WATANI International
23 May 2010
A few days before signing the historical peace agreement between Egypt and Israel in 1979, Egypt’s then president Anwar al-Sadat said that the only issue that could henceforth drive Egypt to war would be a water issue. And in 1985, Egypt’s then Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who later became Secretary-General of the United Nations from 1992 to 1996, said that the next war in the Middle East would be over water not politics.
These words inevitably come to mind as one contemplates the current political conflict between the Nile Basin countries over the equitable sharing of the Nile water. And even though politicians have staunchly denied the possibility of any water war, unanimous agreement appears a long way off, and Egyptians hold their breath at what the future may bring.
This is not, however, the first agreement to be signed concerning the Nile water. Throughout the past two centuries, seven agreements existed to regulate Nile water sharing. Many of these were concluded while the Nile Basin countries were yet under colonial rule.
The Anglo-Italian Protocol of April 1891
Only Article III of this treaty refers to the Nile water. The remaining defines the colonial territorial claims of Great Britain and Italy in East Africa. Article III states the following: “the Italian government engages not to construct on the Atbara River, in view of irrigation, any work which might sensibly modify its flow into the Nile”. Neither did the Atbara flow in the territory claimed by Italy nor was Italy colonising a country near the Atbara River, in order to have a claim over the river. The reference to the Atbara on the part of Britain made some sense since it is a tributary of the Nile, which flows through the Sudan and Egypt, both colonised by Britain.
It appears that the intent of the treaty was not use of the Nile water, but to establish a colonial boundary. Given this context, the treaty cannot be seen as an agreement over property rights to the river. Even if the treaty is assumed to define use rights to the river, the term “sensibly modify the flow into the Nile” is too vague. The volume of Atbara water used upstream to be considered as a sensible modification by downstream users of Britain colonies is undefined. The language used is inadequate to provide the parties with clear property rights and guarantees for water use. It is not unreasonable, therefore, for the other riparian nations to see no reason for this treaty to provide a historical base for binding present and future cooperation on Nile water use.
The Treaty between Great Britain and Ethiopia, May 1902
The aim of this treaty was to establish the border between Ethiopia and the Sudan. One of its articles, number III, related to the use of Nile water. The English version, as reviewed by Britain and later by the Sudan, read: “His Majesty the Emperor Menilik II, King of Kings of Ethiopia, engages himself towards the Government of His Britannic Majesty not to construct or allow to be constructed any work across the Blue Bile, Lake Tana, or the Sobat, which would arrest the flow of their waters except in agreement with His Britannic Majesty’s Government and the Government of Sudan”. The Amharic version, however, gave a different meaning and understanding to Ethiopia and was never ratified by the country.
The treaty was understood by Ethiopia as follows: securing and maintaining the prior agreement of Britain before construction of any work on the Nile tributaries; not to arrest the flow of the Nile rivers did not mean not to use; and, that the treaty was made between Britain (the coloniser of the Sudan) but not with the Sudan which was then under colonial power.
The 1902 agreement has been the most controversial treaty in the history of Nile agreements as both parties claimed that their own understanding of the treaty was correct.
The Agreement between Britain and the Congo, May 1906
This was an agreement on the colonial boundary of the Congo between Britain and Belgium. The Congo being called an ‘independent state’ when the treaty was signed by the Government of Belgium on behalf of this country was hypocritical. Article III of the agreement was about the Nile waters and it stated that: “The Government of the independent state of the Congo undertakes not to construct, or allow to be constructed, any work over or near the Semliki or Isango rivers which would diminish the volume of water entering Lake Albert except in agreement with the Sudanese Government”.
The agreement did not require downstream users to consult the upstream countries for anything that they might do to the Nile waters. In this treaty, it is difficult to find any incentive for future cooperation between riparian nations since it involved neither the principle of equitable water use nor the approach of integrated water development.
The Tripartite (Britain-France-Italy) Treaty, December 1906
Article 4 (a) of this treaty dealt with the use of the Nile water in Ethiopia’s sub-basin. It states: “To act together… to safeguard; … the interests of Great Britain and Egypt in the Nile Basin, more especially as regards the regulation of the waters of that river and its tributaries (due consideration being paid to local interests) without prejudice to Italian interests”. This treaty denied “the absolute sovereignty” of Ethiopia over its water resource. It resulted in Ethiopia immediately notifying its rejection of the agreement by indicating that no country had the right to stop it from using its own water resource.
Neither Ethiopia’s military power nor its international political and economic influence was strong enough to protect Ethiopia’s sovereign rights over its water resource. Ethiopia’s rejection of this agreement was a revision, if not retraction, of the May 1902 treaty signed between Ethiopia and Britain.
The 1925 Exchange of Notes between Britain and Italy Concerning Lake Tana
Britain and Italy had signed an agreement in 1919 over Lake Tana of Ethiopia, which read in part as follows: “In view of the predominating interests of Great Britain in respect of the control of the waters of Lake Tana, Italy offers Great Britain her support, in order that she may obtain from Ethiopia the concession to carry out works of barrage in the lake itself..”. In 1925, it was expanded as follows. “…Italy recognises the prior hydraulic rights of Egypt and the Sudan… not to construct on the head waters of the Blue Nile and the White Nile (the Sobat) and their tributaries and effluents any work which might sensibly modify their flow into the main river.” Ethiopia opposed this agreement and notified the parties of its objections.
The Agreement between Egypt and Sudan, May 1929
This agreement stipulated that:
• Egypt and Sudan utilise 48 and 4 billion cubic metres of the Nile flow per year, respectively;
• The flow of the Nile during 20 January to 15 July (the dry season) would be reserved for Egypt;
• Egypt reserves the right to monitor the Nile flow in the upstream countries;
• Egypt assumes the right to undertake Nile river related projects without the consent of upper riparian states;
• Egypt assumes the right to veto any construction projects that would affect her interests adversely
Egypt was still under British rule in 1929. Neither Sudan nor the remaining riparian states apart from Ethiopia, which was too poor and weak to challenge this agreement, were independent.
The 1959 Nile agreement between the Sudan and Egypt for the full utilisation of the Nile water
This agreement came in the wake of Egypt’s plan to build the High Dam, and stipulated that:
• The controversy on the quantity of average annual Nile flow was settled and agreed to be about 84 billion cubic meters measured at Aswan High Dam, in Egypt.
• The agreement allowed the entire average annual flow of the Nile to be shared among the Sudan and Egypt at 18.5 and 55.5 billion cubic meters, respectively.
• Annual water loss due to evaporation and other factors were agreed to be about 10 billion cubic meters. This quantity would be deducted from the Nile yield before share was assigned to Egypt and Sudan.
• Sudan, in agreement with Egypt, would construct projects that would enhance the Nile flow by preventing evaporation losses in the Sudan swamps of the White Nile located in the southern Sudan. The cost and benefit of same to be divided equally between them. If claim would come from the remaining riparian countries over the Nile water resource, both the Sudan and Egypt shall, together, handle the claims.
• If the claim prevails and the Nile water has to be shared with another riparian state, that allocated amount would be deducted from the Sudan’s and Egypt’s and allocations/shares in equal parts of Nile volume measured at Aswan.
• The agreement granted Egypt the right to construct the Aswan High Dam that can store the entire annual Nile River flow of a year.
• It granted the Sudan to construct the Rosaries Dam on the Blue Nile and, to develop other irrigation and hydroelectric power generation until it fully utilises its Nile share.
• A Permanent Joint Technical Commission to be established to secure the technical cooperation between them.