The two countries have been in controversial negotiations for years and have yet to reach a comprehensive water-sharing agreement. Egypt wants an alternative to the agreement, which now allows other Nile Basin countries to carry out projects along the river without its prior consent. This agreement was signed between Egypt and Great Britain, which at the time represented Uganda, Kenya, Tanganyika (now Tanzania) and Sudan. The document gave Cairo the right to veto projects further upstream of the Nile that would affect its share of the water. The CFA was ready to be signed on May 10, 2010; Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda have signed it; and the Ethiopian Parliament has ratified it. However, Egypt and Sudan argued that their “acquired rights” over the waters of the Nile would not be protected and immediately expressed their intention not to sign the agreement because they objected to the wording of Article 14(b): “The Nile Basin States therefore agree in a spirit of cooperation: […] (b) not significantly affect the water security of another State in the Nile Basin. They then proposed another formulation for Article 14(b): “The Nile Basin States therefore agree in a spirit of cooperation: […] (b) not to significantly affect water security and the current uses and rights of another Nile Basin State” (emphasis added). This formulation has been rejected by upstream riparian states, who argue that the phrase “current uses and rights” would anchor the concept of older rights, including those created by the Nile Water Accords, and effectively maintain the injustice and injustice that has characterized the allocation and use of water in the Nile Basin since the 1920s. On Monday, March 23, 2015, the Heads of State and Government of Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan met in the Sudanese capital Khartoum to sign an agreement to resolve various issues arising from Ethiopia`s decision to build a dam on the Blue Nile. The Khartoum Declaration, signed by the heads of state of the three countries – Abdel Fattah al-Sisi (Egypt), Omar al-Bashir (Sudan) and Halemariam Desalegn (Ethiopia) – has been described as the “Nile Agreement”, which contributes to the resolution of conflicts over the sharing of the waters of the Nile. However, this view is misleading because, as far as we know, the agreement only deals with the Blue Nile Great Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERDP) project and does not address the broader and still controversial issues of the division of Nile water among all riparian states. Thus, the new agreement leaves the conflict over the fair, just and reasonable allocation and use of the Nile unresolved.
The institutional framework of the BNI consists of three key institutions:[8] Founded in 1999, the initiative brought together the nine countries of the Nile Basin at the time to develop the river cooperatively, share important socio-economic benefits, and promote peace and security in the region. Over the years, particularly as the population of other Nile basin countries has grown and these countries have developed the capacity to use Nile water more efficiently for national development, disagreements have arisen over Egypt`s insistence that the water rights it acquired through the 1929 and 1959 agreements (collectively referred to as the Nile Water Agreements) have been expressed. and that no construction project on the Nile or any of its tributaries will be carried out without the prior authorization of Cairo. In fact, various Egyptian leaders have threatened to go to war to protect these so-called “acquired rights.” Upstream riparian States such as Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Ethiopia have argued that they are not bound by these agreements because they have never been parties. In fact, the new ruler of Tanganyika (now Tanzania, after unification with Zanzibar in 1964), Julius Nyerere, argued shortly after his independence from Britain in 1961 that the Nile water agreements exposed his country and other upstream riparian states to Egypt`s mercy, forcing them to submit their national development plans to Cairo`s control and surveillance, and that such an approach to public policy did not coincide with the country`s status as sovereign. an independent State would be compatible. Condition. All upstream riparian states have since come out in favour of a new, more inclusive legal framework for the management of the Nile basin. In 1999, the Nile Riparian States [1], with the exception of Eritrea, signed the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) to improve cooperation in the use of “common water resources of the Nile Basin”.
Under the auspices of the NBI, riparian States began to develop what they saw as a permanent legal and institutional framework for the management of the Nile Basin. The Framework Cooperation Agreement (GFA), as it is known, formally introduced the concept of equitable water allocation into discussions on Nile governance, as well as a complex concept called “water security”. The signing of the agreement had already been scheduled at a ministerial meeting in 2007, but had been postponed at Egypt`s request. [21] At a new ministerial meeting in Kinshasa in May 2009, the upstream countries decided to sign the agreement without all countries signing at the same time. However, the signing was delayed and at the next meeting of ministers in Sharm el-Sheikh in April 2010, Egypt again requested to postpone the signing. In particular, the article on water security (Article 14b) raised objections from Egypt and Sudan. Once the agreement enters into force, the BNI will be transformed into a permanent commission for the Nile basin. For more information about the NBI, you should visit their website (www.nilebasin.org/) and perhaps contact them if you have any questions. The regional watershed management project aims to establish sustainable watersheds on the Tekeze, Atbara, Mareb, Abbay/Blue Nile and Baro/Akobo/Sobat rivers in Ethiopia and Sudan. The first project sites identified include Lake Nasser/Nubia in Egypt; the Jamma, Reb and Gumara sub-basins and the management of the Tana-Beles watersheds under the Tana-Beles Integrated Water Resources Development Project in Ethiopia; and the lower Atbara, the Ingessena Mountains and the areas around The Dinder National Park in Sudan. Part V describes the dispute resolution procedures that may arise from the implementation and enforcement of the contract.
It also provides for the creation of bilateral or plurilateral instruments (agreements) that would complement the CFA. In 1959, Egypt and an independent Sudan signed a bilateral agreement that effectively strengthened the provisions of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1929. The 1959 agreement increased the allocation of water to Egypt and Sudan – Egypt`s water allocation increased from 48 billion cubic meters to 55.5 billion cubic meters and Sudan`s from 4 billion cubic meters to 18.5 billion cubic meters, leaving 10 billion cubic meters for infiltration and evaporation. Finally, the agreement provided that in the event of an increase in the average water yield, the increased yield would be shared equally between the two downstream riparian States (i.e. Egypt and Sudan). .
Recent Comments