Imbalance in Water
Allocation Stability andCollaboration within the
Nile BasinKinfe Abraham

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES No. 24

Published by the African Technology Policy Studies Network, P.O. Box 10081, 00100
General Post Office, Nairobi, Kenya.

© 2006 African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS)

PUBLISHED BY ATPS COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENTPRINTED BY ZEALOT PRINTERS

ISBN: 9966-916-35-3

ABOUT THE AFRICAN TECHNOLOGY POLICY STUDIES NETWORKThe African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) is a multi-disciplinary network of researchers,
policy makers, actors in the private sector and other end users interested in generating, promoting
and strengthening innovative science and technology policies in Africa. With a regional secretariat in
Nairobi, the network operates through national chapters in 23 countries, with an expansion plan tocover the entire sub-Saharan Africa.
One of the objectives of the network is to disseminate research results to policy makers, legislators,
the organized private sector, civil society, mass media and farmers’ groups through publications,dialogue and advocacy. Among its range of publications are the Working Paper Series (WPS),
Research Paper Series (RPS), Special Paper Series (SPS) and the Technopolicy Briefs.
Papers published under the ATPS Special Paper Series are those commissioned as concept
papers, think pieces, leading conference papers and keynote addresses. In keeping with
our knowledge brokerage function, ATPS publishes, with permission of the author(s) or
journal editors, papers (published or unpublished) produced by distinguished academics/
researchers for a different purpose but judged by ATPS to be of excellent quality. Thesepapers address significant policy questions relevant to the work of ATPS and/or support
the Southern voice or an African perspective. We also consider theoretical papers that
advance our knowledge of science and technology policy issues.
ATPS is supported by a growing number of donors including the International Development ResearchCentre (IDRC), the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Rockefeller Foundation, the World Bank,
the OPEC Fund, Ford Foundation, Coca-Cola Eastern Africa, the African Development Bank, InfoDev,
and the Royal Dutch Government.

Table of Contents

1

Introduction

1

2

Imbalance in the Nile Basin Riparian Countries

2

3

Extent of Utilization of the Nile Riparians: Egypt

44

Extent of Utilization of the Nile Riparians: The Sudan

65

Extent of Utilization by the the Great Lakes Riparians

7

6

Extent of Utilization by Ethiopia

8

7

Key Issues of Potential Conflict in the Nile Basin

10

8

Towards a Nile Accord: Nile Issues

12

9

Breaking the Psycho-Political Impasse

13

10Conclusion

17

11

References

20

1.

Introduction

Water is finite. Just 2.5 percent of the world’s water is fresh, rather than seawater. And most of the
fresh water that does exist is locked in ice caps and glaciers. Of the remaining amount, some twothirds is “lost” to evaporation. From what is left, some 20 percent is in areas too remote for humanaccess.1
The situation is even worse as 3 -4th of the remaining comes at the wrong time or place, throughmonsoons, hurricanes and floods, and can only be partially captured for human use.
The renewable fresh water supply on land-water made available year after year by rainfall. is lessthan one percent of the total water on the planet.2 Of this tiny fraction of water available for humanuse, some two-thirds is devoted to agriculture, a figure that rises to more than 80 percent, sometimes
90 percent, in many developing countries, where the real water crunch is coming.3

1

Dr. Kinfe Abraham, “The Nile Issue: The Psycho-Political Hurdles to an Agreement .and the Way Forward to a Rapprochement”,
Occasional Paper Series, No.7 Addis Ababa, EIIPD, August 1997.
2
Yacob Arsano, “Toward Conflict Prevention in the Nile Basin,” Paper Presented at the “Fifth Nile 2002 Conference” held in Addis
Ababa, February 24-28, 1997.
3
Ibid.

1

2.

Imbalance in the Nile Basin Riparian Countries

The Nile Basin is 3.35 million sq. kms. The principal occupation of the people in the Nile Basin is
agriculture. Pastoralism is a supplementary activity for both upper and lower basin countries. The
upper riparians, namely, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi and the Democratic
Republic of Congo (DRC) have made little use of the Nile River. Whatever use they have made of theriver is confined to hydro-electric power generation. However, the lower riparians, Egypt and Sudan(Egypt more so) have exploited the water resources of the Nile extensively both for irrigation andhydro-power. In short, the upper riparians have been the suppliers and the lower riparian the users of
the Nile waters.
Commenting on the problem of upper riparians, Yacob Arsano, in an article entitled “Toward Conflict
Prevention in the Nile Basin,” writes, “the development initiatives and the enormous potential of thewater resources development in upstream countries have been frustrated, among other things, byfear of strategically untimely conflicts with lower riparians.”4 Yet, the upper riparians are very muchinterested to utilise the waters of the” Nile. Thus a basin-wide agreement is necessary to avoid
potential conflicts and harness the water resources for mutual and equitable benefits. The necessity
for harnessing the great potential of the Nile is underlined by the extent of its utilization as can bediscerned from the table below.

4

Yacob Arsano, “Toward Conflict Prevention in the Nile Basin,” Paper Presented at the “Fifth Nile 2002 Conference” held in Addis
Ababa, February 24-28, 1997.

2

3

A SURVEY OF INDIGENOUS WATER MANAGEMENT AND COPING MECHANISMS IN AFRICA

Table 1: Crop land and Irrigation on the Nile Basin 1975-875
Country

Crop land Total Area,(in Hectares) 1975-87

Irrigated land as %of crop land 1975-77

Irrigated land as % ofcrop land 1985-87

Burundi1,332,000

4

5

Egypt

2,560,000

100

100

Ethiopia

13,930,000

1

10

Kenya

2,420,000

2

2

Rwanda1,120,000

0

0

Sudan

12,478,000

14

15Tanzania

5,230,000

1

3

Uganda6,705,000

0

0

DRC

000

0

0

Table 2: Hydroelectric Resources of the Nile6
Country

5

Technical Potential

Installed capacity,(in Mega Watts)

1987 (MW)Burundi

289

12

Egypt

3,210

2,700

Ethiopia

4,000

230

Kenya

814

354

Rwanda

600

56

Sudan

380

225

Tanzania

4,000

259

Uganda

1,200

156

DRC

12,0002,480

Yacob Arsano, “Toward Conflict Prevention in the Nile Basin,” Paper Presented at the “Fifth Nile 2002 Conference” held in Addis
Ababa, February 24-28, 1997.
6
Ibid.

3.

Extent of Utilization of the Nile Riparians:
Egypt

Egypt has made greater use of the Nile waters than all the riparian countries combined. This is dueto the geographical, historic and economic circumstances which have obtained in Egypt. Except forthe small Mediterranean strip and the narrow Nile Valley, the rest of Egypt is just a vast desert.
Besides, as most of the Egyptian people are farmers, they depend on the Nile waters for irrigation. In
fact, 98 percent of the population lives in the Nile valley. The Nile River for Egypt is, therefore, asource of life. This perhaps explains why Egypt is called “the Gift of the Nile.”
More than 86% of the Nile Waters originate in Ethiopia. Hence, Egypt assigns a prominent place toher relation with Ethiopia although it has by no means been always smooth.
The Nile is dependent for the most part on Ethiopian rivers. Further, it carries fertile from the Ethiopian
highlands with its annual floods. That is why when Khedive Is was asked whether he intended toannex Ethiopia, he was reported as having said nature was already sending him down the best partof Ethiopia with each flood of the that he had no desire for the residue.7
After colonising Egypt in 1882, and the Sudan, Kenya and Uganda in the last decade of the 19th
century, Britain tried through political and legal manoeuvres to ensure the unobstructed and continuous
flow of the Nile River to Egypt. It signed agreements on behalf of its colonies having them to pledge
not to construct dams on the Nile River. It also signed agreements with Ethiopia, the then Italiancolony of Eritrea, and King Leopold II’s colony of the Congo prohibiting them from constructing damson the Nile waters without the prior consent of the British Government. The 1929 Nile waters
apportionment agreement between Britain and Egypt, for example, banned irrigation, power
generation and other uses of the Nile waters by the Sudan and other British colonies without theagreement of the Egyptian government. This was to ensure that the quantity of water arriving in Egypt
was not reduced.8
Britain signed this agreement, which failed to heed customary law as well as common sense, tosoothe the anti-British nationalist anger in Egypt that had surfaced after World War I. However, thishas resulted in lingering feelings of resentment against Britain and Egypt by upstream countries.
Yacob Arsano, “Toward Conflict Prevention in the Nile Basin,” Paper Presented at the “Fifth Nile 2002 Conference” held in Addis
Ababa, February 24-28, 1997.
8
Ibid.

7

4

A SURVEY OF INDIGENOUS WATER MANAGEMENT AND COPING MECHANISMS IN AFRICA

5

On the other hand, Egypt has continued to construct barrages and dams without consulting upstream
riparians. Arsano writes, “during the Nineteenth and the Twentieth centuries, the desire of the Egyptian
Government was to control the Nile waters in such a way that the floods would remain within thebanks, secure the availability of water through out the year for permanent irrigation and for expanding
the land under irrigation.”9 Yet, the needs of the upstream riparians were not taken into account by the
Egyptian Government.
In 1959, Egypt and the Sudan signed an agreement for the full utilisation of the Nile waters without
including other riparians in the agreement. According to this agreement, the Sudan got 18.5 Billion
Cubic Meters (BCM) and Egypt 55.5 BCM of water. After this agreement was reached the constructionof the great Aswan dam went ahead as of 1960.
The Aswan High Dam is the first largest man-made lake with a reservoir which is 591 Kms long andcapable of releasing 1500 tons of water every second for irrigation during times of drought. It wasestimated that the new dam would expand cultivated land by 1.3 million acres (526.11 hectares) andresult in the application of permanent irrigation on 700,000 acres (283.29 hectares) using the basin
system. This was then envisaged to make Egypt secure from the fluctuations of the Nile waters.
Moreover, the dam was designed to provide considerable hydro-electric power as well as improvenavigation below it. While constructing such an immense dam, Egypt did not bother to consult
upstream riparians except the Sudan. The needs of the other upper riparians were simply ignored.10
Further, the recently inaugurated Sinai and Kharga/Dkhala water diversion projects were constructedwithout prior consultations with upstream riparians. The El Salam project requires 4.45 BCM of thewaters of the Nile annually in the Sinai. The new artificial lake in the valley of Kharga and Dkhala
began in 1981.
The El Salam canal links the Nile and Lake Nasser to the new artificial lake with a reservoir of 600sq.
kms and capacity of 120 BCM. It was also planned that 200,000 hectares of land would be underirrigation. Such unilateral actions on the part of Egypt have also encouraged upper riparians to act
unilaterally in utilising the waters of the Nile.

Yacob Arsano, “Toward Conflict Prevention in the Nile Basin,” Paper Presented at the “Fifth Nile 2002 Conference” held in Addis
Ababa, February 24-28, 1997.
10
Ibid.

9

4.

Extent of Utilization by the Nile Riparians: The
Sudan

The Sudan is the second country that has made greater use of the Nile waters. Modern agriculturalschemes started in the Sudan in the 19205. The Gezira scheme started during the same year. It is
supplied with water from the Gigantic Sennar Dam which was built on the Blue Nile in 1925. Initiallya quarter of a million acres were put under irrigation.
Other dams were also built subsequently. For instance, the Jebel Awlia dam was constructed on the
White Nile in 1937. The Rosaries Dam was built on the Blue Nile following the 1959 agreement with
Egypt. Its storage capacity is 2.4 BCM sq. kms. It was completed in 1962 and is equipped with
250,000 Watt generators. The Khasim el-Gerba dam was completed in 1964 and has a capacity toirrigate 100,000 hectares.
The Gezira Scheme alone constitutes 12 per cent of the total area cultivated in the Sudan. It produces
75 per cent of “Long staple cotton”, which is the country’s main product. It also accounts for 12% of
the country’s production of Durra, 15% of ground nuts and 50% of Wheat.
This scheme which covers 2.3 million acres between the Blue Nile and White Nile produced about
350,000 tons of cotton in 1977/78. In addition, in the Rohad Valley a project costing US $ 34.6 million
was designed in 1977 to irrigate 820,000 acres.
The Sudan also uses the Nile as a means of transportation. Egypt and Sudan had also agreed to diga canal called the Jonge1li between Ma/aka/ and Jongelli to decrease the loss of water in the Sudan(at the Sudd) due to evaporation. This was aimed to increase the water flow to the lower Sudan andEgypt, and to draw the surface water into the bank of the canal so that swamp land could bereclaimed for agriculture in upper Sudan. Besides, the canal was intended to facilitate navigation
between Jongelli and Ma/aka/. However, the canal digging activity has been disrupted since 1983
due to the civil war.11

Yacob Arsano, “Toward Conflict Prevention in the Nile Basin,” Paper Presented at the “Fifth Nile 2002 Conference” held in Addis
Ababa, February 24-28, 1997.

11

6

5.

Extent of Utilization by the Great Lakes
Riparians

The upstream riparians in the Great Lakes region, namely Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Burundi and
Rwanda were unable to benefit from the Nile waters during the colonial era because their hands
were tied by injudicious treaties entered on their behalf by Britain with downstream riparians. For
instance, “In Kenya, in the early 1950s, a small area of the Kano plain was developed for riceproduction. By 1957 some 4000 acres were cultivated by irrigation.”12
A study in 1954 identified 29,892 acres of irrigable land in Kano plain. However, because of theuncooperative behaviour of Britain, the irrigation project was postponed. Hence, a small fraction of
the irrigable land is cultivated.
In Tanzania, before the start of World War I, Germany had planned to develop large scale cotton
farms covering two million acres in Sukumaland. The water was to be obtained from Lake Victoria
via a canal or tunnel. Nevertheless, as Germany was defeated in World War I Britain became the newcolonial master. But, as Britain was interested only in the benefit of downstream riparians, the irrigation
plan in Tanzania was shelved to ensure that the Sudan and Egypt got an undiminished flow of the
Nile Waters.
Commenting on why political consideration was important with respect to the Nile waters, Arsano
writes, “when the Suez Canal crisis was at its peak, some revived the intention to take up thesukumaland project. This was not, however, intended for Tanzania’s economic development, but apolitical consideration to punish Egypt.”13
In Uganda, the Victoria region of the country is highly suitable for agricultural development.
Nevertheless, Uganda has used her waters only for hydroelectric power. The Owen Fall Dam
completed in 1954 produces 700 million Killo Wat Hours (KWH) of hydroelectric power annually. If
the whole regulated flow of the Victoria Nile were available for power generation, the annual productionof energy would be 921 million KWH.

Yacob Arsano, “Toward Conflict Prevention in the Nile Basin,” Paper Presented at the “Fifth Nile 2002 Conference” held in Addis
Ababa, February 24-28, 1997.
13
Ibid.

12

7

6.

Extent of Utilization by Ethiopia

Ethiopia is the main source of the Nile waters. More than 86% of the water of the Nile originates in it.
Nevertheless, it is a country that has made the least use of the Nile water. During the colonial era,
Ethiopia was engaged in struggles to maintain its territorial integrity and political independence
against metropolitan powers. Hence, it had neither the time nor the resources to utilise the water of
the Nile.
Yet, Ethiopia has always maintained the desire to utilise the water of the Nile. In 1927 King Teferi
Mokonen sent a special envoy, Workneh Martin, to the United States. One of the objectives of this
diplomatic overture was to obtain American engineers for the Lake Tana development project. As aresult of this effort, J.G. White Engineering Corporation was sent by the U.S. Government.
The Corporation commenced physical surveys in 1930 and estimated the total cost of the works at$8,878,000. The contract included the Lake Tana outlet and the construction of a high way from
Addis Ababa to Lake Tana. However, the project failed to materialize due to opposition on the part ofBritain and the impending Italian invasion of Ethiopia.
In the 1950’s, Ethiopia contracted a U.S. engineering firm, Balton Hannessey and Partners, to conduct
a comprehensive study of the Abbay (Blue Nile) River. The survey was conducted from 1957 to 1962.
It involved studies of stream flow, soils, hydroelectric power potential, land use, marketing,communications, dams and irrigation.
At the time, Egypt and the Sudan were engaged in negotiation regarding the full utilisation of the Nilewaters. Ethiopia was not included in the negotiations. The Ethiopian government then asserted thecountries right for the utilisation of the water resources within the country’s borders.
The Abbay (Blue Nile) River Basin has considerable irrigable land. In the face of drought induced
famines that afflict Ethiopia constantly, it is necessary for the country to utilize the water of the Blue
Nile for irrigation. In the 1970s, there were plans for irrigated - agriculture in the Blue Nile basin.
Arsano comments, “Regarding the irrigation of the Ethiopian Nile Basin, 1,600,000 hectares of land,8

A SURVEY OF INDIGENOUS WATER MANAGEMENT AND COPING MECHANISMS IN AFRICA

9

including 115,000 hectares around Baro (Sobat) River and 400,000 hectares of land around Abbay(Blue Nile) was planned to be under irrigation for agriculture.”14
Moreover, most of the rivers in the Ethiopian Nile Basin are suitable for the generation of hydroelectric
power. The rivers of Ethiopia also have the potential to produce 56,000 c million KWH of hydroelectric
power. Therefore, it behooves Ethiopia to harness her hydropower potential to conserve the meagre
foreign exchange which it spends on imported oil. Given this situation, “Ethiopia has no option but toharness its water resources for consumptive and non-consumptive purposes. There is no legal or
institutional obligation which limits Ethiopian policy makers as well as planners from fulfilling thisduty in the best interest of their people.”15

Yacob Arsano, “Toward Conflict Prevention in the Nile Basin,” Paper Presented at the “Fifth Nile 2002 Conference” held in Addis
Ababa, February 24-28, 1997.
15
Ibid.

14

7.

Key Issues of Potential Conflict in the NileBasin

One fundamental potential issue of conflict is related to the equitable sharing of the Nile water
resources. Ethiopia, while providing the lion’s share of the waters of the Nile, utilizes almost nothingof it. This brings the question of justice to the fore. This point is further elaborated upon by K.
Abraham below:
The predicament of other riparian countries is the same. It applies to the Sudan
which, after all, sees it self as a junior beneficiary. For Ethiopia the obvious questionis and for the long time to come will be: why should the country which provides
86% of the water of the Blue Nile be deprived of its fair share? Finally, nevertheless,even those countries which have endorsed the argument of historical rights whichhave leverage over banks and other financial institutions will vote for justice.16
The utilisation of the Nile waters is based neither on law nor on common sense. Yet, the lower
riparians (the Sudan and Egypt), contribute almost nothing to it, but consume most of it. In contrast,
the upper riparians hardly utilize anything. This happens under the circumstances of institutional
and legal void.
The above status quo is untenable. The upper riparians are certainly going to use some of theirwater resources while the lower riparians want more water above the current levels. Describing how
this may lead to conflict Arsano observes:
With the sharp increase of population in the coming decades ...every riparian
country may not only feel more need but also the obligation to utilize its water
resources to maximum levels. Such demands are already soaring beyond thelevel of available water resources in the entire basin. Egypt and the Sudan haveprojected their water needs for agriculture alone at 65.5 BCM. This amount is
12.26 BCM higher than the total available water in the Nile Basin. This is a clear
indication that when all riparians come up with their respective national water
master plans the available water resources and national demands will be at
irreconcilable variance.1716
17

Dr. Kinfe Abraham, op. cit.
Yacob Arsano, op. cit

10

11

A SURVEY OF INDIGENOUS WATER MANAGEMENT AND COPING MECHANISMS IN AFRICA

Population growth alone is not merely the problem, although it is one of the contributing factors. (Seethe table below). The other important source of conflict is that there is no basin-wide legal mechanismon the basis of which water apportionment can be made and regulated. The existing treaties arebilateral and unduly favor downstream countries. Abraham has emphasised the point in the following
passage:
The complexity of the problem of the equitable sharing and utilization of the watersof the Nile is underscored by the nature of past agreements such as the 1902
Anglo-Ethiopian agreement and the 1929 and 1959 Nile Water agreements signed
between Egypt and the Sudan in which both countries agreed to allocate the net
historical yield of 74 BCM at the Aswan Dam between themselves on the basis of
55.5 BCM for Egypt and 18.5 BCM for the Sudan. Ethiopia was excluded fromthese negotiations and none of the total amount water was made available to it. 18
The compelling imperative of population growth which is likely to put pressure on both upper andlower riparians to demand more water need not be overemphasized. The table below which isindicative of the current situation and future trends of population growth I highlights the point very
well:
Table 3: Size and Growth of Population (Million). Years and Population (Million)19
Country

1960

1990

2025

Burundi

2.9

5.5

13.1

Egypt

25.9

54.1

94.0

Ethiopia

24.2

46.1

112.3

Kenya

6.3

25.1

77.6

Rwanda

2.7

7.2

18.1

Sudan

11.2

25.2

77.6

Tanzania

10.0

27.3

84.8

Uganda

6.6

18.4

55.2

DRC

15.9

36.0

99.5

18
19

Dr. Kinfe Abraham, op.cit
Yacob Arsano, op. cit

8.

Towards a Nile Accord: Nile Issues

Any future Nile accord should be predicated on international principles, consideration of the needsof the different riparians, the promotion of collaboration and complimentary as well as division oflabour and specialization within the basin. The essence of this is laconically captured in the following
citation:
A future accord on the Nile should be predicated on expanding the usable yields,
encouraging interdependencies and allocations of water rights. This should
include provisions for apportionment of water, especially in times of scarcity andthe establishment of principles to guide this... Nile water management is not strictly
a zero-sum game.20
At present, the hurdles to a negotiated agreement on the allocation of the waters of the Nile revolvearound:1. The mood of distrust and suspicion surrounding the whole issue of the Nile;
2. The historical inability of Ethiopia and the Sudan to make credible commitments to
Egypt due to their past domestic situations;
3. Sudan’s problems of the recent past which deprived it of a competitive edge innegotiations;4. Egypt’s reluctance to make compromises without the assurance that ~ concessions
it makes today are worth the domestic political price of tomorrow. These problems
have prevented it from halting its desert reclamation program;
5. The capitalization of Egypt on its military power;
6. The absence of enough number of qualified hydrological experts in the upstream
countries with knowledge and the necessary kit with technical .details on the Nile
which are valuable for negotiations;
7. Lack of database on the above and fear of being outmanoeuvred by the Egyptianteam of negotiators which include knowledgeable engineers and diplomats.
8. Lack of dialogue among all riparian countries; 9. The adverse effect of propaganda on the mood of negotiations; and ~10. The conflict of interest stemming from other sub-regional issues and interests.21

20
21

Dale Whittington (et al.), Toward a Nile Accord, Ethioscope, Vol. I, No I, September 1994.
Nile Hurdles, ibid., pp. 4-5.

12

9.

Breaking the Psycho-Political Impasse

For better or worse, the Nile will continue to be the dominant theme on the agenda of the riparian
countries during the early 21st century. More so, for the countries that are affected most by it.
These include countries that contribute most to it and benefit least from it and those that cannot
do without it.22
Silence might prolong the status quo a wee bit, but it will certainly not provide a long-term solution to
the complex issues surrounding the Nile. It is therefore imperative that the following measures, interalias, be considered:
1. The first logical step to take is breaking the code of silence by confronting the issue of
the Nile candidly, openly and with a desire of finding a solution which takes stock of theneeds and anxieties of all concerned. The magic words in such deliberations would
be mutual trust, concern and transparency in the way issues are addressed. In thiseffort, the unbiased views of scholars and experts will provide many insightful clues on
how the issues of equity and efficient utilization should be addressed.
2. Some of the general views mentioned earlier as ways of improving the utilization of thewater of the Nile would certainly prove useful by way of making more water available tothose countries which are not getting it now.
3. The above would certainly help address the key issue of equity to some extent. But, italso needs to be augmented by other water management proposals endorsed by all
countries concerned individually as well as collectively.23
4. As noted in the introductory citation which is also quoted here, in the discussions, anattempt should be made to consider divergent views on how a new Nile waters accord
should look like. For instance, according to Dale Wittington, John Waterbury andElizabeth McClelland, the future accord should be predicated on “expanding the usable
yields, encouraging interdependencies and allocations of water rights.” This should
also include, “provisions for apportionment of water, especially in times of scarcity andthe establishment of principles to guide this.” The authors further argue, “Nile water
management is not strictly a zero-sum game.”

22
23

Nile Hurdles, ibid., pp. 4-5.
Ibid

13

14

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 24

There is some scope for cooperative behaviour that would increase the long- term yield and a new
agreement could ensure that such possibilities are fully exploited. The most promising possibility is
the construction of the Blue Nile Reservoirs in Ethiopia.24
The cooperative venture should be based on comparative advantages of benefits to all riparian
countries. For instance, one of the numerous advantages of such reservoirs is that they would enable
over-year storage to be shifted from the Aswan High Dam Reservoir so that evaporation losses are
significantly reduced. In the upper Blue Nile region, evaporation rates are approximately SO percentof those in the Sudan and Egypt. Reductions in evaporation loss would be realized both throughlower evaporation rates and lower surface-to-volume ratios in the canyon sites of the Blue Nile
Reservoirs.25 At present, the only crude estimates of the possible water savings available are probably
in the order of 4 to 5 BCM per year. Another opportunity for regional cooperation is the elimination of
the Jebel Aulia Reservoir on the White Nile, where annual evaporation losses are currently about 2.8
BCM.26
But to take steps of minimizing such losses the riparian countries most concerned should sit together
and recognize that such losses do indeed exist and that they constitute serious problems for their
future relations.27
As indicated above, calculation on reallocation should be based on two key assumptions -namely,that 6 BCM be derived from long-term increased yields obtained via the reduction of losses at theJebel Aulia Reservoir in the Sudan and the construction of the Blue Nile Reservoirs in Ethiopia.
The snag about the above suggestion is that it can take decades to develop. Nevertheless, as a way
out of this, Whittington (et al.) suggests that “an interim allocation stating that the new agreement
could be structured in a staggered fashion should be made. This can be done so that some portionof Ethiopia’s share only becomes available as the Blue Nile projects are completed in phases.” 28This suggestion, they add “would allow Ethiopia to obtain internal financing for irrigation schemes of
the Blue Nile projects without interfering with existing water use in Egypt or the Sudan”. Egypt and theSudan would then be expected to contribute to this positively.8 The obvious rationale for positive
cooperation on the part of Egypt is that impasse and delay are counter productive and that ‘a problem
postponed is not a problem solved.’29

24

Dale Whittington (et al.), ibid.
United States Bureau of Reclamation, 1964.
26
Whittington, E. McClelland, Opportunities for Regional and International Co- operation in the Nile Basin: Water International, Vol.
XVII, 1992. .
27-29
Ibid.
25

A SURVEY OF INDIGENOUS WATER MANAGEMENT AND COPING MECHANISMS IN AFRICA

15

To the above must be added that the burden of climatic changes like El Nino should be equitably
borne by all, unless it is caused by the long-term neglect of environmental considerations.
The authors of the article add:
Any new agreement about the allocation of the long-term yield of the river among the riparian countries
could be made contingent on the completion of the two projects that would increase available watersupplies.
They go on, “Various computations should be made and options looked into.”3oThe above observations make sense as a way of addressing the issue of water allocation agreement.
For example, as Wittington (et al.) suggest for purposes of discussion, let us assume that the increasein long-term yield resulting from both the construction of the Blue Nile Reservoirs and the eliminationof evaporation losses at the Jebel Aulia Reservoir will be six BCM. If we take a conservative estimatethat none of the other water conservation projects on the White Nile could not be completed due toenvironmental and political constraints, then based on the historic record of the last century theavailable long-term yield can be estimated at about 80 BCM, measured at Aswan after deduction for
the remaining evaporation losses at the reservoir.31
As the same authors make it clear, several key steps on ways and means of negotiating the shares of
the Sudan, Egypt and Ethiopia can also be explored. One line of reasoning they put is that of making
Ethiopia’s share of the Nile water at least equal to that of the Sudan. The argument for this is that bothcountries have more potentially irrigable land than they can ever use. Given - the limited watersupplies, and that Ethiopia’s population is approximately twice as large as that of the Sudan, thisapproach can result in somewhat more water being allocated to Ethiopia. The new allocation could
be: 52 BCM for Egypt, 14 BCM for Sudan and 14 BCM for Ethiopia.32
Another suggestion is one considered from a vantage point of splitting the differences. For the
purpose of illustration let us say that Ethiopia receives 12 BCM measured at Aswan. This would give
the Sudan 15.5 BCM and Egypt 52.5 BCM.33
The rationale for the above is underscored by the following two factors:a.
Egypt would only give 5% of its existing allocation in return for Ethiopia’s recognitionof Egypt’s needs of a majority of the Nile waters.
b.
Current Nile basin countries will retain their ~existing allocations.

Whittington, E. McClelland, Opportunities for Regional and International Co- operation in the Nile Basin: Water International, Vol.
XVII, 1992. .
30-33
Ibid.
30

16

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 24

Whether Ethiopia as the supplier of 85% of the water of the Nile would accept the 14 or 12 BCM
allocations has yet to be negotiated. One optimistic signal is that Ethiopia’s water needs are not as
desperate as those of Egypt.34
Other considerations also might prompt Ethiopia to be amenable to such a proposal. One is that
Cairo’s energy requirement, currently growing at 6% a year, could make Ethiopia an exporter ofenergy to Egypt at an agreed price. The proposal on energy production will have no effect whatsoeveron the volume of water which flows to Egypt. It is also among several proposals put forward for abasin-wide cooperation which Egypt considers as part of its ‘multi-good’ strategies.
The above proposals are very constructive and encouraging. Nevertheless, the key to their realization
lies in the removal of the psycho-political hurdles and start of a candid review of the Nile issue in all
its complexities. Given this change of attitude, the Nile offers great potential to all the riparian

Whittington, E. McClelland, Opportunities for Regional and International Co- operation in the Nile Basin: Water International, Vol.
XVII, 1992.
34

10. Conclusion

Setting the Tone for a Nile Agreement
An earnest effort at breaking the current impasse on the Nile should begin by removing the psychopolitical roadblocks to dialogue. It should also take stock< of the commonalties. Such awarenessmay for instance include:
1. Recognition of the characteristics of the Nile issue as part of the socio- political, culturaland emotional history of Egypt, Ethiopia and the Sudan;
2. Awareness of the Nile as the basis of the physical survival of Egypt;
3. Cognizance of the Nile as the central symbol of Egypt’s national cohesion, particularly
in times of conflict;
4. Realization of the fact that the Nile is the key pillar of Egypt’s foreign policy;
5. Appreciation of the positive achievements and measures taken by Egypt to improve theefficient utilization of water;
6. Recognition of the efforts being made to mitigate water wastage and improve the total
water resources of the basin;
7. Freeing the Nile from becoming a hostage ,of short-term government policies andpolitics;
8. Genuine appreciation of the real issues at stake. This includes realizing that the bonesof contention reside in the Egyptian assertion of “historical right” and Ethiopia’s demandfor ‘equity’;
9. Recognizing that neither the claim of historical rights nor arithmetic justice alone canbe a good basis for compromise;
10. Seeking a middle ground. From Ethiopia’s point of view, the rational for this is that ‘badjustice is better than no justice’;
11. Recognizing that environmental depletion in Ethiopia implies a reduction in the volumeof Nile water. This will affect the proportion of water reaching Egypt;
12. Raising the awareness of all riparian states that too much ‘short-termism’ does not
augur well for future collaboration. In fact, excessive short- termism could have direfuture consequences;
13. Persuading international financial institutions to have a long-haul perspective which
encourages investment in the environment, irrigation as well as soil and water
conservation projects. Fortunately, this has already begun via the vehicle of the Nile
Basin Initiative (NBI);

17

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 24

18

14. Convincing financial institutions that loans destined for investment in less vital sectors
in the riparian countries are counter- productive for all .involved;
15. Jointly exploring and identifying mutually beneficial projects. This may .include theproduction of hydro-power which is of great significance to meet the rising energy
demands of all riparian states;
16. Making serious efforts to persuade the riparian countries about the risks of unilateral
action by anyone of them;
17. Making attempts not to Middle-Easternize the Nile;
18. Considering the food security challenges of the different countries and looking at thecomparative advantages of each country for food production in the context of a basinwide food security arrangement;
19. Realizing that the Nile is an intensely emotional issue for Egypt, the Sudan, Ethiopia
and the other riparian countries, though to varying degrees;
20. Making attempts to deal with the Nile with less passion and more rationality and balance;
21. Analyzing the Nile issue and arriving at an honest recognition of the sticking points via
the establishment of a regime of ownership, user rights and the balance between needand distributionCt.1 justice;
22. Recognizing that a prolonged impasse over the Nile is counter-productive to all riparianstates. In this context, one should be aware of the fact that ‘a problem postponed is not
a problem solved’;
23. Understanding that in the long run the status quo is not tenable;
24. Realizing that the Nile requires a sober recognition of the value of the peace dividends
which can be derived from an early agreement by way of opening avenues of constructive
cooperation;
25. Pursuing the motto ‘if you want to prevent war strengthen peace’;26. Recognizing that the Nile is a case of latent conflict and not an active one.. Thus, there
is a reward to the foresight of making all attempts to prevent .its escalation to an open
conflict; and27. Showing all concerned parties that a protracted conflict over the Nile will only provethe medical dictum -”The operation was successful but the patient died.” This also
implies that ‘the means do not always justify the end.’36
All the above proposals should be examined individually for their merits. The catchword which
underlines all of the 27 points is co-existence. The bottom line is that we can choose our friends, but
not our neighbours. The common challenge that all riparian states face is one of making theirneighbours their friends.

35
36

Nile Hurdles, ibid., p 47.
Ibid.. pp. 49-52.

A SURVEY OF INDIGENOUS WATER MANAGEMENT AND COPING MECHANISMS IN AFRICA

19

So far the perception is that Egypt could have played a more constructive role concerning the Nileissue which has impacted its relation with most riparian countries. Arguably so far Egypt’s position
has been one of wanting to destabilize the region to prevent the countries of the Nile from forcing her
to sign an - agreement on the just allocation of the Nile waters. It is also suggested by some scholarsthat Egypt aims to ensure that the limited economic resources of the countries of the Nile arediverted to domestic and external conflicts and war efforts. This, it is argued, is to prevent meaningfulprojects from being developed on the Nile.
The above position will only help postpone the problem. It will not help solve it. Hence, Egypt needs
to make a genuine attempt to accommodate the just demands of countries like Ethiopia which
account for the lion’s share of the waters of the Nile.
Nevertheless, although an agreement has yet to be signed on the allocation of the waters of the Nile
there are new developments which show that there is a change of heart on the part of Egypt. Thisshows its commitment to greater cooperation among the riparian states. This is epitomized by the
new Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) in which Egypt, Ethiopia, the Sudan and all the other riparian states
participate. The NBI is progressing in earnest.
The current cooperation within the framework of the NBI underlines that Egypt has veered away fromits earlier policy of alleged policy of destabilization. In other words, it is moving away from a win-Iosesituation to a win-win situation for all.
The NBI represents a positive trend of collaboration among the riparians. It also offers anew visionand framework of cooperation. It is a welcome first step along the path toward enhanced win-win
possibilities.

References
Gasser, M.M., and M.I. Abdou, ‘Nile Water Management and the Aswan High Dam’, Water Resources
Development, Vol. 5 No.1, March 1998.
Guariso, G. and D. Whittington, ‘Implications of Ethiopian Water Development for Egypt and Sudan’,Water Resources Development, Vol. 3, No.2, 1987.
Howell, P .P .and J.A. Allan, The Nile: Resource Evaluation, Resource Management, Hydro- politics
and Legal Issues, London, 1990.
Okidi, 0., ‘A Review of Treaties on Consumptive Utilization of Waters of Lake Victoria and the Nile
Drainage Basins’, in Howell and Allan, op. cit.
Waterbury, John, ‘Hydro-politics of the Nile Valley: Legal and Institutional Arrangement for Managing
Water Resources in the Nile Basin’, Water Resources Development, Voi. 3, No.2, 1987. [Syracuse
University Press 1979]20

A SURVEY OF INDIGENOUS WATER MANAGEMENT AND COPING MECHANISMS IN AFRICA

21

Prof Kinfe Abraham is the President of the Ethiopian International Institute for Peace and Development (EIIPD) and the Horn of Africa Democracy and Development (HADAD) International Lobby

Other Publications in the ATPS Special Paper SeriesSpecial Paper Series 1
Globalization and Technology: Africa’s Participation and Perspectives: Concept Paper and Research Agenda by
Melvin Ayogu &Osita Ogbu
Special Paper Series 2
Globalization, Markets for Technology and the Relevance of Innovation Policies in Developing Economies by Sunil
Mani
Special Paper Series 3
Biotechnology in sub-Saharan Africa: Towards a Policy Research Agenda by John Mugabe
Special Paper Series 4
The Impact of Globalization in sub-Saharan Africa Countries by Mwindaace N. Siamwiza
Special Paper Series 5
A Blueprint for Developing National ICT Policy in Africa by Clement Dzidonu
Special Paper Series 6
Impact of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) on Technology Transfer in Africa by Moses M. Ikiara
Special Paper Series 7
Pursuing Technology Policy Research in sub-Saharan Africa: Reflections on the Dimensions, Applications and
Implications of a Methodological Framework by M.H. Khalil-Timamy
Special Paper Series 8
African Response to the Information Communication Technology Revolution by G. Olalere Ajayi
Special Paper Series 9
Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs): Poverty Alleviation and Universal Access Policies by Andrew
Dymond & Sonja Oestmann
Special Paper Series 10
ICT Human Resource Development in Africa: Challenges, Strategies and Options by T.M. Waema
Special Paper Series 11
Applications of ICTs in Africa: Development of Knowledge Workers in Centres of Learning by John Muraguri
Waibochi (2002).
Special Paper Series 12
State of Science and Technology Capacity in sub-Saharan Africa by Khalil-Timamy
Special Paper Series 13
Strengthening National Information and Cmmunication Technology Policy in Africa: Governance, Equity andInstitutional Issues by Melvin Ayogu

Special Paper Series 14
A Science Agenda from An Afrian Perspective by Turner T. Isoun
Special Paper Series 15
International Trends in Modern Bio-technology: Entry by and Implications for African Countries by John Mugabe
Special Paper Series 16
Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), technology Transfer and Poverty Alleviation: Africa’s Hopes and Dilemma by
Moses Ikiara
Special Paper Series 17
Global Governance of Technology and Africa’s Global Inclusion by Banji Oyeyinka
Special Paper Series 18
Science and Technology and Poverty Reduction Strategy in Sub-Saharan Africa byO. Akin Adubifa
Special Paper Series 19
An Assessment of Science and Technology Capacity Building in sub-Saharan Africa byO. Akin Adubifa
Special Paper Series 20
Network as Determinants of Manufacturing SME Cluster Growth in Nigeria Networking Technical Change andIndustrialization: The Case of Small and Medium Firm in Nigeria by Banji Oyelaran-Oyeyinka
Special Paper Series 21
Technology Transfer in a Globalizing World: Many Promises, Lack of Responsibility, and Challenges for Africa by
M.H. Khalil Timamy
Special Paper Series 22
Integrated Value Mapping for Sustainable River Basin Management by Kevin UramaSpecial Paper Series 23
Wastewater and Irrigated Agriculture Lessons Learned and Possible Applications in Africa by Frans Huibers, Lucas
Seghezzo and Adriaan Mels
Special Paper Series 24
Survey of Indigenous Water Management and Coping Mechanisms in Africa: Implications for Knowledge andTechnology Policy by Femi Olokesusi

For more information on this series and ATPS Contact:

The Executive Director
The African Technology Policy Studies Network
3rd Floor, The Chancery, Valley Road
P.O. Box 10081 00100 General Post Office
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: +254-020-2714092/168/498
Fax: +254-020-2714028
Email: info@atpsnet.org
Website: http://www.atpsnet.org