Nile River: Need to Resolve Conflict Between Ethiopia and Egypt
By Opiyo Dancan
Since the construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) in 2011, it has been a significant source of tension between Ethiopia and Egypt. However, it also presents a potential catalyst for cooperation and mutual understanding. The GERD offers a glimmer of hope in an otherwise tense situation, demonstrating that even in the face of conflict, there are opportunities for collaboration and shared benefits.
The dispute revolves around the dam’s potential impact on Egypt’s water supply, which is heavily dependent on the Nile River. Egypt views the construction of the GERD as an existential threat as it could reduce the country’s water supply.
According to the 1959 agreement over the Nile River water, Egypt’s share is 55.5 billion cubic meters(m3). Around 85% of the water that flows into the Nile River comes from the Ethiopian highlands through the Blue Nile, where the GERD is built.
Most of Egypt’s freshwater comes from the Nile River, and about 57% comes from the Blue Nile. Once filled, the GERD will hold about 74 billion m3, almost equivalent to the entire annual volume of the Nile. This would significantly affect Egypt’s share of water.
Even without considering the GERD, Egypt suffers from a water shortage. Its water resources are around 60 billion m3, and its consumption is 80 billion m3. The country imports about half its food products and recycles about 25 billion m3 of water annually.
Severe consequences
If the GERD were to be filled without an agreement, Egypt would face severe consequences. These include drought conditions, the loss of more than one million jobs, and the reduction of about $1.8 billion in economic production each year. This underscores the gravity of the situation and the urgent need for a resolution to the conflict.
Ethiopia’s plans to build the GERD can be traced back to the 1960s, but they were postponed due to political and economic reasons. Despite its massive water resources, the country suffers from a lack of electricity and underdevelopment.
With a population of 112 million, Ethiopia faces a significant energy deficit, with about 65 percent of its people lacking access to electricity. The GERD, a $4.8 billion project built on the Blue Nile near the border of Ethiopia and Sudan, offers a solution to this problem.
It is expected to provide electricity to millions of homes in Ethiopia and create an opportunity to sell electricity to neighboring countries.
Reports suggest that the GERD could become Africa’s largest power exporter, with a projected capacity of generating more than 6,000 megawatts. This potential transformation of Ethiopia’s energy landscape inspires hope for the country’s future.
According to The New York Times, the completion and filling of this dam will make Ethiopia “Africa’s biggest power exporter.” It will double Ethiopia’s electricity generation capacity, allowing it to earn as much as one billion dollars annually in energy exports to Sudan, South Sudan, Djibouti, Kenya, and, potentially, Egypt.
Furthermore, Ethiopia considers the GERD a national and sovereign project that other countries should respect. It also views the project as a national dream come true. Ethiopia also believes the GERD project would protect its natural rights to the Nile’s water and maximize its utilization.
The Nile River Agreements
The relationships among the Nile Basin’s ten countries are governed by a set of treaties and agreements signed in the 19th century (in 1902, 1929, and 1959), commonly known as the Nile River Agreements. They stipulate that the upstream riparian states (mainly Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, and Ethiopia) must respect the rights of the downstream countries (primarily Egypt and Sudan) regarding the Nile’s water.
Additionally, the upstream countries are proscribed from building dams or launching construction projects on the river without the approval of the downstream countries, particularly Egypt.
These treaties signed during the colonial period have guaranteed Egypt’s share of the Nile water over the past century and enabled it to quickly achieve its developmental and agricultural plans after building the Aswan High Dam in the early 1960s. They give Egypt and Sudan veto power over any construction plans or projects that might affect their share of the water.
However, the upstream riparian states contest and challenge these agreements. While Egypt and Sudan insist that their share of the Nile water should be respected and honored, the upstream riparian states believe these agreements are unfair and hamper their development plans.
The upstream countries reason these agreements do not bind them as colonial powers and that their governments were not part of such Accords. As the Nile River Basin countries’ populations have increased during the past decades, their development needs have increased, increasing tensions and disagreements among them.
The Nile Basin Initiative
In 1999, the Nile River Basin countries reached an agreement—the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI)—to enhance their cooperation. The deal brought together all countries with access to the Nile River to establish trust and make the river effective and beneficial for all parties.
The NBI was viewed as a hallmark accord for the Basin states, as it aimed to create an inclusive framework for governing the river’s water. It also outlined the establishment of a “Cooperative Framework Agreement” (CFA) to replace earlier bilateral treaties and to “formalize the transformation of the NBI into a permanent Nile River Basin Commission.”
Negotiations to reach such an inclusive framework took almost a decade. In 2010, the CFA was established and introduced under the principle of “equitable and reasonable utilization” of the Nile River water. The principle seeks to balance the needs and interests of all Nile Basin countries, such as Fair share, where each country has a right to a fair share of the Nile waters. However, it does not necessarily mean an equal share; it is a share proportionate to the country’s population and economic needs.
The principles
It also calls for sustainable development- the utilization of the Nile’s water must be sustainable, meaning that it should not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs. This requires careful planning and management to use the river’s resources wisely.
The principle also advocates for Non-harm, which requires the Nile Basin countries to take measures to prevent or minimize harm to others due to their activities related to the Nile River. This includes avoiding actions that could significantly reduce water flow, degrade water quality, or cause environmental damage.
However, the CFA was signed by only six countries (Ethiopia, Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, Burundi, and Rwanda), and Egypt and Sudan vehemently rejected it because they maintained that it did not respect their historical and acquired rights to the Nile River water.
Mediation efforts
Despite the dispute between Ethiopia and Egypt over the GERD, the United States and the World Bank have tried to mediate between Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia to resolve the dispute.
High-ranking officials from the three countries held several meetings in Washington between November 2019 and February 2020. They also met with President Donald Trump in the White House last November. US involvement in the GERD talks came after a long deadlock.
Washington attempted to use its economic and financial pressure to push them to resolve their dispute—the hope was to reach an agreement by the end of February 2020, but hope dissipated after Ethiopia’s sudden withdrawal from the talks.
The US Department of the Treasury, which coordinated the negotiations between the three parties, stated on February 28, 2020, that “The United States believes that the work completed over the last four months has resulted in an agreement that addresses all issues in a balanced and equitable manner, taking into account the interests of the three countries.”
However, that statement was criticized by Ethiopia’s foreign minister, Gedu Andargachew, who described it as “highly partisan.” Ethiopian analysts believe that Washington always sides with Egypt, and any agreement on the Grand Ethiopia Renaissance Dam (GERD) would tie Ethiopia’s hands. This should automatically disqualify Washington as a mediator.
Regional blocs in Africa have also made significant efforts to resolve the dispute through mediation. The African Union (AU) has convened high-level meetings and appointed special envoys to facilitate the dialogue between the parties. The AU has also established a framework for negotiations, emphasizing the need for a cooperative and equitable solution that addresses the concerns of all Nile Basin countries.
The Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) has also been involved in technical cooperation related to the Nile River, supporting studies and data sharing to inform decision-making.
IGAD has promoted regional collaboration between Nile Basin countries, fostering a sense of shared responsibility and encouraging collaborative approaches to water management.
Egypt and Ethiopia are some of Africa’s most consequential countries, and their amity and cooperation are essential to the region’s peace and stability.
Their need for Nile water is mutual and urgent. Satisfying each party’s maximalist position is untenable. Thus, lowering the tension is in their mutual interest and the region’s.
The Writer is an International Relations Student at the Catholic University of East Africa