Recipe for cooperation in the Nile Basin

My last post showed the main issues challenging conflict management between East Nile Basin countries. This time I will focus on how they can reach an agreement on water allocation that benefits every stakeholder.


Aswan High Dam: cooperation between the two mega dams is a must for reaching an agreement

As I mentioned last week, talks are frozen due to Ethiopia’s rejection of mitigation measures in the case of light rainfall. In addition, there are flashpoints in coordinating GERD and Aswan dams and question marks around agricultural impacts. In transboundary agreements, there must be effective data-sharing between riparian states to evaluate the quantity, quality and timing of river flow. Therefore, Ethiopia must make concessions and allow respected consultant firms to assess the impacts of the construction and create a timetable for filling. With this information, the countries will have data on water flow that would be crucial for the technical solution to save downstream agriculture and the creation of a cooperative management framework for the two mega-dams. A final solution could be Ethiopia’s acceptance of letting through extra water during droughts.

Policy agreement could be a potential short-term solution; however, in the long run, they need to create a platform where all eleven Nile countries could negotiate a long-term treaty with joint control over the water. This is not unprecedented in Africa; for example, the Senegal river countries were able to make an appropriate framework: OMVS, that enabled the equal allocation of water across the river (from 13:00 in the video). NBI could be an ideal site for similar negotiations; however, Egypt must re-join and accept a framework that supports all Nile Basin Countries.


A good transboundary treaty ensures benefits for every country with enough water for domestic use and cheap energy.

A final step for decreasing tensions is implementing a benefit-sharing framework, which almost happened under the DoP in 2015. This would mean focusing on the benefits of joint river management and the positive aspects of GERD that could overcome its costs. For instance, the construction will curtail floods on the Nile that would, reduce sedimentation and save millions of dollars spent on clearing agricultural fields. This could result in expanding agricultural production, especially in Sudan that’s export could benefit Ethiopia.


More importantly, if long-term cooperation exists, the dam’s immense power generation would provide cheap and clean energy sources across the basin. Thar would be a classic win-win situation for the Eastern Nile countries Sudan and Egypt could receive the resource while Ethiopia would have access to vast and developed markets. Moreover, besides this ‘benefits from the river’, there is an opportunity for ‘benefits beyond the river’, meaning stronger collaboration in other sectors. As these show, there are possibilities for mutual solutions for all three countries, and leaders should realise that hostility comes with costs. While collaboration would be in the economic interest of all parties.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dams: benefits for whom?

Image
Hoover Dam: one of the first examples of large water engineering projects considered a 'wonder solution' and national pride The dam construction will likely have fatal consequences for Egypt in terms of decreased sediment and water sources. However, the discourse of the project excludes the local effects of the megaproject, potentially because transboundary conflict and the  picture of water wars keep media consumers more entertained.   In my last blog, I showed that most Ethiopian people want the project's implementation. This is partly due to the nationalist rhetoric of the government that suggests GERD is the answer to  socioeconomic tensions in the country.  According to the government, the 6450 MW of electricity produced by the dam could potentially double the energy production, therefore, could induce   35-40% GDP growth in the following decades . Within its communication, the government often highlights that it will be a game-changer for both the eco...
Read more

Colonial legacies and identities of the GERD conflict

Image
Battle of the Nile: the rule of the British Empire over the Nile still influences water politics In the last posts, I mentioned that the specific geography of the Basin is one of the main reasons for the difficulty of solving the conflict between Ethiopia and Egypt. However, I want to suggest something other than an environmentally deterministic conclusion that ignores social factors. In reality, the  potential solution benefits of sharing and cooperation  are hindered by the region's historical (colonial) legacies. When I asked locals' opinions about GERD during my time in Ethiopia, everyone was enthusiastic and satisfied with the project. They claimed it would 'compensate for the injustices of the past and bring a bright future to all Ethiopians'. This idea of injustice and strike back to Egypt appears in the following video (from 3:50). Ethoiphian leaders want to set the rules after the country's historical marginalisation on managing the water of the Nile. Simul...
Read more

Eleven years of failed negotiations: Why there is no agreement?

Image
So far, this blog has shown two hindrances to cooperation in the Nile basin: lack of trust because of colonial history and the view that considers mega-projects the only solution. From my past writings, it could seem that there are no endeavours from the sides to make a deal. Well, this is not the case. In this post, I will examine past negotiations focusing on why they failed. The first step towards cooperation was the creation of  the Nile Basin Initiative  in 1999 (NBI). The role of this organisation is to create a platform for Nile countries to accomplish cooperative programs together. In early 2011 the initiative had a historical chance to drive collaboration through the creation of the construction of the Border dam at GERD's current location.  The project would have meant that Egypt and Sudan had contributed  to the mega-project in return for its hydroelectrical benefits. However, the prerequisite for the downstream countries was to write a Comprehensive Frame...
Read more