The online wikipedia
defines riparian water rights as “ a system of allocating water among those who possess land
about its source”. The riparian principle then guarantees that “all landowners whose property is
adjoining to a body of water have the right to make reasonable use of it”. Modern laws governing water use rights by
neighboring countries and provinces or states within countries were drawn from
this principle which was basically written to resolve conflicts among local landowners. One can then imagine how difficult it could
be to allocate water resources among the nine Nile riparian countries (Ethiopia,
Sudan, Egypt, Kenya, Uganda, D.R. Congo, Burundi, Rwanda and Tanzania) that are
separated by complex geography and attempting to pursue different national development
strategies.
Nonetheless,
what is key here is the issue of accessing water
resources for “reasonable use”. In this respect, the share in the use of Nile
waters has not been equitable (or reasonable) because of previous treaties that
allocated 90% of the waters to Sudan and Egypt.
The treaties also enabled Egyptians to dictate how the other riparian countries
should utilise the Nile waters. These
two issues (inequity and Egyptian veto power) have often been the cause of resentment
among the citizens of downstream riparian countries. In Ethiopia in particular, this resentment has
been reinforced by Ethiopians who wrote blaming Egypt for supporting secessionist
movements including the separation of Eritrea.
By not agreeing to the Nile Basin Co-operative Framework signed by
Ethiopia, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda last week (other countries to follow), Egypt and Sudan appear to
have underestimated the determination of other riparian countries to utilize
the waters of the Nile for development purposes. In fact, Egyptian
officials have reacted negatively and, according to many media sources, they
have threatened to take legal and diplomatic actions that make the new agreement
irrelevant. Time will tell, however, if their efforts bear fruit. Previously,
Egyptians got financial and diplomatic rewards in an exchange for making peace with
Israel. Today the situation is different. Ethiopian is the focus of donor
countries – their experiment for a big-push approach to poverty alleviation.
Prime Minister Meles Zenawi is a regular participant of G8 and G20 special
meetings on Africa. More importantly, there
are now more pressing security issues in East Africa, so that the West needs
the cooperation of Ethiopia, Kenya and other countries in the region to protect
its security and economic interests.
Egyptians
have previously threatened to take military action if they did not get what
they wanted. They may not necessarily venture to take on battle-hardened
Ethiopian army, but they certainly have built a strong air force. Ethiopia has MiGs that fly low and skilled pilots. The consequences of war are obvious.
A
viable strategy over the Nile waters then means that Egypt and Sudan secure
their long-term interests through engagements with other riparian countries.
The multi-donor supported Nile Basin Initiative has done a lot to create shared
visions of development among the Nile riparian countries. The Egyptians and Sudanese have an
opportunity to play a leading role in seeking innovation approaches that
promote peaceful and cooperative development. They and officials of other
riparian states have a lot to learn from the experience of Europeans who have
benefitted from regional economic cooperation. If Ethiopians wear fabrics made
in Egypt, or Egyptians eat what Ethiopian farmers produce, or Ethiopians motor
their automobiles with Sudanese oil, who would even think of who uses the Nile
waters and by how much? What would be the incentive? What will also be best is
planting trees and building terraces in the highland areas of Ethiopia in order
to conserve water and reduce water saltation in the croplands of Sudan and
Egypt.
The
world has rapidly changed since 1929 (when the first Nile treaty was signed
under colonial tutelage) including a popular awareness that water, air and land
are global public goods and that every individual citizen has a right of access
to these goods and a responsibility to protect and preserve them. To use the
words of one Sudanese professor (who recently wrote on this issue), sanity and
selflessness should not influence the thinking of citizens of all Nile riparian
countries.
Getachew Mequanent
Ottawa,
Canada
May
2010