With the state-of-the-art technology we are developing in the world, along with the fear of an impending nuclear war, a war for water or in short water politics (hydro politics) is a possible threat that looms over our heads. One of the most controversial water conflicts is that of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam.
In the Benishangul-Gumuz Region of Ethiopia, a gravity dam was proposed in 2011 along the Blue Nile River. Formerly known as the Millennium Dam or Hidase Dam, this would be the seventh-largest hydroelectric plant in the world and the largest in Africa with a volume of 10,200,000 cubic metre.
Bordering along this river are 11 countries which include Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan. These three countries will be the most affected by the building of this dam as a majority of the river flows through them. Originating in Ethiopia, the Blue Nile travels into Sudan joining the White Nile and later flows into Egypt. Ninety per cent of the fresh water in Egypt comes in through the Nile and Sudan has its concerns over its two dams on the Nile meanwhile getting caught up between the two. With the African Union-sponsored talks hitting dead ends, international organisations and the US trying to negate the ongoing issues and concerns, the questions over the transboundary water resources that may lead to perennial conflict are the crux of the matter.
While Ethiopia stands on firm ground about this dam bringing in economic development, there have been concerns raised by the other two parties of this tripartite. The prominent one being how long it will take to fill up the dam, considering majority of Africa being a desert region. The estimated timeframe is from five to 25 years, but that again is solely dependent on the rainy seasons. Another concern is the rate of water evaporation with the countries lying so close to the equator. Curbing the flow of the river may cause issues with the “security and survival of the nation” as Egypt says.
Both sides of the quandary need to be discussed. As The Economist wrote, “Egyptians have cast Ethiopia as a thief, bent on drying up their country. In Ethiopia meanwhile, Egypt is portrayed as a neo-colonial power trampling on national sovereignty.”
Phase two of filling out the dam in the last month had caused concerns where the Arab nations called in Ethiopia to negotiate on “good faith” which included filling in the dam, during the rainy season this year without an agreement on filling and operating of the dam. This was rejected by Ethiopia. This filling of the dam will greatly affect the downward stream volume of water. The issue at hand is the question of how much water will Ethiopia release as they are yet to give out a figure whereas Egypt wants a guaranteed amount even during the droughts. Sudan, too, is with Egypt on the guaranteed amount of water. Egypt stands on its mandate as not to fill the reservoirs without a legally binding document.
Years of bilateral and multilateral talks have not yet sorted out the basic issues. The historical conflict can be traced back to the 1929 British government giving ‘natural and historical right of Egypt to the waters of the Nile’ which gave them veto power to any of the upstream water projects. Later in 1959, an agreement was signed between Sudan and Egypt to share the resources of the river while the other 9 countries which shared the basin was not mentioned. This included Burundi, Tanzania, Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, and South Sudan.
All these are countries with their internal crisis, and it is germane to the predicament that a trilateral agreement takes place to ensure peace. Despite an existing framework, the Nile Basin Initiative, a 1999 attempt to outline principles, rights, and obligations for cooperative management of the resources of the Nile between the riparian countries, Egypt and Sudan declined to sign the Cooperative Framework Agreement in 2010 over disagreements.
The whole issue is like the game of Jenga, one false move and the whole system falls through. To study the issue, game theory has been put into place, to develop a new understanding of potential outcomes. The theory of the Prisoner’s Dilemma is used in this issue. It is a never-ending cycle of whoever cheated could get the reward and whoever trusts was a loser as Joseph Nye says in his book, Understanding International Conflicts. The United Nations Security Council will most likely meet next week, said the French UN Ambassador Nicolas de Riviere, who will be the Council President for July.
He also pointed out to the reporters that there is not much the Council can do except bringing the parties together for negotiation and expressing their concern.
