Negotiating Cooperation over the Nile?

A seminar presentation by Yacob Arsano

Associate professor of political science & international relationsAddis Ababa University

At Global Meeting Place Forum 2010Gotheburg University

7 December 2010

Abstract Upstream and downstream nations may often stack to agree on shared waters. They

may lack the know how or political will or confidence on one another to establish principles, rules of procedure, institutional framework and mechanisms to anchor their cooperation. The riparian states may not know what best they can anticipate from cooperation.

Although “give-and-take” or “win-win” is the name of the game states, as sovereign entities, seek from a cooperation, they still hung on to their cherished BATNA-“best alternative to negotiated agreement”.

Nine riparian states in the Nile basin have negotiated for a Cooperative Framework

Agreement (CFA) for ten years in the spirit of cooperation and in anticipation to gain the best out of it. Negotiation is about to transform each country’s best to a collective best. The ten year intensive negotiation for the CFA has been concluded short of achieving a collective best. The presentation aims to explain the hydrological, historical, geopolitical and legal/ institutional contexts as drivers of potential cooperation.

IntroductionDrivers for cooperation-accepting the unity of the basinUnity is about equality, equitability, and mutual interest.

-accept the integrity of the basinIntegrity is about linkage, recognition, trust, confidence on owneself and

others, etc.

-accept the continuity of the shared waters Continuity is about predictability, establishing mutually accepted

principles, rules of procedure institutional mechanisms, protecting mutual benefits accruable from the shared resource for now and for the future

Introduction cont.

Detractors of cooperation in the Nile Basin (elements of drawback)

-Fear -anxiety -lack of confidence on others -lack of confidence on own capacity -rigidity /circular argumentation -resort to and hide behind BATNA -lack of resolve for cooperation -withdrawal from the process

Trans-boundary water basins of North Eastern Africa

2 Geopolitical overview

The Nile basin encompasses Northeastern and Central Africa

*Comprises 10 riparian states. • 8 in the upstream (Burundi ,DRC, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya,

Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda)

• 2 in the downstream (Egypt and Sudan)

• They have negotiated with equal status as sovereign states. (Eritrea did not negotiate)

**The riparian states cherish sovereign rights over their waters

EGYPT

ERITERIA

SUDAN

RWANDABRUNDI

ETHIOPIA

KENYATANZANIA

DRC

UGANNDA

Countries

Yacob Arsano

3 Hydrological overview

*Estimated annual average flow of the Nile is 84 billion cubic meters (BCM)

*Upstream contribution is 100%

• Ethiopia’s contribution is 86% (72 BCM)• The other six upstream countries contribute 14% (12 BCM)• Egypt and Sudan are net recipients • In Egypt the evaporation rate is 10-20 BCM (10BCM from

Lake Nassir alone)• Countries plan to use more water than available in the Nile

course

Map of the Nile basin

4 Historical overview

*No basin-wide water convention, treaty or agreement*Existing controversial agreements:• 1929: Anglo-Egyptian exchange of notes (Britain recognized “historical and

natural rights to Egypt on the waters of the Nile” ; Egypt got independence from Britain in 1922)

• 1959: “Full Utilization of the waters of the Nile Agreement” (Egypt & Sudan)

• Upstream nations rejecting -Ethiopia’s rejection (1957) -Tanzania, Neyerere Dotrine (1962) -Kenya and Uganda rejecting (1963)

*Disagreement is clear: 1) Downstream nations –status quo; 2)Upstream nations –new agreement 3) But all agreed to negotiate and negotiated.

5 Towards new Nile Negotiation

Background

• 1967: Hydromet (Increase water supply for Egypt)• 1983: Undugu (brotherhood, increase water supply for Egypt)• 1992: Tcconile (technical cooperation), increase water supply for Egypt None of the above resulted in a meaningful negotiationA number of Nile basin nations were not party

-1993-2002 Nile 2002 conferences (trans-disciplinary forum)-1997: Adoption of UN Convention on Non-navigation Uses of

International Water Courses (UNCNUIWC)-1999: NBI (Nile Basin Initiative)

6 Negotiation for the CFA(Cooperative framework agreement)

The approach: Integrated water resources development agenda (WB, UNDP,

CIDA…)

1999 : Agreed minutes of the Nile Ministers of Water Resources (signed by nine riparian states in Dar-es-salaam)

Two major aims: -SAP (Subsidiary Action Program) to initiate trans-boundary

development activities through cooperative programs and joint projects

-CFA (Negotiation for Cooperative Framework Agreement)

7 Outcome of the Nile CFA Negotiation

The negotiation*Negotiations proceeded through different

phases (Panel of experts, Negotiating committee, transitional committee, Ministerial committee)

Downstream position -Historical rights (1929 Anglo-Egyptian agreement)-Full utilization (1959 Egyptian-Sudanese agreement)-Status quo (as established by the two agreements)

Downstream BATNA

Assumed policy support -Prior appropriation right argument

-Total dependence situation

-Compromise if additional water supply is made available

Assumed strategic means-Diplomatic pressure from strategic and geopolitical allies

-Threat of force (can exhibit greater balance of military power)

-World Bank regulation 7.50

Upstream position -No recognition to the downstream agreements-No legal obligation to be bound by those agreements-They wee not a party -Previous agreements are contrary to their national interests

Upstream BATNA, proceed with national water development works

Assumed policy support:-Need for urgent socio-economic development-Population increase-Among poorest countries in the world-Water starts is in their territorial juridiction

Assumed strategic means -Alternative sources of financing water projects

-Global and national policies on poverty reduction

-Public political pressure to develop water resources

8 Final outcome of CFA negotiation

Two downstream nations have maintained the position of “status quo”

Their BATNA: not to accept the CFA Seven upstream countries reject the “status quo”. Have adopted

CFA. Their BATNA: utilizing the Nile waters within their respective

territoriesFive upstream countries have signed CFAIf 6 countries ratify CFA, NBC will be establishedPresent as impasse, with many results closer for a basin-wide

agreement

9 Some conclusions

• Negotiation failed to achieve “give and take” (use, mgt, protection of the shared waters)

• The present impasse can be taken as a stage of negotiation • Downstream countries, at disadvantage• The advantages of upstream countries: -terms of UNCNUIWCs (equitable & reasonable use, no appreciable harm)

-Water in their territories -Alternative financing for water projects• Nile negotiation has missed to establish a roadmap for peace

and prosperity for the riparian nations• But this cannot be taken as the end of the tunnel