Why Museveni, other leaders are keen to strike deal on River Nile

Rivers don’t follow political boundaries. They flow anywhere and anyhow through states and international borders, usually leaving behind a dilemma on who owns the waters and who should decide its use. The Nile is one of such river.

The river’s catchment area is shared by 10 countries, known as the Nile Riparian states. They include Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, South Sudan, Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania, and DR Congo.

That makes the river a theme for political interaction and more than once has shaken relations between and among the Riparian states that share the river with distinct variations, uses and interests. Egypt and Ethiopia are the most recent example after the latter undertook construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam on the river, the largest dam in Africa.

Complicated hydro-politics
Politics aside, the stakes over the river are rising every day, especially in light of changing socio-economic dynamics in the Nile basin, among others high population growth, climate change, infrastructure development, and environmental degradation.
Dr. Salman M. Salman, a renowned water law expert, previously advising the World Bank, in a paper titled ‘The new state of South Sudan and the hydro-politics of the Nile Basin’,
classifies the stakes and interests of Egypt, Ethiopia, South Sudan and Sudan regarding the Nile as “very high”; those of Uganda as “high”; Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda and Tanzania as “moderate”; and DR Congo as “low”.

“Those variations present themselves quite well in the fact that Ethiopia contributes about 86 per cent of the total flow of the Nile waters, but uses only about 1 per cent, while Egypt and Sudan use almost the entire flow of the river, and do not contribute any to its flow,” he notes.

To the Egyptians the Nile means life, something which was better put by one Egyptian Army Colonel who, while writing on the Egypt-Sudan relations in 1949, is quoted to observed, “The Nile to Egypt is a matter of life and death. If the water of the river were controlled by a hostile state or a state that could become a hostile state Egypt’s life is over, ……..For this reason all of Egypt’s efforts are to secure life in the coming future.”
For the country the river remains the only reliable source for renewable water supplies. This is a well-known fact and perhaps best explains the caution that President Museveni exercises while poring over the Nile issue.

Asked by this newspaper early this month at a joint conference he addressed with the visiting Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn still over the Nile, whether they did not need to first scrap the colonial agreements that have raised the stakes over the river even much higher, Mr Museveni skirted the question with an indirect response. He said: “We were not there then, but are here now and it is us to resolve the issues of the river.”

The two principals called for a high level summit attended by all Nile-sharing countries this June to iron out outstanding grievances, most especially of the Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA) that espouses equitable utilisation of the river. The CFA was adopted in Entebbe in 2010 and seeks to replace colonial agreements that grant[ed] Egypt [and Sudan] greater say on the river.

New key, old lock?
The CFA was signed by Rwanda, Uganda, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Burundi and Kenya to work towards attaining a greater share of the Nile shares, but Egypt and Sudan declined, insisting on the pre-colonial agreements which grant them bigger shares of the Nile waters but which the former interpret as granting “monopoly” over the river.

Its main principles are equitable and reasonable utilisation of the waters of the Nile. Uganda has yet to ratify the agreement pending consensus of all the ten countries.

In 1929, Britain (then colonising and on behalf of Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania) negotiated an agreement with Egypt for greater say on the river, and in 1959 Egypt signed another agreement with Sudan giving themselves large quotas of the water.

The Nile’s annual flow at the signing of the 1959 pact was measured at 85billion cubic metres. Egypt assumed a 75 percent share (55.5 billion cubic metres) and 25 percent (18.5 billion cubic metres) to Sudan with the assumption that the upstream countries (Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Ethiopia can rely on other sources like rain or fresh water bodies.

What this means is that upstream countries cannot undertake any activities, say irrigation or dam construction, which could significantly affect Egypt’s [or Sudan’s] allocated water quotas.

The CFA, however, allows the upstream countries to undertake activities as long as they consult widely with and notify other members, especially those that significantly depend on the river.

Sudan would later make a U-turn and requested for admission into the CFA, leaving Egypt outside alone.

Currently the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI), inter-governmental body established 17 years ago to steer cooperation on Nile issues, is engaged in shuttle-diplomacy in an attempt to sway Egypt back to the table.

Mr Desalegn, the Ethiopian premier, correspondingly maintained that since the CFA was adopted in Entebbe bringing back the principles to pore over the deadlock would perhaps yield a compromise.

Technical or political solution?

Egypt has for centuries survived and exploited most of the river’s flow. The size of its population, as well as its almost total dependence on the Nile makes it a highly sensitive one, especially if any attempt is perceived to undermine her authority over the river.

Some commentators have suggested redrawing the water quotas for each country based on current demands but in sync with international water laws to resolve grievances from all fronts.
Problem is, the NBI executive director Innocenet Ntabana told Daily Monitor, talking about water volumes in any agreement/s is risky because the flow changes any time subject to either natural or artificial factors.

“Discussions are still open to address any member’s concerns [most especially Egypt] but this has to happen to within the boundaries of the CFA,” Mr Ntabano said in an interview, though Egypt still insists that the issue of volumes should be addressed.

Egypt [and Sudan] declined to sign the CFA specifically over Article 14(b), which requires members “not to significantly affect the water security of any other Nile Basin States.”
In a research paper titled, ‘Sharing the Waters of the Nile: Conflicts and Co-operation’, the authors Larbi Bouguerra and Olivier Petitjean argue that the particularly sensitive nature of the question of the Nile for the Egyptians is explained partly by historical and strongly symbolic reasons, and partially by a genuine need for water. “

While it is true that Egypt has an undeniable need for water, Dr John Nyaoro, the former NBI executive director now serving as advisor in Kenya’s Water ministry, says that cannot be used as the basis for redrawing the water quotas for each country or sticking to the current monopoly assumed by Egypt [and Sudan].

“NBI being a forum should be able to facilitate members to Egypt’s concerns, the sooner the better,” Dr Nyaoro argues.
But “seeking to redraw the water quotas is something of colonial mentality. What the Riparian states need to be discussing is how to equitably benefit from the river the way it is.”

Dr Nyaoro, like Mr Ntabano, said with the ever escalating impacts of climate change the danger in water quotas like in the fact the water volumes can change subject to both natural and artificial factors yet cannot be increased.

The support of the international community is critical to encouraging and consolidating cooperation between the countries that share the Nile, Dr. Salman told a meeting of stakeholders from NBI states last December in Kigali, Rwanda. “What is apparent though is that Egypt and Sudan’s fears over their historical rights to use the river waters are exaggerated.”

“If they don’t learn how to share the alternative is conflict; which is not only uncalled for but also very costly,” Dr Salman noted, reinforcing the obligation to use the river the way it is defined under International water law defined under two doctrines that govern surface water rights in the world; the Riparian doctrine and Prior appropriation doctrine.

The Riparian doctrine stipulates that, water belongs to the person whose land borders a body of water. Riparian owners are permitted to make reasonable use of this water provided it does not unreasonably interfere with the reasonable use of this water by others with riparian rights.

The Prior Appropriation doctrine states that water rights are determined by priority of beneficial use; that the first person to use water or divert water for a beneficial use or purpose can acquire individual rights to the water. But this school of thought is getting increasingly outdated.

The German political foundation, Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, in a research paper titled ‘The Nile Treaty: State Succession and International Treaty Commitments: A Case Study of The Nile Water Treaties’ reckon that agreements concluded during the colonial era are not binding on the successor states of the Nile basin, and that this is the position in international law as buttressed by the practice of the states.

He advises that “management of the Nile waters requires either an international institution structure or a restricted multilateral treaty regime or both.”

How far can the political heads go in pushing for this or something related, especially given that water sharing remains a global problem, especially with the ever-escalating droughts?
Part II runs tomorrow