The Rusumo Falls regional hydroelectric and multi-purpose project on the Kagera River is expected to be a dam with an associated run-of-river power plant that will benefit Burundi, Rwanda and Tanzania. The project was identified as one of the best energy options by the NELSAP assessment of the energy development options mentioned above. The hydroelectric component would have an installed capacity of about 60 to 80 megawatts. It is estimated that about 3,000 people are expected to be relocated around the hydroelectric plant. [15] [16] The Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) is a partnership between nile-bordering states that “aims to develop the river cooperatively, share important socio-economic benefits, and promote regional peace and security.” [1] The BNI initiated a dialogue among riparian states, which led to a common vision goal of “achieving sustainable socio-economic development through the equitable use and benefits of shared water resources in the Nile Basin”. [1] [2] It was officially launched in February 1999[2] by the water ministers of nine countries that share the river: Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Burundi, Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Eritrea as observers. From the outset, the Nile Basin Initiative has been supported by the World Bank and other external partners. The World Bank`s mandate is to support the work of the NBI as the lead development partner and as the manager of the Nile Basin Multi-Donor Trust Fund. [3] One of the partners is the Nile Basin Discourse, which describes itself as “a civil society network of organizations that have a positive impact on the development of projects and programs under the Nile Basin Initiative.” [4] The 2015 agreement between Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan – with Sudan as mediator – represents an important but predictable change in Cairo`s approach to the Nile – that these colonial agreements are not sustainable. About 85 percent of the water that flows into the Nile comes from the Ethiopian highlands across the Blue Nile; the rest comes from the White Nile. It was simply unrealistic and untenable for Egypt to believe that it could continue to prevent Ethiopia from using water resources within its borders to meet the needs of its people. While it is true that Egyptians are completely dependent on the waters of the Nile for all their needs, they must be sensitive to the development needs of the upstream riparian states, especially since the latter, especially Ethiopia, are able to cause significant damage to the quantity and quality of water flowing into the Nile. Therefore, the practical and more accommodating position of the Egyptian leadership in their decision to support the Addis Ababa Great Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERDP) project should be welcomed.
However, Cairo must go further and sign and ratify the CFA without insisting on amendments to Article 14(b) to guarantee Egypt the rights created by the Nile water agreements. With the FCA, the 11 riparian states can negotiate in good faith to agree on an allocation formula acceptable to all and considered fair, just and appropriate. As Africa is increasingly affected by climate change, different groups on the continent must agree to work together to develop institutional structures that can improve their ability to live together peacefully and allocate their natural resources, including water, equitably and sustainably. 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. This agreement between Egypt and Sudan, which complemented the previous agreement, gave Egypt the right to 55.5 billion cubic meters of Nile water per year and Sudan to 18.5 billion cubic meters per year. The CFA was created from 10.
May 2010 ready for signature; 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. The institutional framework of the NBI consists of three key institutions:[8] Part I of the text contains to a large extent the established customary principles of international water law; the principle of fair and equitable use, the obligation not to cause significant damage and the principle of protection and conservation of the river ecosystem. The principles set out in Part I serve as a guide to countries on the implementation of the Treaty and the sustainable management and development of the river`s resources. 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. These disagreements over the use of the Nile are not new and have a long history due to the high dependence of these countries on the waters of the Nile.
In 1929, an agreement was reached between Egypt and Britain on the use of water from the Nile – Britain is said to have represented its colonies in the Nile Basin. [1] The Anglo-Egyptian Treaty dealt with many issues related to the Nile and its tributaries. It is particularly important for this discussion that he has granted Egypt an annual allocation of water of 48 billion cubic meters and Sudan 4 billion cubic meters with an estimated average annual yield of 84 billion cubic meters. In addition, the 1929 agreement granted Egypt a veto over construction projects on the Nile or one of its tributaries in order to minimize any impact on the flow of water into the Nile. 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 14 ter) raised objections from Egypt and the Sudan. .