1. River Nile Group Work

2. Problem Statement Issue: forward look on equitable distribution and efficient utilization of Nile water resource amongst 10 Riparians Power imbalance: Egypt is the strongest player economically and politically, weakest Ethiopia (food insecurity problem assumed to be sufficiently rain fed to-date) Equitable distribution: Current agreement benefits Sudan and Egypt only Efficient utilization: Egypt poorly utilizes water

3. Base position (contemporary) 1959: Egypt 55.5BCM and Sudan 18.5BCM with no allocations for the remaining 8 riparians (despite some being upper riparians). The agreement also claused the possible demands on water by other riparians and set out to distribute the impact equally between the two countries A lot of development since the agreement on socio- economic indicators Zero tolerance/threat to war from Egypt to encourage building of water structures by other Riparians Egypt and Sudan: want to stick to status-quo, BATNA is to negotiate (understand the costs of war) 8 other riparians: want a new agreement and break status- quo as per international law (efficient/equitable distribution), most vocal Ethiopia Egypt and Sudan duo

4. Solution May 1999, NBI was introduced which shows potential and appetite for a diplomatic solution Egypt – changing stance – aggressive to internal realisation about costs of war (BATNA) Countries should come together and agree on a weightage criteria to assess current/future demands/needs using a third party/neutral technical advisor within international law framework

5. Role of third party mediator Yes, we feel there is scope for a neutral third party technical facilitator to the process to determine at least a consensus driven weightage average Could explore using a third party financial facilitator if there is interest from all parties Joint fact finding in case figures are contested