The CFA and the Future of the Nile politics; the Scenarios

2017

Tadesse Kassa Woldetsadik  Abstract Nearly two decades since its inception, the Transitional Mechanism of the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) has been credited for fulfilling several components of its institutional undertaking –building an atmosphere of trust and dialogue among riparian states. Yet, the negotiations pursued under the auspices of the NBI have failed to realize one of organization’s most fundamental missions: establishing a permanent legal framework and institution ‘acceptable’ to all states across the basin. The diplomatic enterprise leading to the adoption of the Agreement on the Nile River Basin Cooperative Framework (CFA) was beset by multifaceted challenges. I argue that in spite of the unparalleled heights in cooperative dialogues that were largely depicted as a ‘political triumph’ from upstream perspective, the legal and hydro–political discourse leading to the CFA’s final framing failed to mollify the ‘expectations’ of two key stake– holding states: Egypt and Sud...

2018

Water is a vital resource for nation states and resources that have no respect for nation boundaries, as such; this makes riparian states vulnerable to conflict. Trans boundary shared bodies of water create political, social, and economic tensions or disputes concerning the distribution and use of resource management, especially, where misunderstandings or lack of agreement about allocations are more likely. This increases potential for conflict and intensifies threats to state stability and national security. This paper is a historical presentation aims at exploring the history of the roles of the Nile Basin Initiative towards water cooperation in the waters of the Nile, using qualitative method of primary and secondary sources. The paper argues that the NBI through Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA) has provided the first and only inclusive platform for dialogue among all riparian states, amidst previous water agreements which succeeded one another without significant success on the waters of the Nile.

Tumaini University Makumira, 2016

States rarely go to war over water but it is equally rare that water conflict in an international river basin is resolved through cooperation among the riparian countries that use the shared resource. The Nile River is shared by 11 river basin countries it is the main vital water artery in the North Eastern region of Africa. The river has two main tributaries: the White Nile originating in Burundi, and the Blue Nile rising in Ethiopia. These are joined by the Atbara River north of Khartoum, Sudan. To date, after independence the prevailing water policy regulating the distribution of water among the countries of the Nile basin is a bilateral 1959 agreement attributing the largest share of the river’s flow to Egypt, the downstream, non-contributing country, with the rest allocated to Sudan, leaving other countries in the Nile watershed without specific shares. The high rate of population growth in the region propels governments to continuously seek food, and thus water security, to match increasing demand. Agricultural development in other basin countries could be enhanced with a more adequate distribution of water resources. Measures have been proposed to alleviate potential water shortages, including improved utilization of water in Egypt, and construction of numerous dams and canals. There are, however, disagreements with particular countries rejecting or accepting these plans depending on which country will benefit most. The objective of this paper is to present a decision case study to be taken by an international committee that should set strategies for the resolution of the water conflict through the harmonious exploitation of the Nile. The case studies water resources issues impacting stability in the region. It is thus inevitable that an inclusive agreement (CFA)that all riparian states are committed to be reached each individual state has to compromise its stance and take a better flexible approach this is especially so with Egypt , Sudan and Ethiopia if differences between these historic rivals are eliminated then a smoother approach is going to be achieved benefitting all riparian states equitably by providing a platform for mutual assistance amongst the members thereby solidifying each states commitment to the cause.

Colo. J. Int'l Envtl. L. & Pol'y, 2008

Basin Initiative ("NBI"), and the resultant establishment of a legal and institutional mechanism for the eventual equitable and reasonable allocation of the Nile waters, hinges on the removal of these obstacles. I. INTRODUCTION Watersheds come in families; nested levels of intimacy. On the grandest scale the hydrologic web is like all humanity-Serbs, Russians, Koyukon Indians, Amish, the billion lives in the People's Republic of China-it's broadly troubled, but it's hard to know how to help. As you work upstream toward home, you're more closely related. The big river is like your nation, a little out of hand. The lake is your cousin. The creek is your sister. The pond is her child. And, for better or worse, in sickness and in health, you're married to your sink.' Basin-wide arrangements such as the Nile Basin Initiative ("NBI") 2 are crucial not only to fill the missing links of general international law but also to regulate specific regional problems. 3 If effective, these agreements are better situated to address the special peculiarities of a given hydropolitical region than are the general rules of international law. 4 Conversely, rules of international law could provide a general framework for basin states that negotiate the modus operandi of their I Maude Barlow & Tony Clarke, Blue Gold: The Fight to Stop the Corporate Theft of the World's Water xi (2002) (quoting Michael Parfit, National Geographic). 2. Launched in February 1999 in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, with all the Nile riparian states but Eritrea as members, the NBI is a temporary mechanism through which the basin states would establish a basin-wide treaty and institutional mechanism for the equitable and reasonable sharing of the common waters. It is expected to draft a basinwide treaty binding upon all riparian states that establishes a Nile Basin Commission with powers to study and resolve conflicts over the utilization of the Nile waters. It operates from its headquarters in Kampala, Uganda. Nile Basin Initiative, http://www.nilebasin. org/index.php?option=com content&task=view&id= I 3&itemid=42 (last visited Nov. 20, 2008). 3. Basin-specific treaties complement and supplement the general rules of international law regulating the use of international watercourses. In cases of conflict between the two sets of rules, the basin-wide treaty prevails through the legal maxim that special rules prevail over the general (lex specialis rule) and the general rules give way to the special ones on the particular subject.

As discussions over Nile water sharing are likely to sustain in the Nile River Basin Commission it is paramount to build trust between all riparian states to enable cooperation. Building trust is part of the NBI's shared vision programme. Trust is, however, difficult to establish through contractual treaties and donor supported programmes. Rather, it involves continuous and long-term endeavours including a wide range of issues that not necessarily directly pertain to the Nile itself, as witnessed by increasing economic and political non-Nile cooperation between Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia.

Nile basin one of the hotspots in an area where violent conflict could break out over the shared water resource because of the various hydro political intricacies it involves. Mounting demands for more water, an alarming population growth rate, the absence of comprehensive legal and institutional frameworks, and relations among the riparian states that are marred with suspicion and misunderstanding, are among the major factors creating the potential for an extreme conflict in the basin. To date, the Basin states have not been able to cooperate in order to devise a solution to the issue of the Nile – the utilization and management of Nile water for the benefit of all riparian states. One of the impediments to such a solution is the absence of a basin-wide agreement. Although there have been various agreements over the Nile River, none of these has involved more than three states. The accords constitute one of the hurdles in the path towards cooperation. This research reviews the main agreements which have decided control over the Nile, their traits, and the implications for cooperative schemes in the basin. It also examines the current promising initiative, the Nile Basin Initiative, as a possible way forward to reach comprehensive cooperation. The research does not examine all the problems enveloping the Nile basin. It limits itself to the legal aspects of the questions of the Nile and proposes appropriate approaches to accords on the water of the Nile. Further, it concentrates on three countries, Egypt, the Sudan and Ethiopia, which are considered to be central actors in the Nile issues and deals with the accords involving them, or concluded on their behalf, during the colonial period.

European Journal of International Law, 2010

The restive Nile basin which has long been identified as a flashpoint prone to conflict embarked on a new path of cooperation with the launching of the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI). Anchored in a Shared Vision 'to achieve sustainable socio-economic development through the equitable utilization of, and benefits from, the common Nile Basin water resources', the NBI has provided a convenient forum for the negotiation of a Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA) to set up a permanent, inclusive legal and institutional framework. Negotiation of the CFA has, however, faced a serious impasse as a result of the introduction of the concept of 'water security'. The introduction of this non-legal, indeterminate, and potentially disruptive concept is, indeed, a regrettable detour to a virtual blind-alley. The justifications for this fateful decision are totally unfounded and specious. The decision rather makes sense as an unwarranted move pushing into further obscurity the already intractable Nile waters question, at best, and a logical cul-de-sac in the decade-long negotiations which have arguably fallen prey to the hegemonic compliance-producing mechanism of 'securitization' sneaked in under the veil of 'water security', at worst. Resolution of the Nile waters question should thus first be extricated from the morass of 'water security' and then be sought nowhere but within the framework of international water law.

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2016

Nearly two decades since its inception, the Transitional Mechanism of the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) has been credited for fulfilling several components of its institutional undertaking-building an atmosphere of trust and dialogue among riparian states. Yet, the negotiations pursued under the auspices of the NBI have failed to realize one of organization's most fundamental missions: establishing a permanent legal framework and institution 'acceptable' to all states across the basin. The diplomatic enterprise leading to the adoption of the Agreement on the Nile River Basin Cooperative Framework (CFA) was beset by multifaceted challenges. I argue that in spite of the unparalleled heights in cooperative dialogues that were largely depicted as a 'political triumph' from upstream perspective, the legal and hydro-political discourse leading to the CFA's final framing failed to mollify the 'expectations' of two key stakeholding states: Egypt and Sudan. This preordained an existential threat to the institutional future of the NBI itself and the noble objectives it sought to realize. All the same, the organizational predicament in the basin also evinced that the Nile riparian states have little choice but to revive the 'dwindling' momentum and ensure that the NBI's undertaking is concluded in an 'inclusive' and 'equitable' manner. Else, this author submits, the alternative would not only present a bleak future from the point of view of cooperation and optimum development of the Nile resources, over the long range, it also stifles the basin states' enduring riverine interests.

Journal Article, 2021

Attempts at resolving the two major problems in the history of the Nile waters issue, i.e. equitable Nile waters resource apportionment and the formation of a Basin-wide organisation to the benefit of all riparian states of the river, have largely failed. This paper argues that the disagreement over the utilisation of the Nile waters arises mainly from the 1929 and 1959 agreements that gave Egypt and the Sudan extensive rights over the river's water. These agreements have been at the heart of the struggle over the Nile waters between Egypt and the Sudan, on one side, and the other upper riparian states, on the other. Egypt and the Sudan saw the agreements as historical legacies to be maintained, like colonial boundaries which African states inherited from colonialism, without modification in perpetuity. On the other hand, other upstream countries see Nile agreements as colonial relics and demand their right to a fair and equitable share of the Nile waters. This paper argues for decolonising the Nile River and fostering the cooperation of all riparian states in the spirit of Pan-Africanism. Therefore, urgent and concrete steps should be taken to revise all agreements of the colonial period and the 1959 Nile Waters Agreement, and to renegotiate a new Nile Waters Agreement to accommodate the interests of all riparian states. This agreement should be based on internationally accepted principles and commitment to a win-win solution.