My class has just concluded a module in Water Economics and as part of the course requirement we had to choose a project that would account for almost half of the final grade. My group and I decided to work on the Nile under the title “Challenges and Opportunities in the Nile Basin Conflict: Proposed Interventions for Conflict Resolution”. To be honest, I had never really taken time to understand the intricate politics that surround the Nile Basin and what I found not only captured my imagination and interest but also made for one of the best research topics I have done in a long time out of what I would call my areas of interest.
The Nile is the longest River in the world covering 6,600Km originating from the White Nile and Blue Nile and has 10 countries laying claim to it (Egypt, Ethiopia, Sudan, South Sudan, Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, Burundi and Republic Democratic of Congo). The estimated average annual flow of the river at the Aswan Dam in Egypt is 84 billion cubic meters with an estimated loss of 10 billion cubic meters to evaporation. The sharing of the water in the Nile River has mostly always been under contention with threats of war traded between the main contributor Ethiopia and the main user Egypt. The conflict on the utilization and allocation of the Nile can be partly attributed to the colonial treaties made by the British on behalf of its colonies. The treaties of 1902, 1929 and 1959 gave Egypt the veto powers over the Nile allocating it 55.5 billion cubic meters while Sudan took a share of 18.5 billion cubic meters. Through these treaties downstream countries were not to carry any development along the Nile or participate in any activities that would affect the water flow on the Nile. After gaining independence the countries wanted these treaties rendered absolute and a new sharing mechanism established. However, to date this dream is yet to be realized.
The Nile has always been an important resource for Egypt and more so because of its geographic location and climatic conditions. It is estimated that about 99% of Egypt’s population live along the Nile River and depend on it for household and agricultural supply. This therefore, may explain the reason why Egypt is not enthusiastic about embracing new water sharing mechanism and agreement. However, with economic development and population increase in the Riparian States the status quo will have to change. Countries like Ethiopia are flexing their muscle with the construction of the Grand Renaissance Dam along the Blue Nile which has a capacity of 74 billion cubic meters and an estimated power generation capacity of 6000 MW and other countries have stated their intention on future developments. Holding on to the colonial agreements therefore, is absolutely naïve for Egypt and yet the other Riparian countries have not been able to present a united front in challenging this position.
One may ask what efforts have been made towards the resolution of the Nile conflict and rightly so. There have been many initiatives but the most notable one is the Nile Basin Initiative through which the Riparian States were able to develop the Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA) of 2010. The CFA outlines the principles, rights and obligations for cooperative management and development of the Nile Basin water resources. This treaty seeks to promote and establish a framework to “promote integrated management, sustainable development, and harmonious utilization of the water resources of the Basin, as well as their conservation and protection for the benefit of the present and future generations”. It creates a forum where permanent institutional mechanisms can be established to facilitate cooperation among the Basin’s States in the sustainable management and development of the River Nile and in the resolution of conflict. However, the agreement was met with mixed reactions and Egypt and Sudan declined to sign which backtracked the efforts put by the Nile Basin Initiative towards finding a lasting solution in the allocation, use and conflict resolution in the basin. So why will Sudan and Egypt not sign?
Even though all riparian States agreed to the contents of the agreement Egypt and Sudan were not in agreement with Article 14 which introduced the aspect of water security and therefore failed to sign the agreement. Article 14 (b) reads “not to significantly affect the water security of any other Nile Basin State.” However, Egypt and Sudan proposed an amendment to Article 14(b) to “not to adversely affect the water security and current uses and rights of any other Nile Basin State” which was rejected by other States who viewed it as a bid by Egypt and Sudan to reinforce the colonial treaties therefore going against the vision of the Nile Basin Initiative. Egypt and Sudan saw Article 14 as one that threatened their rights and access to the water in River Nile and challenged the veto powers guaranteed by the 1929 and 1959 treaties. Furthermore Egypt wanted the definition of the Nile River System changed to include both environmental protection and water allocation which would mean that the Nile River would not only include the 84km3 but also 1600km3 rainwater that Egypt claims falls over the basin.
The position of Egypt and Sudan was vehemently opposed by the other Riparian States and to date only six countries have signed the CFA (Tanzania, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, and Burundi) and only three States (Tanzania, Ethiopia and Rwanda) have ratified it. It is surprising that Uganda which hosts the offices for the Nile Basin Initiative has not ratified the agreement highlighting the cracks that exist in the cooperation efforts. Another great challenge faced by the countries is the lack of data and an information sharing platform. The suspicion that exists between states has hampered any chance of working together and many continue to hold on to their hard lines.
We submitted our findings and developed our own sharing mechanism that we felt could work for the Nile Riparian States. We made several assumptions and considered different variables in developing a mechanism for the Nile. You can expect that emotions ran high during the presentation with the majority of the class coming from the Nile Riparian States. Our conclusion as a group was that the Nile conflict is complex but all the States need to look at the Nile afresh and with a clear mind. Countries need to compromise in their demands and expectations bearing in mind that a successful agreement provides room for cooperation and water trading rights and development of a water market to the benefit all States.