GERD Contention

#Does Ethiopia wait filling the Dam until Egypt finishes its job to sign a binding?Agreement?

The Nile River connects eleven riparian countries including Egypt , Sudan and Ethiopia. Ethiopia contributes more than 86% of the waters of the Nile. Most riparian countries' water contributions remain nominal. Particularly, the?Egyptian and Sudanese are the list contributors. In shared water, water development is the concern of all riparian countries than a few competitors, Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan.?

At present?the Nile water contention becomes three countries' concerns rather than other riparian countries, sharing the River's water. When Ethiopia wins all riparian countries could win in the quest for equitable water uses with other riparian countries. At present the negotiation process in the Nile water is accompanied by different unrelated quests enhancing significant divergence among countries sharing the Nile River waters. Ethiopia is taking a lead to tear down downstream Egyptian and Sudanese multiple discourses developed to deny upstream countries water rights through using existential threats, Egyptian gift, water security, historic rights, established rights, national and regional security , and other unlisted uncountable discourses. These all water narratives claim Nile water shall continue to be owned and exploited by Egypt mostly and by Sudan partly. All other riparian countries would refrain from any access and use of the River's water.

The water access denial claims base?themselves sometimes on Almighty God that gave them Nile as a gift while they deny the right to use it to others. The discourses fully deny equality and equitableness of nature gift to humans and countries. As the narrative established itself on the disguised Almighty God's gift, it makes it difficult or impossible for Egypt and Sudan to take a flexible position in any negotiation processes to accept equitable and reasonable sharing of the water usages with other riparian countries. The upstream countries quest for Equitable Share of the Nile Waters often?does receive counter quests of water sharing denials from Egypt.?Since inauguration of GERD, hottened hydro-politics in the process, some times with increasingly volatile and dynamic contentions– while the contention some in points looks it gets calm and in other points it gets boil itself?again.?

The second Egyptian claim receives its foundation from two widely cited agreements. The first Agreement was signed during the colonial era when British as Colonial master East African countries signed on behalf of its colonies sharing Nile water with Egypt. Ethiopia was neither a colony of the British nor did it sign the agreement. This agreement was signed in 1929. Through the agreement the British allocated billions cubic meters of waters to Egypt and Sudan while it refused to consider other countries under the country's colonial?rule and Ethiopia. The good news was the agreement did not allocate all water in the river to Egypt and Sudan rather it left billions cubic meters yet unshared. When colonial rule ended, in 1959 the Egyptian and Sudanese entered into a water agreement that allocated all remaining water in the Nile River with the discourse of full utilization of the water between themselves.

The allocation has given most of the water to Egypt including 10 billion cubic meters water quotas as potential water evaporated from high Aswan Dam. This agreement was seen as an addendum to the 1929 agreement. The agreement made was limited between Egypt and Sudan, and failed to participate in other riparian countries. The agreement denies water even for nature-as it allocated all existing water to the countries that signed the agreement. No drop water?left allocated for the environmental flow. Since then Egypt has embedded these rights under its 2014 constitution and other national laws.?

As per Article 34 of the 1969 Vienna Convention, treaties shall not bind a country that does not sign and give full consent through passing national legal processes. This legal rule assumes all countries can enjoy equal sovereignty and the right to decide on matters that affect their national interests. Last three decades, UNGA has adopted many resolutions that recognize sovereign rights countries to utilize their natural resources within their boundaries. The exception to this rule is, not to cause significant harm in other countries' jurisdictions when resources are transboundary in nature. Without consent no country shall impose obligations on third parties on using its natural resources.

The current divergence between Ethiopia and Egypt including Sudan shall not find negotiated outcomes unless Egypt rectifies?its?unjust and fundamentally wrongful discourses. That rectification requires national constitutional amendment on Nile water rights which denies riparian countries equitable and reasonable water uses. Such interventions might not be a simple task, rather it needs to change widely developed and accepted narratives with all segments of its societies in the country.?

Nile basin countries have tried to develop binding agreements in water development and conservation with the support of the NBI, and negotiated the Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA) after ten years at the meeting held in Egypt in 2009. Ethiopia?was the front runner to support the development of the agreement. However, the agreement became a futile exercise as Egypt and Sudan failed to endorse it. The reason for such failure was Egypt and Sudan claiming the agreement to include provisions to?give recognition for contentious historical rights of the 1929 and 1959 agreements. Yet?water use negotiation did not find an agreeable landing position among countries under contention. It also follows the divide and rule approach by Egypt and Sudan as it does not bring all riparian countries to common concerns of shared water uses.

At present reaching a binding agreement seems?increasingly a challenge. A big divergence is already created between downstream and upstream riparian over their entitlements to the Nile waters. While downstream Egypt and Sudan have strongly claimed their historical or existing rights to be protected, upstream?countries reject their stance and claims as contrary to the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization. Egypt?and Sudan now want a binding agreement to be adopted before a second filling and operation will happen. However, the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam water fillings and operations may not need binding agreement as Egyptian and Sudanese claim as the dam development adheres to equitable and reasonable water utilization. Ethiopia does not wait to fill them until Egypt to rectify all wrongful discourses at their home.??

Nature of obligation Ethiopia does have is notification than entering into binding agreement for its developmental project in any transboundary waters. Neither Notification nor entering into agreement is legally known norms?under international water laws to all mere activities. Prior to project commencement, our nation has made notification to its downstream countries in the development of Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. The country did more than expected by allowing downstream countries to participate in the impact assessment processes by impartial scientists. Any further demand by the downstream countries might be seen as infringement of Ethiopia's right to access and use of its water. The Egypt and Sudan sustainable demand to control filling and operation of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam is a fully and completely absurd claim.

Ethiopia does have legitimate right to access and use the water to alleviate its people from energy poverty challenges and meet other developmental aspirations. As Nile water?is a security challenge to Egypt ,?filling the dam is a matter of existence to all Ethiopians. At present there are hundreds of transboundary waters under development and utilization without introducing binding agreement among riparian countries. The Nile is not an exception and the filling of the dam is an essential to generate expected benefits.?

The Sudanese and Egyptians need to accept the reality and correct their perspective about the GERD and equitable water sharing. In the Dam operation processes , drought is expected to affect water flow to all riparian countries. During water scarcity and stress, the burden is not left to Ethiopia rather each nation should take its share of the costs and potential risks.?

To halt the challenge, all riparian countries need to invest in nature based solutions and innovative water saving technologies and practices. The Nile River is fed by the White Nile and the Blue Nile which originates in the Ethiopian highlands. Now it is time to create enhanced cooperation to conserve the whole Nile water system as priority concern as watershed degradation is rising in an alarming scale.