams has become increasingly polarized in recent decades, often generating more controversy than constructive dialogue among stakeholders regarding the sustainable use of natural resources such as water and hydro-energy [28]. Achieving a balance among the interests of mega-dam stakeholders remains challenging. Contemporary scholarship suggests that bridging this divide requires integrating technical, political, and social dimensions of water governance, alongside incorporating diverse stakeholder perspectives into decision-making processes [30,33]. To date, however, the perspectives of these stakeholders have not been comprehensively recorded and considered, hindering accurate theorization of their relationships—an important gap that the present study aims to address.

2.3. The Context—Merowe Mega-Dam, Sudan

Studies examining political decision-making in mega-dam development, particularly in developing economies such as Sudan, remain limited [28]. Sudan faces pressing demands for economic modernization, in which energy infrastructure plays a central role. Consequently, policy narratives tend to emphasize the economic benefits of dams, while the social and environmental consequences are comparatively underexplored [28]. Recent scholarship highlights that such imbalances are not unique to Sudan but are characteristic of infrastructure-led development strategies in resource-constrained states, where political priorities often shape project framing and justification [41,42].

In North-East Africa, mega-dam development is embedded within complex transboundary water governance dynamics, particularly across the Nile basin, where competing demands for irrigation and hydropower have intensified tensions among Ethiopia, Sudan, and Egypt [11]. Contemporary research situates these tensions within broader frameworks of hydro-hegemony and transboundary water politics, where upstream and downstream asymmetries influence negotiation power and resource allocation [30,43]. These dynamics reflect not only physical water scarcity but also political contestation over control, sovereignty, and development pathways.

Historically, the Nile Waters Agreements (1929, revised 1959) granted Egypt and Sudan significant control over Nile water resources following Sudanese independence [28]. Sudan’s major dam projects—including Khasm al Ghirba (1964), Roseires (1966), and the Merowe Dam (2004)—have been central to national strategies for water resource development and agricultural expansion [28]. Subsequent regional initiatives, such as the Nile Basin Initiative (1999) and the Nile Transboundary Environmental Action Project (2004), aimed to promote cooperative and equitable water governance [8,28]. However, more recent developments—particularly Ethiopia’s Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam—have reconfigured regional power relations and intensified geopolitical tensions, especially with Egypt [11]. Empirical studies suggest that such large-scale projects reshape negotiation dynamics by altering both perceived and actual control over water flows [19,29].

Ongoing negotiations among Sudan, Egypt, and Ethiopia continue to focus on revising historical agreements, particularly the 1959 treaty, which has long been criticized for its exclusionary nature and unequal allocation of water resources [8,28]. Within Sudan, these transboundary dynamics intersect with domestic political processes, where control over water, land, and agricultural resources is closely tied to political power and economic interests, often becoming more pronounced during periods of political contestation such as elections [28]. Recent literature further emphasizes that such internal–external linkages are central to understanding how large-scale infrastructure projects operate within hybrid governance systems, where national development agendas, regional geopolitics, and local resource conflicts converge [42,43,44].

The Merowe Dam must therefore be understood within this broader socio-political and geopolitical context, where decisions around water infrastructure are shaped not only by technical and economic considerations but also by power relations, institutional arrangements, and competing stakeholder interests across multiple scales. The geographical position of Merowe Dam in the region is presented in Figure 1.

2.3.1. The Merowe Dam in Sudan, Its Impact & the Research Gap

Existing scholarship on mega-dams has advanced understanding of hydropower development, geopolitics, and the water–energy–food nexus, while also framing debates through Modernization and Sustainable Development perspectives [45]. While some studies emphasize the role of mega-dams in supporting economic growth and rising energy demand [7], others highlight their environmental costs and socio-political implications, particularly in the context of climate change [25]. Although this body of work underscores the complexity of mega-dam impacts across diverse stakeholder groups [46], much of the literature remains focused on macroeconomic performance, infrastructure outputs, and national-level policy objectives, often without direct engagement with affected stakeholders [26,40]. As a result, political drivers behind dam construction are frequently underexplored, and the lived experiences of local communities are underrepresented [25,31,47]. Few studies sufficiently address the agency of local actors or examine how mega-dams shape employment, living standards, and social wellbeing in everyday contexts [23,48].

This gap is particularly pronounced in politically complex and under-researched settings such as Sudan, where empirical, multi-stakeholder analyses remain limited [28]. Located in Sudan’s Northern State, the Merowe Dam (constructed 2004–2009) is one of the largest in the Nile region, built in an arid environment where temperatures range from 46 °C in summer to 20 °C in winter and habitable land is largely confined to the Nile banks [5]. Figure 1 illustrates the locations of dams in Sudan. According to International River [49] the project displaced over 30,000 people across more than 100 settlements and islands, resulting in the loss of cultural heritage and date-palm-based livelihoods among communities such as Hamdab, Amri, and Manasir [5,11]. Although resettlement schemes were introduced, many affected populations chose to remain near the reservoir, reflecting complex livelihood and cultural considerations [12]. The region itself is economically significant, particularly in agriculture, yet historically constrained by limited infrastructure, making the dam a critical case for examining socio-economic transformation [50,51]. While framed as a political and economic success and promoted as a carbon-neutral alternative to fossil fuels [3], official narratives often emphasize national-level benefits while overlooking resettlement challenges and localized impacts [12,52]. Environmental and social consequences, including altered water flows affecting fisheries, ecosystems, and downstream agriculture—have been documented [50], yet are rarely analyzed alongside stakeholder interpretations and governance processes. Furthermore, although pre-dam Merowe consisted of dispersed riverine communities [32], the long-term implications of new and existing settlement patterns on agricultural practices, particularly for downstream populations, remain insufficiently explored [53].

More broadly, mega-dams illustrate the intersection of economic, social, and governmental forces, offering insight into environmental change, cultural transformation, and political power dynamics [50,51]. With the legacy of the Aswan High Dam [54] and proposed developments such as Kajbar, the Merowe case is particularly significant for informing future policy and academic debates. A holistic approach—integrating political, economic, and ecological dimensions—is therefore essential for understanding the political economy of environmental change [37], especially given that mega-dams frequently involve displacement, livelihood disruption, and health risks for affected populations.

Despite these contributions, there remains a critical gap in understanding how diverse stakeholders perceive and interpret both the impacts of mega-dams and the governance processes that shape them. Existing studies rarely capture relational dynamics between stakeholder groups or examine how power, participation, and decision-making processes influence development outcomes at the local level. Addressing this gap requires qualitative approaches capable of eliciting in-depth, context-sensitive insights into lived experiences and interpretations. Accordingly, this study employs semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions to capture perspectives across multiple stakeholder groups. Such methods are particularly suited to politically and socially complex environments, where meaning-making, power relations, and context are central to understanding development processes. By foregrounding stakeholder voices, this study directly addresses the research question of how stakeholders perceive the impact of the Merowe Dam on agricultural livelihoods and how they interpret the role of governance processes, thereby contributing to a more nuanced and empirically grounded understanding of mega-dam development in the Global South.

2.3.2. Temporal Gap: An Explanation

Although the data for this study were collected in 2017, the timing is unlikely to significantly influence perceptions, as the researcher has remained engaged with political and social developments since the dam’s planning. This includes the revolution and subsequent conflict and their impacts across the country. However, the Northern and River Nile states where the dam is located have remained relatively stable and largely unaffected, meaning the status quo has not changed significantly since data collection (see Figure 2). Additionally, investigative power dynamics in large-scale infrastructure projects benefit from a time lag (e.g., 10 years), allowing communities to experience both positive and negative impacts. Key issues related to Merowe Dam management, stockholders’ relationships, decision-making and socio-economic sustainability have remained largely unchanged. Attempts to update the data were constrained by political unrest beginning in 2019 and escalating into war in 2022.

3. Methodology

A case study is defined as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context” and is particularly suited to research where the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly distinguishable [55]. As a holistic research strategy, it integrates design, data collection, and analysis within complex social settings [55,56]. This study adopts a qualitative case study approach to develop a comprehensive, multi-stakeholder understanding of the Merowe Dam and its socio-economic and governance implications.

This study is theoretically informed by stakeholder theory and sustainability perspectives, including alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs 6, 7, 10, and 15), alongside a social justice orientation that emphasizes participation, equity, and power relations in decision-making processes. A socio-economic lens is further applied to examine how stakeholders interpret the rationale, impacts, and governance of the Merowe Dam. Three stakeholder groups were defined: (1) impacted communities, (2) non-governmental actors (including NGO practitioners and academics), and (3) legislative and executive representatives. This classification enables the analysis of variation in power, influence, and lived experience across the project lifecycle.

A qualitative, exploratory design was adopted to capture stakeholder perceptions in a politically and socially complex context [57,58]. Semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions are well established methods for eliciting in-depth, context-sensitive insights and capturing diverse viewpoints, particularly in studies of governance and development [59]. Such approaches are widely used in stakeholder and governance research to explore complex decision-making processes and power dynamics through interpretive analysis [60].

3.1. Data Collection

Data were collected between May and September 2017 in Sudan’s Northern State and in Khartoum. A combination of a focus group discussion and semi-structured interviews was employed to ensure both depth and diversity of perspectives (See

Table 1. The Informant Interviewees (32) in this study.

Participants (Interviews/Focus Group)	Number	The Rationale for Selecting the Participant
Farmers (Merowe regions)—Focus group (10 Males)	F 10	Selecting this group is based on the fact they are the most impacted group, as the dam is meant to help them by improving their livelihood. They also have had to confront situations with the government/politicians regarding compensation, resettlement and displacement issues. Also one of the aims of the dam was to help stablish agribusiness industry in the region.
Academics (13 Males and 2 Females)	A (15)	Academics provided an expert opinion that was well-informed and supported by research and data analysis. Also, they may contrast to the government’s/politicians’ claims on the dynamic of the decision-making on economic, social, and environmental impacts.
NGO (3 Males and 1 Female)	N (4)	NGOs were expected to provide neutral opinions that may support or oppose the government’s/politicians’ narrative on the economic, social, and environmental impacts. NGOs’ opinion is based on their long involvement and experience with such environmental and displacement assessment of mega-dams’ impact globally.
Government elites (ministers, policymakers, and Merowe Dam authorities (6 Males and 1 Female)	G (7)	Given the complex debate on mega-dams’ role in development, interviewing key ministers and policymakers was important. Due to their knowledge and experiences of specific actors involved in the project, they have direct access to vital information about the Merowe Dam.
Opposition parties’ representatives (2 Males)	O (2)	To get an objective and non-partisan view on research themes, participants were chosen from the opposition parties as well.
Entrepreneurs/Businesspersons (2 Males)	E (2)	Entrepreneurs are important players in determining the dam’s impact, especially economically. They are based in the region and can observe changes in day-to-day business. They do not depend on the dam directly; however, it has become a source of overall improvement in the region, including growth in local businesses.
Settlement village heads (2 Males)	V (2)	Community leaders provided insight into their communities’ perspectives on the dam, which was difficult to obtain through a questionnaire survey.

Note: All participants in these categories were selected purposively applying a clear inclusion/exclusion criterion informed by stockholder theory. They were selected based on their involvement in the project, information power and influence, see Section 3.1. Source: Compiled from primary data.

below). Participants were selected using purposive, maximum variation sampling to identify information-rich cases with relevant experience and differing degrees of influence [61,62]. This approach is appropriate for examining complex, multi-stakeholder phenomena where representativeness is less critical than depth and relevance.

A focus group was conducted with farming communities in the Merowe Region, comprising ten participants representing traditional and commercial farmers, including both resettled and non-resettled individuals. Figure 2 presents the location of downstream and upstream communities. The group size aligns with qualitative research guidance (6–12 participants) to facilitate interaction while maintaining diversity [63]. Participants were selected based on predefined criteria, including resettlement status, farming practices, crop type, and exposure to dam-related impacts.

In addition, 32 semi-structured interviews were conducted with key informants, including policymakers, economists, environmental experts, sociologists, engineers, NGO representatives, business actors, and community leaders (Table 1). Interview-based qualitative designs are particularly effective for accessing elite and expert perspectives and exploring governance processes in depth [60]. The sample size reflects the heterogeneous, multi-stakeholder design of this study and aligns with qualitative research guidance suggesting larger samples are required to capture variation across diverse groups [64,65]. However, in this case the sample was adequacy which guided by the principle of information power, whereby sufficiency depends on study aim, participant specificity, and analytical depth [64]. Notably, the influence of elite participant in decision-making may validates their comparatively higher representation, as this study focuses on power dynamics not comparative stakeholder sampling. In this study, a sample of 32 was satisfactory because the research aim is focused on specific of key stakeholder clusters holding relevant information, and the collection of high-quality data using in-depth interviews [64].

Inclusion criteria required direct or indirect experience with the impacts of the Merowe Dam. Interviews were conducted in English or Arabic, lasted 30–40 min, were audio-recorded with informed consent, transcribed into English, and anonymized to ensure confidentiality.

Reflexivity and Positionality

Research in politically sensitive and authoritarian contexts presents challenges, including potential response bias and restricted access. Participants—particularly those linked to state institutions—may give moderate responses due to perceived risks, resulting in social desirability bias [66,67]. To mitigate this, interviews were conducted in person using a semi-structured format to facilitate rapport, trust, and contextual clarification [60]. Strict anonymity protocols were implemented, and participants were assured of confidentiality to reduce fear of reprisal.

Access to stakeholders requires navigating institutional processes, including securing permissions from relevant authorities. While official facilitation supported site access, additional interviews were conducted through informal networks—including community representatives and non-state actors—to ensure diversity of perspectives. The researcher maintained a reflexive stance throughout, critically examining inconsistencies and silences in the data as indicators of underlying power dynamics.

Triangulation across stakeholder groups strengthened the credibility of findings by enabling comparison of perspectives across actors with differing positions and interests [62,64]. While response bias cannot be fully eliminated, these measures enhance the internal validity and robustness of the analysis.

3.2. Data Analysis

Data from interviews and the focus group were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis, a widely adopted method for identifying patterns and meanings within qualitative data [56,58,68,69]. This approach is particularly suited to exploratory research concerned with interpretation, context, and complexity, and is commonly applied in governance and stakeholder studies [60].

All data collection and analysis were conducted by the first author, enabling sustained engagement with the dataset. The analysis followed the six-phase process outlined by Braun and Clarke: familiarization with the data; generation of initial codes using both deductive and inductive approaches; identification of candidate themes; iterative refinement of themes; definition and naming of themes; and synthesis of findings in relation to the research question and theoretical framework.

Consistent with reflexive thematic analysis, inter-coder reliability was not treated as a primary quality criterion, as this approach prioritizes interpretive depth, transparency, and reflexivity over coding consensus [69]. To enhance rigour, peer debriefing was conducted with a second researcher, and member checking was undertaken with selected participants to validate key interpretations. These strategies contribute to credibility and trustworthiness in qualitative research [70].

4. Findings

This section presents the findings; after the analysis, the results indicate four types of themes that emerged from three kinds of stakeholders—(a) ‘Support motivations (of mega-dams) and outcomes’; (b) ‘Question motivations and oppose outcomes’; (c) ‘Support motivations but oppose outcome’; and (d) ‘Support motivations but oppose processes. For a better understanding of the findings, a cross-tabulation of participants’ views is presented in

Table 2. Themes identified by stakeholders regarding mega-dam commissioning.

	Participants	Findings
Impacted communities	Village heads (Interviews)	(d) Support motivations but oppose processes— Socioeconomic impact—Participants suggested some development in the region; infrastructure improvement, market expansion, agriculture and industry development, increased fishing, Concerns—Stakeholders not included in pre-dam consultation process; lack of information asymmetry on the project; the role of the Dams Implementation Unit (DIU), broken/delayed promises of benefits; unfair evaluation of properties in compensations; region-based discrimination in representation in decision-making entities
	Local communities (Focus groups)	(d) Support motivations but oppose processes: Socioeconomic impact—better living conditions, social inclusion, and economic opportunities especially in lad size increase for many of the farmers and introducing new business crops in the region with better agricultural infrastructure. Concerns—Loss of properties, memories; the role of the DIU, social conflict on land, exacerbating communal and tribal divisions, flawed and superficial processes especially when it comes to irrigation, land and date tree compensation.
Non-government stakeholders, Academics & NGOs	Academics (Interviews) Post-dam commissioning benefits—Ecological, Social & Economic	(a) Support motivations and outcomes— Ecological benefits—Some participants perceived the dam to cause less erosion of soil; improved biodiversity in a previously arid region; limiting desertification; improved cultivation with a higher water table; Social benefits—participants reported increase inward migration, reduced outward migration; improved life expectancy & living conditions; integration of women into commercial/economic activities; improved access to educational and health facilities Economic benefits—Interviewees perceived to observe a higher energy production [half of the grid used in Sudan is produced at Merowe (DIU, 2017), improved intra-national and international commercial activities, increase in the cultivated land, Increased GDP with higher availability and access to other commercial activities, improved infrastructure—improved market/commercial activities (b) Question motivations and oppose outcomes— Concerns with a higher water table; Concerns about increased seismic activity; adverse impact on date-cultivation; a lower water table downstream; diluted focus on alternative sources of energy (e.g., Solar) (c) Support motivations but oppose outcome— Economic benefits—Many participants considered the construction of the Merowe Dam as a package with many supporting infrastructure projects that has been a hope of the people in the region which may opened relatively a new paradigm of economic development in the region. This idea might have played a big role in driving support from the region and actors in many areas (e.g., services, small manufacturing and businesses, metal workshops, construction, and tourism sectors). Negative Social Impact and Discontent—Other participants perceived Merowe Dam to have imposed significant social costs, including unequal benefit distribution, limited community participation, forced displacement, and disputes over compensation. Many participants expressed dissatisfaction with the process and outcomes. Inadequate irrigation in upstream-relocated communities has reinforced negative perceptions, especially regarding agricultural economic indicators. (d) Support motivations but oppose processes— Academics who do not support the agenda are ignored; motivation for dam commissioning is political; consultation & resettlement are not managed well; alternative solutions of the social issues are ignored; misrepresentation of the academics and their views.
	Entrepreneurs (Interviews)	(a) Support motivations and outcomes— The participants suggested increased opportunities for business and regional market growth; improved transportation and infrastructure; tourism; improved opportunities for education and training; inward migration and increased consumer activities
	NGOs (Interviews)	(a) Support motivations and outcomes— Social and Economic impact—The impact on the individual’s mental health; (d) Support motivations but oppose processes—Flawed processes of compensation determination and disbursal; the role of the Dam Implementation Unit (DIU),
The legislature and the executive	Government ministers/officials (Interviews)	(a) Support motivations and outcomes— Geopolitical & economic advantages—Political relationship between Sudan, Egypt and Ethiopia; the relationship/conflict between the government and the communities; Sufficient electricity; Reflection—Acknowledge discrepancies in consultation—A committee has been formed to investigate complaints. ‘Vendetta’ & ‘Aberrations’ ‘WIP’- Role of DIU—refused the allegations against the DIU and appreciated their contribution and effectiveness; disagree with the concerns on social impact (displacement, compensation)—as aberrations mentioning that the future expansion of the dam area would address that.
	Opposition parties (Interviews)	(d) Support motivations but oppose processes Support the project in principle. Concerns—The role of the DIU; excessive and unscrutinized funding; concessions to international partners; poor terms of borrowing for the dam; non-integration of stakeholders; regional disparities

, which provides a clear picture of micro-level communities views of the motivation behind Merowe Dam’s construction.

The findings are interpreted based on the context of participants’ perceptions and lived experiences. As a qualitative investigation, this study is not aiming at statistically measuring or analytically validate social, economic and environmental impacts, but mainly aimed at understanding the extent of the changes communities encountered and how they interpret and experienced these changes.

4.1. Famers and Communities in the Catchment Areas

While the Merowe Dam plays a key role in water management and agriculture development, its impact on catchment areas must be assessed to ensure sustainable development and minimize harm. Community perspectives vary based on how directly they are affected. Many support the dam for its perceived benefits, but displaced groups express dissatisfaction due to unresolved resettlement and compensation issues.

4.1.1. (A) Support Motivations and Outcome

One of the objectives of the Merowe Dam is to support economic development through irrigation for commercial agriculture, one of the vital roles played by the dam in Merowe region. Many participants involved in this study seem to support this claim. The claim of economic benefits through agriculture is significant with some variance between districts regarding irrigation purposes. Participants across the region have to some extent perceived irrigation as the second important aim of the Merowe Dam.

This divergence is due to benefits gained by downstream citizens in the form of agriculture infrastructure and upstream-residents benefiting from the cultivation of fertile strips of floodplain land. However, relocated participants are slightly apprehensive about agricultural purposes because of the struggle with water supply, especially at New Amri 2 and 3. Considering both the Northern and River Nile States rely heavily on agriculture economically, this dependency on agriculture adds more weight to the irrigation aim and increases people’s expectations of the dam. However, there are some concerns around dams’ agri-economic contributions, a question of distribution of benefit which mainly concentrated in the hands of the elites who can afford the costs of irrigation and electricity from hydropower. A farmer from the focus group adds that:

“The new settlement agriculture projects system is completely different; we use modern scientific methods in all agricultural stages. From choosing the crops and seeds to the dates of agriculture, irrigation and the amount of compost to be used, everything is prepared by the Agriculture Research Authority. Of course, in these agriculture projects, such a method is a qualitative transformation in the way of conducting agriculture, not a custom by the displaced communities. We introduced new crops which previously unknown to the farmers”.

The statements above and below from the farmers are based on their perception. However, these are also supported by the African Development Bank Group (2020) report, which showed that between 2018 and 2019, average productivity reached 3.1 tonnes per hectare, beside upsurges in both production and agricultural land size [71]. Also, participants suggested that Merowe dam provides relatively a stable platform for agri-economic development in the region, in the form of electrification of irrigation systems and infrastructure for transporting goods and products to markets across Sudan and including export. These benefits might also lead to an increase in irrigated land size and adoption of modern agriculture systems with the support of the Agriculture Research Authority, which send the right message to investors to invest extensively, especially targeting Arab investors. There is a sense of faith within many participants on the Merowe Dam’s support for economic development, especially through agriculture. As a local farmer stated:

“The dam is a big blessing from God. If used efficiently Sudan will develop economically through agriculture. This might support an increase of production of wheat per hectare and increase of land size per family an overall land size”

From other economic perspectives some entrepreneurs and many members of the business community led the initiative for the mega-dam as they have benefitted immensely from its construction. A businessperson in the region who runs hotels and tourist resorts which have boomed since the construction of the mega-dam said:

“Merowe Dam support energy production by injecting extra MW into Sudan’s main network, leading to stability and wide coverage in the country, especially rural areas. The development of agriculture is delivering huge benefits for the displaced. Another aim is supporting socioeconomic development through infrastructure development, such as educational facilities, roads, bridges, health facilities, other services, etc.” (E-2)

However, despite perceived overwhelming support from many stakeholders, there are reservations regarding the motivations and processes behind Merowe Dam construction. Some critics suggest that while there may be an economic rationale, political motivation is the primary driving force behind these projects.

Furthermore, the village heads also report their marginalization and harsh treatment from both the government and the DIU, which has, on occasion, resulted in violent protests. Consequently, resentment toward the dam has escalated significantly among local communities, particularly those who refuse to relocate to the new settlements. One of the village heads claims:

“The Merowe Dam is a failure, and the government should review its policies toward displaced people, or it will not be able to conduct any future projects”. (V-1)

The quote aligns with the widespread perception of mistreatment experienced by communities at the hands of the government. This sentiment was a consequence of DIU harsh treatment approach of peaceful demonstrations about relocation demands, resulting in clashes with police, injuries, and the deaths of three individuals. Many local community members in the region have voiced feelings of injustice in response to these events.

4.1.2. (D) Support Motivations but Oppose Processes

The local communities and their representatives initially supported project’s commissioning process. However, as the project progressed, challenges arose, particularly concerning handling displacement issues. The sudden nature of the displacement, coupled with insufficient notice, led to dissatisfaction and unrest among the affected communities.

“During the construction phase, we were consulted on resettlement location and the value of date trees, but they didn’t take our opinions into account… We are not opposing the project, but we requested it to be conducted on mutual terms with enough time to prepare. However, we realize that DIU only cares about building the dam at any cost. To expel us from our homes and lands, they closed the dam and submerged 2800 families without warning… At the start, everyone in the region welcomed the dam, and there was no resistance or opposition to the process until later when the citizens, especially Manasir communities, realized how the DIU treated them with no respect and as subjects not involved in any decision making, and forced to accept modernity kicking and screaming”. (V-2)

The participants suggest that initially, the Merowe Dam was welcomed by communities in the region, and the process appeared to begin smoothly. However, issues started as the project progressed, particularly during the displacement and relocation. This led to a gradual decrease in the affected communities’ support level.

4.1.3. Concerns

There are mixed views and feelings about the mega-dam among stakeholders, but one reality is that many local communities seem to have welcomed it despite some concerns.

“The goals of Merowe Dam are acceptable and reasonable, but it causes massive displacement for local communities and the way people were relocated is very bad, wasting public funds. The project did not meet the aspirations of local and regional people”. (V 2)

Most stakeholders acknowledge that there will be some negative impacts on people. Still, the lack of transparency in the process and limited information on the extent of the impact has caused discomfort to many stakeholders.

4.2. Non-Government Stakeholders

This section presents themes based on the non-government agencies/stakeholders on how they perceived mega-dam commissioning, including its motivations, processes, and outcomes. This stakeholder category has openly expressed significant concerns and questioned the motivation behind building the dam, despite agreeing with its outcomes to some extent. This is primarily due to the dam’s social impact on displaced communities and the overall commissioning process.

4.2.1. (A) Support Motivations and Outcomes—Non-Government

The stakeholders, despite not representing the government, argue that the motivations of the mega-dam commissioning were legitimate, and the project seem to provide several benefits. The ecological benefits of the mega-dam are recorded as less soil erosion, improved biodiversity in a previously arid region, reduced desertification, and improved cultivation with a higher water table. The perceptions of the participants regarding ecological benefits are primarily based on observations rather than scientific ecological measurements. A notice rises in biodiversity may reproduce changes in species structure through opportunistic or aggressive species instead of real enhancements in ecological native species variety. Likewise, expansion in flora near the reservoir might not suggest increase in desertification at a broader scale. These perceptions show the necessity to differentiate between apparent environmental improvements and systematically and scientifically proven ecological outcomes, that are reinforced by ecological investigations and longitudinal data. The perception on social benefits included increased inward migration, reduced outward migration, improved life expectancy and living conditions, integration of women into commercial/economic activities, and improved access to educational and health facilities.

“There’s no replacement for a dam except a dam; it is an important project providing stable economic development for Sudan. The dam has brought investment to the region. It can be used efficiently by building irrigation canals on both sides of the dam”. (E 1)

Other benefit claims by participants include economic benefits—higher energy production; improved intra-national and international commercial activities; increase in cultivated land; increased income with higher availability and access to other commercial activities; improved infrastructure—improved market/commercial activities.

4.2.2. (C) Support Motivations but Oppose Outcome

Many participants emphasized the positive impact of the Merowe Dam on the Sudanese economy, highlighting its role in meeting energy needs and facilitating various infrastructural developments such as roads, buildings, bridges, airports, schools, and hospitals in the region. However, despite some consensus among many participants regarding these benefits, many academic and community members have voiced concerns, particularly regarding the process of relocation and compensation. These concerns have been vocal and appear legitimate, even though there is almost universal agreement about the necessity of the dam.

“Yes, Merowe Dam construction and operation generated some jobs and new skills and provided electricity for schools and hospitals, which enhanced the living conditions for some communities in Sudan. However, there is no openness or full engagement with local communities and experts, except those who are loyal to the government. The dam was politicized and used as an election campaign to enable the Islamist Government of Ingaz to continue in power. This is misleading because politicians are not telling the whole truth about the dam to the public, especially local communities”. (A-2)

Although many participants perceive that the dam provides benefits, including ecological gains based on the reservoir—which has produced local ecological and socio-economic benefits such as enhanced water accessibility, irrigation, and fisheries, these benefits are gained at the expense of downstream areas. As Everard [26], suggests that sediment trapping reduces the nutrients flowing to valleys, leading to the deterioration of soil fertility and increased dependence on artificial inputs, which has greater consequences for ecosystems and agriculture. While these observable benefits do not constitute clear ecological benefits of mega-dams, they in fact signify a critical and unbalanced redistribution of benefits and costs.

Another participant pointed out the flaws in consultation processes and the lack of impartiality regarding whom to consult.

“The authoritarian approach of Dams Implementation Unit (DIU) on dam construction has led to artificial consultation, neglect of suitable feasibility and impact studies, and a high degree of secrecy and poor transparency. These issues were translated into clear social, cultural, and environmental damage. This was worsened by the subjective and special recruitment of technocratic and loyal engineers and academics, disregarding other experts’ input and opinions, such as ecologists and anthropologists”. (A-1)

Academics are the only stakeholders concerned about motivations, the outcome, and the processes in this mega-dam commissioning.

4.2.3. (D) Support Motivations and Oppose Processes

Some stakeholders express overall support for the role of mega-dams in the socioeconomic development of the region and beyond. However, they have reservations about the commissioning processes—pre-commissioning, during dam commissioning, and after commissioning. Some environmental and academic experts share similar concerns with NGOs regarding the Dams Implementation Unit’s (DIU) role on the process and perception among stakeholders. These experts suggest a significant level of secrecy in the DIU’s formation process, limited expert consultation, and a tendency toward militarization to some extent. As a result, highly qualified experts’ opinions, particularly in the environmental field, were overlooked or marginalized in the decision-making process.

“In terms of electricity, infrastructure and services, the dam was successful. However, in agriculture and environmental protection there are some deficiencies especially agriculture schemes of Manasir, Hamdab and Amri have many problems, in water supply for irrigation and agriculture has not flourished as it should”. Additionally, every aspect of this project was politicized and utilized as a tool to support the government and its allies, including the processes of settlement and compensation”. (A-2)

The NGOs’ perspective is largely focused on the Dam Implementation Unit (DIU), expressing dissatisfaction with how it has treated the displaced population. This dissatisfaction stems from concerns about the formation of the DIU and the power it holds, which some argue is used to suppress dissenting voices. While the DIU was intended to provide financial, emotional, and social support to affected communities, the opinions of many stakeholders suggest that it has not fulfilled this purpose.

Many politicians and academics, particularly those who oppose the government, view Merowe Dam as a political tool utilized by the government to showcase its efforts towards supporting Sudanese socioeconomic development.

“The Merowe Dam has been used as a means of election campaigning by politicians supporting the current government to win the election in 2010…the dam was politicized and used as an election campaign tool to enable the Islamist Government of Ingaz to continue in power”. (A-13)

Due to Western sanctions imposed on the Sudanese government, the government perceives the dam’s construction as a victory. This is because it managed to secure funding from China and Arab countries despite challenges posed by sanctions.

4.3. The Legislature and the Executive

These participants reflect the government’s perspective during the dam’s planning and execution. The Dam Implementation Unit (DIU), established by presidential decree, operated independently and without parliamentary oversight, granting it significant autonomy. This lack of accountability weakened project transparency and undermined standard democratic checks and balances.

4.3.1. (A) Support Motivations and Outcome

Various stakeholders, including government representatives and non-governmental external parties, support the concept and benefits of mega-dam commissioning. Government ministers argue in favor of the dam, as expected. Defending the motivation behind the commissioning, one of the ministers said:

“The idea of the dam is founded on economic viability. As the government, we acknowledge the need for ample energy to drive socioeconomic development. Prior to the dam’s construction, extensive consultations were conducted with experts, academics, and citizens from various communities. Indeed, the concept of the Merowe Dam was already ingrained in the region’s collective consciousness, and residents welcomed it despite the potential for displacement…. The dam has brought investment to the region. It can be used efficiently by building irrigation canals on both sides of the dam. There’s no replacement for a dam except a dam; it is an important project providing stable economic development for Sudan” (G-1)

One of the representatives of the opposition parties also argued in support of Merowe Dam and explained that concerns about the non-integration of communities into the strategic decision-making processes are exaggerated and unsuited for the Sudanese model. They argue that there is an urgent need first to mandate commissioning, which would lead to the socioeconomic development of the region, which in turn would lead to strengthening the institutions in the region. While criticizing the government in power for using an infrastructural project for political gains, the participant explains the dichotomy between Western ideals and the reality and need of the developing economies as follows:

“The Merowe Dam has been used as a means of election campaigning by politicians supporting the current government to win the election in 2010. The government does not believe in following the process and adhering to the Western ideas of democracy and consultation. Many officials said, ‘let it be like China, develop our economy, democracy and consultations can come later”. (O-1)

The role played by external funding exceeds projects to influence the dynamic of governance and accountability. In the case of Merowe, dependance on funding from China and Arab countries shift the government from reliant on the international institutions such as the World Bank and IMF, which typically imposes environmental degradation and social safeguards issues, such as displacement, consultation, and participation in decision. Despite this shift increasing countries’ autonomy it also reduces outside accountability to affected communities by mega-dam projects. It also promotes the centralization of decision-making processes while local communities’ concerns are marginalized. The absence of strong protection frameworks may encourage coercive management of the projects including harsh treatment of protestors and opposition. Therefore, this funding model ignores negotiating participatory engagement with the communities instead prioritize project delivery over enhancing relationship between the state and local stakeholders.

4.3.2. Concerns

The legislative and executive branches support the commissioning of the mega-dam, though concerns remain, particularly around implementation.

“Sanctions harmed the project, but it was still completed successfully. We had trouble transferring funds from Arab donors to contractors, but the turbine generators supplied by a French company were modern. The main issue came later, when sourcing spare parts from the U.S. and Europe became very difficult.” (G 2)

While both branches acknowledge challenges, their concerns focus on logistics and sanctions, rather than environmental, social, or economic impacts. Other stakeholders’ concerns appear secondary to funding and commissioning priorities. As a result, mega-dam projects often proceed despite unresolved stakeholder issues.

4.3.3. (D) Support Motivations but Oppose Processes

The main opposition parties in Sudan have limited ability to criticize the commissioning of the mega-dam due to their failure to provide a viable alternative. Despite facing internal struggles, some members of these parties’ express dissatisfaction with the mega-dam’s process and implementation.

“The government not only accepted high interest rates against its Islamic principles, it also gave up land sovereignty by leasing massive lands to Arab investors for 90 years. In addition to corruption, they wasted money on expensive media campaigning promoting the dam instead of using this money to better the condition of resettlements and displaced communities”.

Many politicians and opposition parties criticize the mega-dam from ideological and political perspectives, often aligning with viewpoints in the global north. This alignment may stem from their political ideology or scientific stance on mega-dams.

5. Discussion

Despite the growing emphasis on renewable energy transitions, fossil fuels continue to dominate global energy systems, and renewable sources—including hydropower—account for a relatively limited share of total energy consumption [IEA, 2021;] [44]. Within this context, mega-dams remain central to development strategies in many Global South countries, where they are positioned not only as energy infrastructure but also as catalysts for agricultural transformation, water regulation, and economic modernization. However, contemporary scholarship increasingly emphasizes that the sustainability and legitimacy of such projects depend less on their technical efficiency and more on governance quality, stakeholder inclusion, and resource optimization [17,20].

Existing literature on mega-dams is often characterized by polarized narratives. On the one hand, a substantial body of research—particularly within Western scholarship, emphasizes the social, environmental, and political costs of mega-dams, including displacement, ecological degradation, and governance failures [25,44,72]. On the other hand, development-oriented perspectives, particularly in emerging economies, often frame mega-dams as engines of economic growth, infrastructure development, and energy security [73] However, recent scholarship suggests that these dichotomous perspectives are insufficient for capturing the complex and context-dependent realities of mega-dam development [41,44].

The findings of this study build on and extend this emerging body of work by demonstrating that stakeholders do not adhere strictly to either of these dominant narratives. Instead, they articulate nuanced and ambivalent positions, recognizing both the developmental potential of mega-dams and the limitations associated with governance processes, participation, and implementation. In the context of the Merowe Dam, stakeholders generally view mega-dams as viable tools for addressing structural challenges in rural economies—such as limited irrigation, infrastructure deficits, and energy access—while simultaneously questioning procedural decisions, institutional transparency, and the distribution of benefits.

We acknowledge that the findings presented in this study reflect the perspectives of a defined stakeholder sample—comprising 32 key informant interviews and a ten-member community focus group—and should be interpreted accordingly as qualitative, context-specific evidence rather than a statistical representation of the broader population affected by the Merowe Dam. As is characteristic of qualitative case study research, the analytical value of these findings lies in their depth, contextual richness, and capacity to illuminate mechanisms, rather than in their generalizability across cases [74,75]. Several features of the research context may warrant caution in direct transferability: the DIU’s highly centralized and politically insulated governance structure, Sudan’s particular institutional environment during the commissioning period, and the ethno-regional dynamics of the Nile catchment communities all may have shaped stakeholder perceptions [76]. The findings that distrust of the DIU or dissatisfaction with consultation processes featured prominently in participant accounts, therefore, may be read as evidence that these experiences are present, meaningful, and analytically significant within this stakeholder group—not as a universal, predominant, or quantitatively measurable claim which applies across all affected communities. This interpretive boundary is consistent with established qualitative research standards, which hold that transferability—rather than generalizability—is the appropriate criterion for evaluating case study findings, and that theoretical insights derived from a single case can contribute to broader analytical frameworks precisely because they are grounded in contextual specificity rather than despite it [74,77].

From an agricultural and sustainability perspective, these findings require careful interpretation. While stakeholders report increased irrigation capacity, expansion of cultivated land, and improvements in productivity, contemporary research highlights that such outcomes do not necessarily equate to sustainable development unless supported by efficient water allocation and long-term resource management [20,21]. The expansion of irrigation systems may, in the absence of optimization, contribute to water inefficiencies, increased demand pressures, and ecological stress, particularly in arid environments. This suggests that the observed agricultural gains may represent short- to medium-term improvements rather than sustained, system-wide transformation [78]. Furthermore, sustainable agricultural water management is progressively critical due to increased pressures on resources. Optimization frameworks are commonly deployed to advance productivity, but lacks integration remain in water footprint, climate, and socio-economic factors. Therefore, stakeholders require functional, data-driven tools to improve productivity, resilience, and equitable water use, especially in water-scarce regions such as Merowe region [78]. Furthermore, the application of sustainability approach aligning with the SDGs (6, 7, 10, 15) and the SJOS framework, if used correctly may enable better understanding of environmental impact and social justice in the form of participation and equal voice within the power dynamic of the stakeholders to determine the project outcomes.

These dynamics can be further understood through the lens of energy justice and governance, which emphasize the importance of equitable distribution, procedural inclusion, and recognition of affected stakeholders [42]. The findings suggest that while many participants recognized developmental benefits of the dam, they also express concerns regarding exclusion from decision-making processes. This reflects a tension between distributive outcomes (e.g., improved infrastructure and irrigation) and procedural shortcomings (e.g., limited participation and transparency). Such tensions are consistent with broader critiques of infrastructure-led development, where governance structures play a decisive role in shaping outcomes [41].

In contrast, non-governmental and independent stakeholders tend to emphasize governance failures, environmental risks, and social inequalities. These perspectives reinforce concerns that mega-dam projects are often embedded within centralized and technocratic decision-making systems, where accountability is limited and stakeholder engagement is constrained. The role of institutions such as the Dam Implementation Unit (DIU) illustrates how governance arrangements can influence both perceptions and outcomes, particularly when decision-making processes lack transparency and inclusivity.

The governance pattern identified at Merowe—in which communities broadly support development objectives but withdraw legitimacy from institutions that bypass participatory mechanisms—resonates with evidence from different territorial yet comparable disruption contexts. Cordoba Hernández et al. [79] demonstrate, through analysis of post-volcanic recovery planning in La Palma (Spain), that top-down processes in contexts of high territorial disruption consistently reproduce analogous dynamics: affected populations accept the necessity of transformation but resist institutions that exclude them from deliberation. Although the La Palma case involves disaster-driven territorial reconfiguration rather than dam-induced displacement, both cases share a structurally similar governance failure: the prioritization of technical efficiency and political speed over inclusive deliberation. The parallel is particularly salient in agricultural communities, where territorial transformations—whether through forced resettlement, volcanic land loss, or irrigation scheme realignment—directly restructure livelihood systems and cultural landscapes, making the quality of participation a precondition rather than an adjunct of sustainability. This cross-context resonance strengthens the analytical claim of our study by situating the Merowe findings within a broader pattern visible across the Global North and South alike, across institutional contexts.

Crucially, Cordoba Hernandez et al. (2026) [79] also demonstrate that participatory deficit can reduce the effectiveness of public policies and territorial reconstruction processes. Additionally, Cordoba Hernández et al. (2025) document that governance systems which overlook community input in the planning stage may lose the flexibility necessary to course-correct when initial decisions prove inadequate [80]. In our study, we also report that the DIU’s failure to integrate community preferences—particularly regarding irrigation scheme design and water supply arrangements. Therefore, we argue, that an absence of participatory mechanisms led to social discontent and other challenges, because locally held knowledge about land, water systems, and livelihood practices was systematically excluded from the design and implementation process. Hence, participation needs to be perceived as a functional input into the adaptive capacity of any territorial transformation program. Territorial resilience, therefore, may be achieved by enabling communities to adapt and reconstitute livelihoods under qualitatively new conditions [79,80], by empowering them as active agents. Our study shows that stakeholders who retained some agency in selecting resettlement sites or crop systems exhibit higher adaptive capacity than those subjected to administrative allocation without consultation.

This study, therefore, supports the claim, based on new and developing knowledge, that institutions that deliver tangible outcomes—electricity, irrigation infrastructure, roads—but exclude communities from deliberation still suffer legitimacy deficits, because populations evaluate governance processes alongside outcomes [79]. Drawing on parallel Spanish cases of large-scale territorial disruption [79,80]—further strengthens the central analytical argument of our study. The comparative evidence further validates our evidence of missing a systematic stakeholder engagement that prioritizes infrastructure delivery over deliberative legitimacy—across both the Global South and Europe. Bris et al. (2026) reinforce this by documenting that the absence of participatory frameworks in early decision-making stages generates a regulatory vacuum in which political urgency consistently overrides community knowledge, technical standards, and adaptive planning [81]. In our findings, the absence of clear protocols for community engagement in both resettlement design and agricultural planning created comparable spaces in which improvised and politically expedient decisions prevailed over inclusive, evidence-based governance. This comparative grounding further strengthens our study’s policy contribution: a recommendation for deeper stakeholder engagement and transparent governance in mega-dam commissioning as an empirically validated condition for the effectiveness, resilience, and long-term agricultural sustainability of large-scale territorial transformation.

This study also highlights the persistence of authoritarian modernization narratives, where rapid economic development is prioritized over participatory governance. While such approaches may facilitate infrastructure delivery and short-term economic gains, they raise important questions regarding long-term sustainability and social legitimacy. When evaluated against frameworks such as the Safe and Just Operating Space (SJOS), these development pathways may fall short of balancing environmental limits with social justice, particularly in relation to the equitable distribution of benefits and the inclusion of affected communities.

The comparison with governance models such as the Mekong River Commission (MRC) further underscores the importance of institutional design [82]. While the MRC demonstrates the potential of participatory and multi-level governance, its applicability to the Nile Basin is constrained by historical agreements, geopolitical tensions, and asymmetrical power relations [19,43]. This highlights the need for context-specific governance solutions, rather than the direct transfer of institutional models.

Importantly, the contribution of this study lies in moving beyond fragmented or polarized accounts and offering a relational, stakeholder-oriented understanding of mega-dam impacts. By foregrounding stakeholder perspectives, this study reveals how perceptions are context-contingent and mediated through lived experience, rather than predetermined by ideological positions. Such insights are often overlooked in macro-level or quantitative analyses, which may fail to capture the micro-level dynamics of power, participation, and legitimacy that shape development outcomes [60,73].

6. Conclusions and Policy Implications

The case of the Merowe Dam suggests that mega-dam projects produce simultaneous benefits and tensions, reflecting the complex interaction between development objectives, governance processes, and stakeholder dynamics. The finding suggests some improvement in irrigation, agricultural productivity and energy access these improvements were widely reported by participants. However, these perceived gains are unevenly distributed and accompanied by significant challenges related to displacement, participation, and environmental change.

From a theoretical perspective, this study contributes to existing debates by providing empirically grounded, stakeholder-centered insights that refine prevailing narratives on mega-dam development. Rather than reinforcing binary interpretations, the findings demonstrate that stakeholder perceptions are nuanced, context-dependent, and shaped by governance arrangements, thereby extending current understanding of infrastructure development in the Global South.

Policy Implications.

First, future mega-dam projects should prioritize integrated and sustainable water resource management, ensuring that irrigation expansion is aligned with water-use efficiency, crop suitability, and long-term ecological sustainability. This includes incorporating optimization-based planning approaches and monitoring resource use to prevent overexploitation.

7. Limitations

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, this research adopts an exploratory qualitative design and therefore does not aim for statistical generalizability. Instead, the findings offer analytical transferability to contexts with similar socio-political and developmental characteristics. The absence of generalizability does not undermine the validity or rigour of this study; rather, its strength lies in capturing in-depth, contextually grounded stakeholder perspectives, which are often overlooked in macro-level or purely quantitative analyses [73].

Second, this study is based on a relatively small sample, including a focus group with ten participants and thirty-two semi-structured interviews. While this may appear limited from a quantitative standpoint, such sample sizes are consistent with established qualitative research standards. Focus groups typically function effectively within a range of 6–12 participants, allowing for both diversity of perspectives and meaningful interaction [63,65]. Similarly, qualitative interview studies commonly rely on smaller, purposively selected samples to generate depth rather than breadth, with evidence suggesting that thematic saturation can often be achieved within samples of this size, particularly when participants are information-rich and aligned with the research objectives [63,64,65].

In this study, sample adequacy was guided by the principle of information power, whereby the sufficiency of the sample depends on the specificity of the research aim, the relevance of participants, and the quality of dialogue rather than numerical representativeness [64]. The purposive inclusion of stakeholders across different positions—affected communities, experts, and policymakers—enabled the generation of diverse yet focused insights. Moreover, the combination of interviews and a focus group allowed for data triangulation, enhancing the depth and credibility of the findings [62]. Accordingly, while the sample size is modest, it is methodologically appropriate for the exploration and interpretive aims of this study.

Third, the data were collected in 2017, and Sudan has since experienced significant political and economic changes. The findings should therefore be interpreted as reflecting a specific temporal and institutional context, particularly in relation to governance structures and stakeholder relations at the time of the fieldwork. Nevertheless, this study continues to provide relevant insights into the broader dynamics of infrastructure development, governance, and stakeholder engagement in comparable contexts.

Fourth, this study was conducted in a politically sensitive environment, which may have influenced participant responses. Although measures such as anonymization, in-person engagement, and triangulation were employed to mitigate potential bias, it is possible that some participants—particularly those associated with state institutions—moderated their views due to perceived risks. These challenges are inherent in research conducted under authoritarian or semi-authoritarian governance conditions and have been explicitly considered through this study’s reflexive approach.

Fifth, the participation of women in this study was limited due to time constraints and the need to navigate sociocultural norms in rural Sudan, where women’s involvement in mixed-gender public discussions and externally facilitated research may be restricted [83] (Kevane, 2004). Accessing women’s perspectives in such contexts typically requires extended engagement with community gatekeepers and the use of gender-sensitive methodologies, including women-led data collection or gender-segregated discussions (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007); [84]. While this limitation reflects broader structural and cultural constraints rather than methodological oversight, it nonetheless restricts the inclusion of gendered and domestic-level perspectives.

The limited participation of women constrains the ability to fully capture household-level dynamics and gender-differentiated impacts of the Merowe Dam. Integrating women’s perspectives could reveal alternative configurations of power and distinct sustainability priorities grounded in lived experience [83,85]. Future research should therefore prioritize inclusive and culturally appropriate approaches to engage women stakeholders more effectively.

Finally, as a qualitative study, the findings are based on stakeholder perceptions and interpretations rather than independently verified quantitative measures. While this approach does not establish causal relationships, it provides critical insights into how mega-dam impacts are experienced, understood, and negotiated, complementing existing quantitative and macro-level research.