Paper Presented by Girma Amare to the VIII th Nile 2002
Conference (26 June 2000)
What makes the Nile river unique and challenging among most
international basins,
besides its remoteness and the manifestation of disproportionate level of
development within the basin, is the almost total absence of
any meaningful
cooperation and comprehensive agreement among the ten
watercourse states. This
negative feature which is peculiar to the Nile has become an
obstacle, so far, for any
effective cooperation, development of joint projects and
investment in the basin -
thus causing the Nile to flow without any significant contribution to the welfare of
its close to 300 million inhabitants who are among the most
impoverished and where
five of the world's ten Least Developed Countries are found.
The major impediment on the road towards effective
cooperation on the Nile, has
been the position of some lower riparian states who are bent
on appropriating the
entire flow of the river to the detriment of other rightful
states. There seems to be an
entrenched desire not to accept the legitimate rights of
other riparian states to share
in its bountiful resources. Both history and nature have
collided to lend credence to
this deep seated desire, sustained by a myth that
"Egypt is the gift of the
Nile" to
assert monopolistic claim over the entire course of the
river.
Historically, the reasons giving rise for such unfair status
quo could be attributed to
British colonialism which had a deep interest in the control
of the Nile for its cotton
plantation to supply its industries in Europe. "The
colonial treaties and the
condominium over Sudan were designed mainly to protect
Egypt's interests in the
basin, since for many strategic and economic reasons
Egypt had become the most
important Nile basin riparian state for the British
colonizers."[1] After independence
Egypt pursued more or less similar goals in securing the
flow of the river to meet its
own interests.
In contrast, upper riparian countries who were embroiled in
endless conflicts and
general instability, were unable to give full attention to
the development of their
water resources. In the absence of formidable challenge,
Egypt in particular, carried
out series of major
water projects that had the consequences of not only
appropriating large portions of the Nile waters, but also
bringing the flow within its
sovereign jurisdiction. It deployed all human, material and
scientific resources to put
in place the legal and institutional structures that could
enable it acquire full
monopoly over the river.
In this connection, some of the major step taken by
Egypt, by co-opting Sudan,
was the conclusion of the 1959 Agreement to appropriate
all the waters of the Nile
between themselves. In the agreement Sudan as a junior
partner, was allotted 18.5
billion cubic meters of water while Egypt retained 55.5
billion cubic meters __ which
is the lions share.
Egypt and Sudan have made a provision in the Agreement
"to study together" and
"adopt unified view" on other riparian claims to
share in the Nile waters. "If
such
studies result in the possibility of allocating an amount of
the Nile waters to one or
the other of these territories, then the value of this
amount as at Aswan shall be
deducted in equal shares from the share of each of the two
Republics."
Neither of the upper riparian states were consulted nor
given advance notice.
Nevertheless, all the upstream states have dully rejected
the 1959 Agreement and
have expressly stated, at different occasions, that they are
not bound by it on the
basis of the cardinal principle in the Law of Treaties: res
inter alios acta.
Egypt and Sudan, however, continue to act as if the Nile
starts in Sudan and ends in
Egypt. They have refused to heed to the call by other
riparian states for the
equitable utilization of their shared resources. Despite
divergence of views between
the two down stream countries in the use of the Nile waters,
they have, however,
found it in their common strategic interest to forge common
positions and challenge
any move by upstream countries to utilize water from the
Nile. This uncompromising
attitude has always marred relations between the upper and
lower riparian countries
of the Nile.
With the aim of consolidating absolute control over the
Nile, Egypt has proceeded
with the construction of the Aswan High Dam within its own
territory by rejecting
other less controversial projects like the Century Scheme.
In the words of Arun, the
construction of the Aswan High Dam made a marked departure
from former plans
known a the Century Plans, which had the aim of
building series of dams along the
entire course of the river, to regulate and optimize the use
of the river among all the
riparian states.
( Hydro-politics
in the Third World, Conflict and Cooperation in
International
River Basins (19990) by Arun P.Elhance)
The principal objective of the Century Scheme was the
regulation of the whole of the
Nile river as an integrated and natural basin. "The
basic notion is simple: to remove
the unpredictable element from the Nile discharge would
require storing several
successive annual floods; that is, storing annual difference
between real needs and
total discharge"[2]
The proposed projects on the Nile were expected to benefit all
the countries on the entire course of the river i.e. both
the upper and lower riparian
states. The projects
had the ardent support of the Sudan and
the upper riparian
States...
However, all the proposals under the Century Scheme were
abandoned in favor of
the construction of a single giant Aswan High Dam which
would provide Egypt with
adequate supply of water and complete control over the whole
of the Nile. The main
objective of the High Aswan Dam was to secure a source of
water within Egyptian
territory and creating
a strong bargaining position in future hydropolitics with
neighbors.
Branded as Nasser's "pyramid" by some critics, and "the most recent
(and surely
not the last)
manifestation of Egypt's struggle to dominate rather than coexist with
the Nile Valley, the dam has drawn fire and acclaim since
its very inception in the late
1950s[3]". In
the words of Arun " The Century
Storage Scheme had a major flaw
from the Egyptian perspective in that all of the proposed
projects were to be located
outside its territory.
This did not sit well with the highly nationalistic leadership
that came to power in Egypt
under Nasser in 1952."[4] The multi project Century
Storage Scheme proposal of 1946 was thus mostly put aside in
favor of the plan for
one giant water project within Egyptian territory.
Thus the Century Storage Scheme
which if pursued to successful completion would have opened
wide opportunities
for fostering interstate cooperation between the countries
of the Nile, was dashed
simply to satisfy the monopolistic desire of one single
country- Egypt.
The
Nile as a Hydrological Unit
In contrast to geo-political considerations and national
interests of states, the
hydrological nature of river basins do not encourage or lend
support to separate or
unilateral developments.
By its own nature, the utilization of transboundary rivers
dictates joint and cooperative management to attain optimal and sustainable
development. River
basins form a system which need to be managed as an
integrated whole to derive maximum benefits. Unlike sovereign territories of states,
international watercourses do not follow geographical or
political boundaries. They
are anathema to geographical boundaries and do not recognize
political divisions of
States.
To derive maximum benefits, avoid wastage, and save water,
it is absolutely
essential that states sharing international watercourses
forge closer cooperation
among themselves to optimize this finite commodity. It is in their own national
interest to conserve and develop their shared natural
resources through mutual
consultation and cooperation. Water after all is a most essential biological need and
valuable economic good.
Competition and rivalry will
only help to deplete it and
cause permanent damage to the very resource on which
livelihood and welfare of the
people depend.
Hence, states bordering international watercourses have no other
option but to cooperate.
The greatest dilemma and challenge, however, under
international law in the use of
international water resources is how best to strike a
balance between this inherent
natural attribute of water as a hydrological unit and the
conflicting interests of states
to utilize its waters to serve their ever increasing
demands. The dilemma is even
more compounded, today, considering the rapid growth and
advancement in
technology which can enable one country to appropriate all
waters of a given shared
river for itself.
The search for solution then should, out of necessity, be compatible
with the environmental, ecological sustainability of
the whole basin while at the
same line satisfying the vital needs of each riparian state
for the use of water.
It is only in the proper understanding and appreciation
of this inherent nature and
complexity of rivers,
that states are compelled to assume their concomitant
obligation to try, no matter what, to resolve their
differences and enter into
cooperation to achieve optimal and sustainable development
of their common fresh
water resources. In
this regard, water in its own nature,
having multiplicity of use
can afford a number of possibilities in the search for
solutions. Based on the
natural phenomenon of rivers, a number of countries in many
parts of the world have
devised various means and
ways, depending on their
relative advantage to share
and develop international watercourses traversing their
territories. It is estimated
that there are close to 300 agreements between states
dealing with the sharing of
this vital resource.
The Nile can not be an exception to this general law of
international rivers. It is
incumbent upon the ten riparian states to seat and negotiate a workable formula for
the sharing of the Nile bounty.
Unfortunately, hydropolitics has taken the front seat
in the inter play of forces
among the riparian States of the Nile. Their relationship is marred with suspicion
and misunderstanding. There is, mistrust and recrimination
among the Nile States
regarding each others motives. It is not uncommon for
Egypt to always find an
Israeli conspiracy on any project in Ethiopia to raise
sometimes deliberately false
alarms as a deterrent to any challenge to its monopolistic
claim over the Nile.
One would get lots of insight from the recently held
conference in Cairo aptly
entitled the "Arab Waters". As its very name
signifies there is a systematic and well
thought out campaign to portray Nile as an exclusively
Arab water, and the rest
posing threats against Arab interests, although the
Nile wholly originates in African
States. There could
be no purpose served in such exercise unless aimed at driving a
wedge between what are called African and Arab States. After all, only two of the
ten riparian states of the Nile can correctly be referred to
as Arabs while the rest are
Africans. Engaging
in such polemics and diatribe will only help in exacerbating
tension and increase the risk of confrontation. The best course of action for the Nile
riparian states is to face squarely their hydrological unity
and interdependence and
endeavor to work out
formulas to cooperatively develop integrated joint projects for
transboundary benefits.
As long as disputes over water linger unsettled, it is bound
to have spill over effect
on the development of amicable relations among the riparian
states. It can also
hamper the riparian states from making substantial
improvement in their bilateral and
multilateral relations.
"Interstate relations are similarly strained in the Nile Basin,
where Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan have each blamed the other
from time to time of
fomenting unrest and supporting rebellion within their
neighboring territories"[5]
The hydropolitics of water in the Nile that tends to see a
"Zero- sum game where
one player's gain is seen
as other's loss is incompatible with hydrological character
of water. It is
deeply flawed and cannot bring long-lasting solution among the
riparian states.
Continued lack of hydrological
cooperation exacerbates tension. In
the absence of hydrological cooperation, competition for
water could lead to the
depletion of the water resources and degradation of the
environment "From the long
term perspective lack of cooperation in international basins
turns out to be
"lose-lose" or beggar- they - neighbor"
game for all the players. Therefore the
hydropolitcs of water on the Nile should give way to
hydrological cooperation with
the aim of achieving a 'win -win' game for all concerned to
cooperatively develop its
vast potential for the beneficial use of all its riparian
states.
It is important to maintain cooperation among the
watercourse states on the use of
their transboundry resources even when there is no friendly
relations between
them. "The
covert hydropolitical cooperatives between Israel and Jordan, which
coexisted with and then outlasted a state of war between the
two countries is a case
in point.[6] Even though the pendulum of political relations
between lower and upper
riparian states may fluctuate depending on a given
situation, it is always advisable
that the riparian countries who are intrinsically linked to
each other by the great river
keep close contact on regular basis at scholarly, technical
and experts level. [7] The
hydrological interdependencies between the riparian states
dictates from taking
unilateral actions affecting the natural basin. In this regard, the series of Nile 2002
Conferences on the Nile afford an ideal forum for discussion
between the riparian
states devoid of political positions. The Ethio-Sudan and Ethio-Egypt technical
experts committee on the Nile can also make positive
contribution towards such
cooperation.
Reaching an amicable solution in negotiation over an
international river may prove
frustrating and at
times, insurmountable left only to the concerned parties
themselves. Under this situation, the facilitation of
neutral third parties may play a
significant role. In
this regard, the role of the World Bank in inducing the 1960 Indus
Water Treaty between India and Pakistan is worth
mentioning. Other areas where
third parties can make a difference is in participating in
capacity building program
within the Nile
riparian countries.
It is worth noting, here, that water in its hydrological element
affords ranging
opportunities for the distribution of benefits among the
different countries drained
by the river. As
already indicated, water has in its nature a multiplicity of uses.
Depending on the geographical location and hydrographic,
hydrological, climatic,
ecological and other natural factors water can be used in
variety of ways in different
circumstances. Where
water may be most useful for hydropower
generation in one
area, it may be more practical for irrigation in other parts
of the basin. Interstate
cooperation could find appropriate remedy to apportion
benefits for each country
depending on its relative location and natural advantage.
Through joint projects watercourse states can develop
schemes to save more water
in the basin. While
some marshlands could be drained to add surplus into the
stream, other conservation projects could be developed in
highland areas to
conserve water. Instead of erecting huge dams in the sands
of the Sahara which is
exposed to extreme evaporation, siltation, and seepage water
could easily be
conserved in the cool and temperate highlands of Ethiopia.
It is estimated that about
ten billion cubic meters of water is being lost in the
Sahara because of the vast High
Aswan Dam.
The adoption of the Convention on the Non Navigational Uses
of International
Watercourses in May 1997 by the UN General Assembly could
also give sufficient
framework for the negotiation and conclusion of
agreements. The Convention
prescribes two basic
principles equitable utilization as the prominent and primary
concept followed by no significant harm as a guideline to be
followed by states in
the appropriation of their shared water resources. Although
the Convention has not
yet come into force for lack of the required number of
ratification, there is no doubt
that it reflects the general consensus by which states can
negotiate their water
rights and duties.
The fact that the Convention was formulated as a general
framework and not in specific binding provisions is intended
to give sufficient
latitude and flexibility for states in their negotiation to
reach agreements.
Basic
Impediments toward Nile Cooperation
As has been stated, over and over again, the major stumbling
block toward Nile
cooperation has been the desire by some lower riparian
states to have full and
unchallenged control over the Nile. In particular, the demand by Egypt over the
Nile
is not only limited to satisfying its water needs but goes
far beyond, to securing its
strategic interests.
Egypt may not be satisfied just to ensure its water needs but
also to have full control of the Nile waters within its
territory which gives no room
for negotiation with upper riparian states.
Depending on the decision of other Nile riparian states for
the flow of Nile water has
always remained a nightmare for Egyptian policy makers. This
sense of vulnerability
and insecurity, has always formed the corner stone of
Egyptian policy on the Nile.
To remedy their Achilles' heels, Egyptian policy makers have
pursued two track
policy of cooperative effort in guaranteeing the uninterrupted flow of water as long
as it serves their interest and resorting to arms twisting
to secure unimpeded flow of
the water. One can
only make note of the threat by former President Sadat to resort
to arms if their interest on the Nile is to be jeopardized.
As long as this perception of
extreme vulnerability of Egypt persists, it might harm the
effort for cooperative
relations among the riparian states compatible with the
hydrological
interdependency of the states.
Some
Positive Developments on the Nile
It is interesting to note that, despite the hard
feelings, Nile riparian States have now
embarked on a new spirit of cooperation, with clear departure
from the past, on a
path towards working together. This spirit is triggered, for the first time in the Nile
history, by an Agreed Minutes Signed between nine of the
riparian states, in
September 1998 in Arusha, Tanzania.
The Agreed Minutes does not say much by way of substance on
the type or extent
of the cooperation.
It merely asserts, albeit in a more general and cautious tone, that
the countries of the basin are embarking on cooperation
"without prejudice to all the
rights and obligation each riparian state has under
international law to the equitable
use of the Waters of the Nile"
Under the arrangement the Nile countries have adopted the Nile River Basin
Strategic Action
Program which sets the policy
guidelines for cooperation on the
Nile. The Strategic
Action Program comprises of two complementary sub-programs:-
the first being the Shared Vision which is developed at the Basin - Wide level "while
the second is the Subsidiary Action Program which realizes the vision through
action on the ground. " While the Shared Vision is
being developed and promoted at
basin wide level, building commitment and clear goals, it
needs to filter down to the
country local level.
However, the Shared Vision cannot stand alone, it has to be
reconciled and fed by actions on the ground actions which
meet the needs of the
people and build trust and confidence among the riparian
countries."
It is worth noting here that, all the Nile countries have
agreed on Shared Vision for
the Nile Basin whose objective is " To achieve
sustainable socio-economic
development through the equitable utilization of, and
benefit from, the common Nile
Basin Water resources"
The envisaged cooperative framework charts a parallel
approach towards Nile
development. The
task of the first under the Shared
Vision, will be the creation of
an enabling environment for investment and action on the
ground, within a
basin-wide framework.
It comprises of 5 broad themes.
1.
1. Cooperative Framework (Project
D3, ongoing)
2.
2. Confidence building and
stockholder involvement
3.
3. Socio-economic, environmental
and sectoral analysis
4.
4. Development and investment
planning
5.
5. Applied training
Most important of the five themes is the first one - the
Cooperative Framework D3,
which is an ongoing program sponsored by the UNDP where
three experts from each
riparian countries are represented to draw up the general
principles governing
relations between all the watercourse countries on the use
of the Nile waters. Most
importantly, the experts are charged to adopt basic
principles on the Nile, similar to
those already in place and
applicable in other basins,
which could enable the
riparian states to share and allocate the waters of their
shared resources. The
Committee of Experts, after deliberating on the principles for the Framework
Agreement on the basis of the Convention on the Non
Navigational Uses of
International Watercourses, for the last three years could
not come up with an
agreed framework and has decided to submit its report to the
Nile COM for further
instruction.
The second track which is the Subsidiary Action Program,
will comprise actual
development projects at the sub-basin level, involving two
or more countries. This
is expected to allow the move from planning to action.
In order to implement the Subsidiary Action Program Nile
countries are expected to
participate on the basis of the sub-basin they share in
common. As a result, the
countries of the Nile are sub divided into - Eastern Nile
consisting of Ethiopia,
Eritrea, Sudan and Egypt and 2 and the Southern Nile
consisting of Burundi,
Rwanda, Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, DRC Sudan and Egypt.
For the purpose of maintaining dialogue among the riparian
states, the Nile countries
have created a transitional institutional Framework. First, the (Nile-COM) is the main
policy and guidance forum for Nile Basin Cooperation. The Nile COM has
established the TAC
as an inclusive transitional initial mechanism to coordinate
joint activities.
Once the international and legal mechanism being developed at the
D3 came to successful completion, it will take over the task
entrusted to the TAC.
The Nil-Tac will establish working groups to undertake
specific tasks.
What makes the present cooperation framework different from
the past, is the active
participation of the World Bank and other international
organizations like the UNDP,
FAO and CIDA as facilitators. It is hoped that the participation of the World Bank
and its partners will facilitate cooperation among the Nile
States and encourage
development of this vast and huge resource for the benefit
of close to 300 million
peoples where some of the most impoverished and 5 of the 10 least developing
countries in the world are found. In doing so, it is hoped that the World Bank will
also play a positive role in reconsidering its lending
policy by which lower riparian
countries as in the past will not be allowed to dictate
terms by taking undue
advantage of the "no objection clause" to veto or
prevent the implementation of
projects on the upper reaches of the Nile, where poverty,
malnutrition, drought and
famine are rampant.
The intervention of the Bank
along with the donor community
can play a big role in building the confidence to bring
about conducive atmosphere
and induce a change in the unjust status quo which is
prevailing on the Nile today.
Conclusion
It is obvious that the Nile has remained intractable and
challenging both in terms of
not being amenable to negotiation as well as remaining
untapped, and under-
utilized river, with almost no significant benefit to large
number of its peoples. This
state of affairs cannot be tolerated to continue, if the
enormous potential of this
world's longest river should be developed, impending tension
removed and
conducive atmosphere for investment created for the benefit
of its highly
impoverished and malnourished peoples.
The Nile is no exception to other international basins which
have managed to find
amicable breakthroughs and reached arrangements for the
reasonable and equitable
utilization of the water resources. The sustainablity of the river as well as
the
prosperity of the peoples of the basin is best served
through cooperation of the
riparian states.
They are interdependent on each other and their future development
is inevitably linked to the hydrological cycle of the river.
Attempts, hitherto pursued one way or the other, to deny or
exclude some from their
natural and legitimate rights cannot succeed and must not be
tolerated any longer.
The yearning for the proper allocation of water among the
Nile riparian countries
cannot be postponed indefinitely. Sooner than later this
issue has to be addressed
if there is going to be lasting and durable cooperation on
the Nile.
It must be the realization and proper recognition of this
inevitable reality, that has
recently prompted the nine riparian states, though belatedly,
to embark on a path
towards Nile Basin Cooperation in 1998 in Arusha. It is too early at this stage, to
comment on the prospect of this nascent initiative. However, one can say it is the
way forward considering the history of the Nile, which is
devoid of such experience.
One would only hope it will gather momentum and gain
confidence, nourished by
experiences from other river basins and assisted by
international partners whose
intervention has made a difference elsewhere in the world.