Egypt and Sudan use 86% of the Nile water
Jun 11, 2010
For over a decade, the nine upstream countries, Eritrea as an observer, have been locked up in protracted negotiations to draft a new treaty on the usage of the Nile waters.
For over a decade, the nine upstream countries, Eritrea as an observer, have been locked up in protracted negotiations to draft a new treaty on the usage of the Nile waters.
Gordon Mumbo, the regional project manager confidence building and stakeholder involvement of the Nile Basin Initiative, says all countries consented to the framework agreement.
“But there is a clause in the agreement, which will reduce Egypt and Sudan’s right to use more than 85% of the water. This is article 14B, which deals with water security.â€
While the rest of the countries require that the utilisation of the waters of the Nile should not cause any significant harm to any of the Nile water basin countries, Egypt and Sudan are demanding that the utilisation should not adversely affect the water security and the current rights and uses of any Nile country.
Kavutse says Egypt and Sudan’s position is not any different from the 1929 and 1959 agreements that were signed by the British.
According to the agreements, Egypt was guaranteed to use 55.5 billion cubic metres of water and Sudan 18.5 billion cubic metres of water out of the total 84 billion cubic metres of the Nile water.
Ten billion cubic metres of the Nile water would be lost seepage. The rest of the countries were given nothing.
But the 1959 amendment gave Egypt the right to use 75% of the water, while Sudan has 11% and the rest, the seven countries, share 14%. Egypt and Sudan want the status quo to maintained.
According to the 1959 agreement, the other upstream countries have to first seek permission from Egypt and Sudan before embarking on any large scale development projects on the river.
But the seven upstream countries argue that they cannot maintain this status quo, saying they are now independent states and have the same rights as Egypt to use the waters.
“Our population is yearning for water and better services. We need water to develop agriculture and provide electricity,†says Kavutse.
As far as Egypt and Sudan are concerned, the colonial agreements are valid. According to the agreements, “Once the other upstream states claim a share of the Nile waters, Egypt and Sudan will study the claims and adopt a unified position.
If such studies result in the allocation of a specific volume of the Nile water to one or the other of the upper upstream states, the amount shall be deducted in equal shares from the share of Egypt and Sudan.
The other upstream states have presented their case and signed an agreement, but Sudan and Egypt do not recognise it.
The colonial agreement also gave Egypt powers to complain if the Nile waters were used by other countries without its consent.
Now that the upstream states have signed an agreement without Egypt and Sudan’s consent, will they go to court or open war like they have threatened in the past?
In the past, the Egyptian politicians have said the Nile water is a matter of national security to Egypt.
In 1980, Egypt’s former president Mohamed Anwar Sadat threatened to use military power if any Nile countries tried to overturn the 1929 and 1959 agreements.
Kavutse says there are reports Egypt is planning legal action against the upstream states that signed the accord. “That is a good move. But as we argue in courts, Uganda will develop the waters to develop our people. Their action has no effect on the use of the water.â€
Kavutse allayed fears that Egypt might militarily strike the states that signed the accord. “Those are scare crows that have been in existence to keep us from using the Nile water.
How come other countries have used the water and nothing has happened?†Kavutse asked.
Ethiopia has developed four big dams on the Blue Nile to generate electricity. Kavutse explains that the Ethiopians will export the electricity to Uganda and Kenya, which are experiencing shortages.
He adds that Tanzania built a Tsh27.6 billion (about Ush40b) project to draw water from Lake Victoria to supply Kahama irrigation project in Shinyanga region.
He adds that Uganda has not been using the Nile waters for big projects due to lack of funds and consistent reliance on donors like the World Bank, which always tell Uganda to consult Egypt first, whenever she seeks funds to make any development on the Nile.
“But our national budget is relying less on donors and we have oil. We shall be financially independent and able to build our dams,†says Kavutse.
When contacted for comment, the Egyptian ambassador declined to speak to Saturday Vision. “The ambassador has said he cannot talk about that subject,†his aide said.
Professor Martin Mulekwa, the retired head of political science at Makerere University, says for the time being, “Egypt will keep silent and will not reveal its plan.
But the truth is that Egypt is a resource-scarce, desert nation. They rely on the Nile for everything and they will do anything to maintain the current rights and use of water.â€
He adds that Egypt has many lawyers and experts trained in managing water issues and they will “first try the courts to appease the international community and if they are not satisfied, anything including military action will not be ruled out,†he explains.
He says Egypt knows that when they allow other nations to use the Nile for irrigation or building big dams, the level of the water they receive will reduce tremendously.
“Egypt has already entered the cycle of water poverty. With a population of over 78 million, they need about 64 billion cubic metres of water out of the Nile’s 84 billion cubic metres of water.
By 2017, Egypt will need about 86.2 billion cubic metres of water. If they stick to the 1959 agreement, they will have only 71.4 billion cubic metres of water,†Prof. Mulekwa, who is doing research on water security in Africa, revealed.
Mulekwa says the lopsided agreement was made by the colonialists to suit its interests and not those of Uganda.
“Egypt was growing a lot of cotton for the British industries and they needed a lot of water for irrigation.
So the agreement was signed to benefit Britain, not even Egypt.†Egypt found itself in this situation, according to Mulekwa.
He adds that when Egyptians became independent, they also learnt how to utilise the water and they did not want to give water to other states.
It is this omission that is leading to the current discomfort among other Nile states who want the use of the Nile water to be harmonised.
Gordon Mumbo, the regional project manager confidence building and stakeholder involvement of the Nile Basin Initiative, says all countries consented to the framework agreement.
“But there is a clause in the agreement, which will reduce Egypt and Sudan’s right to use more than 85% of the water. This is article 14B, which deals with water security.â€
While the rest of the countries require that the utilisation of the waters of the Nile should not cause any significant harm to any of the Nile water basin countries, Egypt and Sudan are demanding that the utilisation should not adversely affect the water security and the current rights and uses of any Nile country.
Kavutse says Egypt and Sudan’s position is not any different from the 1929 and 1959 agreements that were signed by the British.
According to the agreements, Egypt was guaranteed to use 55.5 billion cubic metres of water and Sudan 18.5 billion cubic metres of water out of the total 84 billion cubic metres of the Nile water.
Ten billion cubic metres of the Nile water would be lost seepage. The rest of the countries were given nothing.
But the 1959 amendment gave Egypt the right to use 75% of the water, while Sudan has 11% and the rest, the seven countries, share 14%. Egypt and Sudan want the status quo to maintained.
According to the 1959 agreement, the other upstream countries have to first seek permission from Egypt and Sudan before embarking on any large scale development projects on the river.
But the seven upstream countries argue that they cannot maintain this status quo, saying they are now independent states and have the same rights as Egypt to use the waters.
“Our population is yearning for water and better services. We need water to develop agriculture and provide electricity,†says Kavutse.
As far as Egypt and Sudan are concerned, the colonial agreements are valid. According to the agreements, “Once the other upstream states claim a share of the Nile waters, Egypt and Sudan will study the claims and adopt a unified position.
If such studies result in the allocation of a specific volume of the Nile water to one or the other of the upper upstream states, the amount shall be deducted in equal shares from the share of Egypt and Sudan.
The other upstream states have presented their case and signed an agreement, but Sudan and Egypt do not recognise it.
The colonial agreement also gave Egypt powers to complain if the Nile waters were used by other countries without its consent.
Now that the upstream states have signed an agreement without Egypt and Sudan’s consent, will they go to court or open war like they have threatened in the past?
In the past, the Egyptian politicians have said the Nile water is a matter of national security to Egypt.
In 1980, Egypt’s former president Mohamed Anwar Sadat threatened to use military power if any Nile countries tried to overturn the 1929 and 1959 agreements.
Kavutse says there are reports Egypt is planning legal action against the upstream states that signed the accord. “That is a good move. But as we argue in courts, Uganda will develop the waters to develop our people. Their action has no effect on the use of the water.â€
Kavutse allayed fears that Egypt might militarily strike the states that signed the accord. “Those are scare crows that have been in existence to keep us from using the Nile water.
How come other countries have used the water and nothing has happened?†Kavutse asked.
Ethiopia has developed four big dams on the Blue Nile to generate electricity. Kavutse explains that the Ethiopians will export the electricity to Uganda and Kenya, which are experiencing shortages.
He adds that Tanzania built a Tsh27.6 billion (about Ush40b) project to draw water from Lake Victoria to supply Kahama irrigation project in Shinyanga region.
He adds that Uganda has not been using the Nile waters for big projects due to lack of funds and consistent reliance on donors like the World Bank, which always tell Uganda to consult Egypt first, whenever she seeks funds to make any development on the Nile.
“But our national budget is relying less on donors and we have oil. We shall be financially independent and able to build our dams,†says Kavutse.
When contacted for comment, the Egyptian ambassador declined to speak to Saturday Vision. “The ambassador has said he cannot talk about that subject,†his aide said.
Professor Martin Mulekwa, the retired head of political science at Makerere University, says for the time being, “Egypt will keep silent and will not reveal its plan.
But the truth is that Egypt is a resource-scarce, desert nation. They rely on the Nile for everything and they will do anything to maintain the current rights and use of water.â€
He adds that Egypt has many lawyers and experts trained in managing water issues and they will “first try the courts to appease the international community and if they are not satisfied, anything including military action will not be ruled out,†he explains.
He says Egypt knows that when they allow other nations to use the Nile for irrigation or building big dams, the level of the water they receive will reduce tremendously.
“Egypt has already entered the cycle of water poverty. With a population of over 78 million, they need about 64 billion cubic metres of water out of the Nile’s 84 billion cubic metres of water.
By 2017, Egypt will need about 86.2 billion cubic metres of water. If they stick to the 1959 agreement, they will have only 71.4 billion cubic metres of water,†Prof. Mulekwa, who is doing research on water security in Africa, revealed.
Mulekwa says the lopsided agreement was made by the colonialists to suit its interests and not those of Uganda.
“Egypt was growing a lot of cotton for the British industries and they needed a lot of water for irrigation.
So the agreement was signed to benefit Britain, not even Egypt.†Egypt found itself in this situation, according to Mulekwa.
He adds that when Egyptians became independent, they also learnt how to utilise the water and they did not want to give water to other states.
It is this omission that is leading to the current discomfort among other Nile states who want the use of the Nile water to be harmonised.