The Nile Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement Negotiations & the Adoption of a “Water Security” Paradigm: Flight into obscurity or a Logical Cul-de-sac? 2011 Cairo University Faculty of Economics & Political Science PhD Euro- Med Program

 Introduction.  Historical Background: 1.Overview. 2.Legal framework (existing treaties). 3.Technical cooperation.  Nile Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement (NBCFA).  Concept of “Water Security”.

 There are two phenomena relating to fresh water: the dramatic and continuing increase in the use of water; and the growing pressure that is placed on the Earth’s constant water resources by the world’s ever expanding population.  This applies to the Nile Basin than to any other basin, which is “A giant in terms of length, and a dwarf in terms of the volume of water it carries.  The article mainly tries to decipher the concept of “water security” regarding the Nile Basin issue, and explain why this is considered a drawback. And that a real cooperation in the Nile Basin should be sought nowhere but within the framework of international water law.

 In the distant past, Ethiopian monarchs used the Nile as a rough diplomatic whip to pressurize their Egyptian counterparts in matters which then constituted their primary concerns.  The British colonialism brought a hegemonic plan aimed at controlling the entire basin with a view to ensure the uninterrupted flow of the Nile downstream.  Begun at the twilight of the colonial era, cooperation among Nile riparian proceeded, along bilateral or sub-basin arrangements which often has single technical issues as their centre piece.  It started by bilateral cooperation between Egypt and the UK (for Uganda), dealt with organization and recording of meteorological and hydrological information about the Equatorial Lakes.  A decade later, in May 1967, due to floods, some Nile riparians engaged into another cooperative arrangement around a project for Hydro-meteorological Survey of the Equatorial Lakes, known as Hydromet. It served primarily as a mechanism for creating a core of water experts and technicians from the participating countries, which are Egypt, Sudan and Lakes Kyoga and Albert.

A.The 1929 Nile Waters Agreement -The agreement was concluded between Egypt and the UK, where the UK acknowledged the natural and historical rights of Egypt in the waters of the Nile. -It allocated annual discharge to Egypt & Sudan as “acquired rights” measuring 48 & 4 billion cubic meters respectively. B.The 1959 Nile Waters Agreement -It was signed in Cairo on November, 8 th 1959, by Egypt &Sudan, to realize, through joint projects, the full control and utilization of the Nile waters. -It reaffirmed the acquired rights of the two parties, neglecting the rights of all other riparians.

 Technical cooperation started in the 1980s, through an unofficial African regional grouping intended to serve as a platform for informal discussions regarding the overall economic development of the Nile Basin region.  Two cooperative initiatives which grew out of this unofficial platform: Undugu and TECCONILE. A.Undugu: I.The initiative grew out of an Egyptian proposal to launch an informal organization to dicus, in annual ministerial meetings, issues like: Nile waters; agriculture; resource development and the promotion of economic, technical and scientific cooperation among the riparians. II.The initiative was accepted by Sudan, Uganda, Zaire (DRC), Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania, and the non- riparian Central African Republic. Whereas, Ethiopia and Kenya joined as observers. III.The good thing about Undugu is that it did carry out fact-finding activities designed to help the formulation of a comprehensive economic plan for the whole river. However, it failed to lead to meaningful and concrete riparian cooperation, due to lack of commitment on the part of Egypt, which perceived it as an exercise in hegemonic influence.

B. TECCONILE: I.The Technical Cooperation Committee for the Promotion of the Development and Environment Protection of the Nile (TECCONILE) was established in 1992, by Egypt, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda and DRC, with other riparians participating as observers. II.It was established as a transitional scheme for a period of three years, with the hope that on the expiry of the period, a permanent basin-wide institution would be established. The aim that couldn’t be achieved due to financial constraints, and the competitive behavior of the riparians. III.An important outcome of the TECCONILE is the development of the Nile River Action Plan, that was approved by the Council of Ministers of Water Affairs in Tanzania, IV.The Nile Basin Cooperative Framework was incorporated into the action plan, becoming, thus, a true progenitor of the NBCFA.

 The Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) is considered a breakthrough from competition to cooperation.  It was launched in February, 1999 in Dar El-Salam, Tanzania, by the Council of Ministers of Water Affairs of the Nile Basin States (Nile- COM).  It was anchored in a “shared vision”, to achieve sustainable socio- economic development through the equitable utilization of, and benefits from, the Nile Basin water resources.  The Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA) dates back to the TECCONILE, however, it was submitted to the Nile-COM in Entebbe, Uganda in 2007, where the concept of “water security” was introduced.

 It has been defined as: “The availability of an acceptable quantity and quality of water for health, livelihoods, ecosystems, and production, coupled with an acceptable level of water related risks to people, environments and economies.”  And, it has been defined in the CFA as: the right of all Nile Basin States to reliable access to and use of the Nile River System for health, agriculture, livelihoods, production and environment”  The concept was included as it has been positively portrayed as a way to bring closer the divergent views held by upper and lower riparians.

 Article (4) of the CFA: “…Nile Basin states agree, in a spirit of cooperation: a.To work together to ensure that all States achieve and sustain water security. b.Not to significantly affect the water security of any other Nile Basin State.”  However, the writer thinks that it represents a rather unwarranted detour to a dead- end, not a headway towards a compromise and resolution of the Nile Waters question, for the following reasons: I.The concept is found nowhere in international legal instruments dealing with international waters, notably the 1966 Helsinki Rules and the 1977 UN Water- resources Convention. II. The exhausted Nile lakes the required hydrological environment to ensure water security as defined earlier.  Therefore, Nile River riparians should seek their cooperation under the umbrella of International Water Law, hence, give up this concept of water security, for institutional cooperation.

Thank you