Treaties
Why Museveni, Other Leaders Are Keen to Strike Deal on River Nile
By Frederic Musisi
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 utilization of the waters of the Nile. Uganda has yet to ratify the agreement pending consensus of all the ten countries.
In 1929, Britain( then colonizing 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.
Africa Water, Sanitation & Hygiene • July- August 2017 17