| 
 Introduction
 The Nile River is the longest river in the world. From its major source,
      Lake Victoria in east central Africa, the White Nile flows generally north
      through Uganda and into Sudan where it meets the Blue Nile in Khartoum,
      which rises in the Ethiopian highlands. The Nile traverses almost 6,700
      kilometers (4,169 miles) from its farthest sources of the headwaters of
      the Kagera River in Burundi and Rwanda to its delta in Egypt on the
      Mediterranean Sea.(1)
 
 The Nile is shared by ten countries - Burundi, Democratic Republic of
      Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda�with
      a combined population of about 300 million, about 160 million of whom live
      within the boundaries of the Nile Basin. The ten countries that share the
      Nile waters include some of the world's poorest, with annual per capital
      income of less than $250.(2)
 
 In recent months, tensions have been rising over the waters of the Nile.
      In preparation for the African summit meeting of African heads of state to
      be held in Libya next week, the ministers of water representing the
      riparian countries have decided to put the subject of the 1929 Nile Water
      Agreement on the summit's agenda.
 
 President Hosni Mubarak chaired a cabinet meeting in Cairo to discuss the
      issues. The communiqu� issued after the meeting did not say what Egypt
      would do in the face of a persistent demand for reallocating the Nile
      waters, and whether Mubarak himself would attend the summit meeting. It
      vaguely referred to Egypt's readiness to provide training, technical
      assistance, "and help in procuring funding for projects that benefit
      all the countries of the Basin," in the framework of respecting the
      shares established by the existing agreement.(3) A couple of days earlier,
      the Egyptian government daily Al-Gomhouriya wrote that the demands by some
      of the Nile Basin countries for reallocating water shares is a matter of
      concern to Egypt which requires quick intervention to kill any initiative
      that would reduce the water supply to Egypt.(4)
 
 The following is an overview of tensions regarding the Nile River:
 
 The Nile Water Agreement of 1929
 
 The Nile Waters Agreement (NWA) over the allocation of its waters between
      Egypt and Great Britain (which represented Uganda, Kenya, Tanganyika [now
      Tanzania] and the Sudan) was concluded on November 7, 1929 in Cairo by an
      exchange of letters between the Egyptian Prime Minister and the British
      High Commissioner in Egypt. The agreement allocated 48 billion cubic
      meters per year to Egypt as its acquired right and 4 billion cubic meters
      per year to the Sudan. These allocations were later increased to 55.5
      billion cu. meters and 18 billion cu., respectively, under a 1959
      bilateral agreement between these two countries that allowed for the
      construction of the Aswan Dam. Apart from Ethiopia, which had a government
      in place, the NWA was made before the other Nile Basin countries gained
      their independence.
 
 The agreement stated that no works would be undertaken on the Nile, its
      tributaries, and the Lake Basin that would reduce the volume of the water
      reaching Egypt. It also gave Egypt the right to "inspect and
      investigate" the whole length of the Nile to the remote sources of
      its tributaries in the Basin.
 
 This right "to inspect and investigate," which was tantamount to
      a veto power over any water or power project, has in recent years become
      moot, as all the former colonies on the Nile Basin have become independent
      nations and are not likely to readily agree to such encroachment on their
      sovereignty by Egypt. Indeed, some of them have begun to nibble on the NWA
      by initiating water projects that threaten to reduce the volume of water
      available to Egypt. Egypt considers any change in the agreement as a
      strategic threat and has repeatedly threatened to use all means at its
      disposal to prevent the violations of the agreement. The other Nile Basin
      African countries consider the agreement as a relic of a colonial era
      which no longer reflects their needs and aspirations and hence it should
      be annulled. Countering this argument, Sherif Al-Mousa, head of the Middle
      East Program at the American University in Cairo, argues that the Nile
      water agreement should be treated the same way as the boundaries of most
      Nile Basin countries which were established by colonial powers, and are
      recognized under international law.(5)
 
 The Pressures for Change
 
 Population pressures, frequent draughts, and increasing soil salinity have
      intensified the demands by the Nile Basin countries to renegotiate the
      1929 agreement. Not deterred by Egyptian reluctance to negotiate the 1929
      agreement, or even Egyptian threats, and constrained by financial
      hardships, some Nile Basin countries are determined to implement projects
      that would tap into the sources of the Nile.
 
 The 1959 agreement between Egypt and Sudan, which increased the water
      allocations to themselves while completely ignoring the interests of the
      other riparian countries such as Tanzania, Kenya and Ethiopia has, in
      retrospect, weakened the Egyptian argument about inviolability of the NWA.
 
 The Nile Basin Initiative
 
 To reduce the potential for conflict, and with the help of the World Bank,
      the Nile Basin Initiative was launched in 1999 as a transitional
      arrangement until a permanent framework is in place. It is guided by a
      shared vision "to achieve sustainable socio-economic development
      through the equitable utilization of, and benefit from, the common Nile
      Basin water resources."
 
 The Nile Basin Initiative notwithstanding, member countries are forging
      ahead with their own projects and challenges. Droughts are difficult to
      forecast, even in the beginning of the crop season. Building dams to store
      water is not unlike a bank savings account, to be used at a time of need.
      While Egypt has secured its agriculture with the building of the Aswan
      Dam, it has been reluctant, if not belligerent, when other countries on
      the Nile Basin sought similar solutions.
 
 Ethiopia Asserts Rights to the Blue Nile
 
 The Ethiopian Minister of Water Resources announced his country's
      intentions to develop close to 200,000 hectares (ha.) of land though
      irrigation projects and construction of two dams in the Blue Nile
      Sub-basin. He further stated that these projects would be the first phase
      of forty-six projects which Ethiopia proposed to execute along with ten
      joint projects which Egypt and Sudan proposed. The Egyptian Ambassador to
      Ethiopia confirmed.
 
 Egypt's commitment is to the utilization of the Nile waters for the
      benefit of all riparian countries. However, the Egyptian commitment was
      conditional. All projects must benefit both upstream and downstream
      countries, provided these projects do not lead to a reduction of the
      waters reaching Egypt.
 
 The Ethiopian Minister of Water Resources retorted that the agreement to
      participate in the Nile Basin Initiative reserves Ethiopia's right to
      implement any project in the Blue Nile Sub-basin unilaterally, at any
      given time. He charged that the 1959 agreement between Egypt and Sudan
      impedes sustainable development in the basin and called for its
      nullification.(6)
 
 From the Egyptian perspective, any change in the volume of its water could
      have devastating effects on Egypt. The vast majority of Egyptians live in
      a valley which is about 4 percent of the Egyptian territory, and 95
      percent of Egypt's water resources are derived from the Nile.
 
 Tanzania Challenges Egypt
 
 In early February 2004, Tanzania launched a project to draw water from
      Lake Victoria to supply the Shinyanga region. The project calls for the
      construction of about a 100 mile long inland pipeline at an initial cost
      of $27.6 million, to be constructed by a Chinese engineering company. To
      mitigate the anticipated Egyptian reaction, Tanzania announced that the
      pipleline was designed to provide drinking water to its thirsty population
      rather than irrigate agricultural land. Tanzania's population of 35
      million has suffered from frequent droughts, desertification, and soil
      erosion. In fact, Tanzania was the first riparian country which, upon its
      independence in 1961, declared the 1929 agreement invalid.(7)
 
 Nevertheless, Egypt expressed its irritation with the Tanzanian project,
      arguing that under the 1929 agreement it has the right to veto any project
      - agricultural, industrial, or power - that could threaten its vital
      interests in guaranteeing its annual share of the river waters. While
      Egypt is handling the issue diplomatically, Egyptian officials stressed
      that "the diplomatic dialogue does not mean that Cairo does not
      consider any number of other options, if necessary."(8) In diplomatic
      parlance, "other options" do not exclude the use of force.
      Tanzania has not budged. The Deputy Permanent Secretary in the Tanzanian
      Ministry of Water and Livestock Development, Dr. C. Nyamurunda, said that
      Tanzania's sentiments about the legality of the water agreement are well
      known. He emphasized that "other countries also believe that the
      treaties [NWA] were illegal but they are to cooperate in negotiations,
      although they are not restricted from using the waters of the
      Nile."(9)
 
 Another Challenge from Kenya
 
 Similarly, in response to a threat from Kenya that it was considering
      withdrawing from the 1929 agreement, the Egyptian Minister of Irrigation
      and Water Resources Mahmoud Abu Zeid said: "Egypt considers the
      withdrawal of Kenya from this agreement as tantamount to official
      declaration of war [emphasis added] and a threat to its vital interests
      and national security." A Kenyan weekly quoted the Egyptian minister
      declaring in Addis Ababa that Kenya could be subject to sanctions by Egypt
      and the other eight members of the Nile River Basin Agreement. He said
      Kenya's position violates international law and customs "and we will
      not agree to it."(10)
 
 The Kenyan deputy foreign minister M. Watangola repeated his country's
      demand for a revision of this historic agreement because Kenya was not
      consulted prior to its being signed. He said eight Kenyan rivers flow into
      Lake Victoria, which is the main source of the Nile waters.(11)
 
 Water for Oil
 
 A senior Kenyan parliamentarian suggested that the Nile water should be
      sold to Egypt and Sudan for oil. He said that the time has come to replace
      the Nile agreement with a new agreement to allow the members to benefit
      from the Nile's waters. He added: "We have presented our natural
      resources to Egypt and Sudan free without them doing anything in return.
      We need to sell to them as they sell to us." The Egyptian treated the
      idea as "stupid" because the two countries have vested rights,
      rather than customers who would buy the water.(12)
 
 Egypt Accuses Hidden Fingers
 
 In addition to Tanzania and Kenya, Ethiopia and Uganda are also demanding
      the abrogation of the 1929 agreement and a bigger share of the Nile
      waters. Egypt accuses "hidden fingers known to the Egyptian side
      [which] are openly inciting the traditional allies of Egypt in the Nile
      Basin to annul the agreement, arguing that it is incompatible with the
      population and political developments that have transpired in the last 75
      years."(13) The anonymous senior Egyptian official who has made the
      allegation about the "hidden fingers" stressed that any change
      in the agreement was inconceivable and warned that "any infringement
      of the agreement would suggest that the African countries do not respect
      regional obligations."(14)
 
 Egypt's Alternatives
 
 To deal with the threat to its vital oil supply Egypt has four
      alternatives. Some are not mutually exclusive:
 
 * Reduce waste through improved irrigation system.
 * Price water at market rates.
 * Maintain the status quo as long as feasible.
 * Resort to the use of force.
 
 Reduce Waste Through Improved Irrigation System
 
 According to a study by the World Bank, 96.44 per cent of the economically
      active population in Egypt is engaged in agriculture. It is the highest
      percentage in the Middle East, with Morocco in second place with 92.61
      percent of active population in agriculture. By contrast, the
      corresponding ratios for Tunisia and Lebanon are 60.87 and 10.35 percent,
      respectively. As a result, much of the water is used in agriculture, which
      contributes proportionately a small percentage to GDP. In Egypt, 88% of
      the water is consumed in agriculture which, as a sector, contributes only
      14 percent to GDP, while 8 percent of water used in industry contributes
      34 per cent of GDP. The report suggests that "from a narrow
      macroeconomic perspective, rationale of justifying the allocation of water
      to agriculture over industrial and other sectors is weak."(15)
 
 Price Water at Market Rates
 
 While the region remains one of the most water-scarce regions in the
      world, the cost of water for irrigation is set at below cost recovery
      levels. Egyptian agriculture is entirely dependent on irrigated land. The
      government provides irrigation water free, except of cost recovery of
      on-farm investment projects. Annual irrigation subsidies are estimated at
      $5 billion. In Egypt, irrigation subsidies are often rationalized as a
      means of offsetting low farm prices controlled to keep down urban food
      prices.(16) Water pricing and subsidies are such that they lead to waste
      in agriculture and provide little incentive for conservation techniques.
 
 Maintain the Status Quo
 
 Egypt's third option is to seek a status quo while tolerating some changes
      on the margin. To do so, Egypt must continue to maintain a pro-American
      and pro-Western orientation to discourage them and organizations
      controlled by them, such as the World Bank, from financing costly water
      projects such as dams or power projects in any of the riparian countries,
      which they themselves cannot finance through internally-generated
      resources.
 
 Resort to the Use of Force
 
 The last and least likely alternative is to resort to the use of force to
      uphold Egypt's right to exercise the veto power on activities that it
      deems dangerous to its national interests. Egypt's saber rattling cannot
      be taken too seriously, certainly not by the African countries themselves.
      Indeed, as one Egypt daily pointed out, "the harsh language adopted
      by Abou Zeid ... might not be working..."(17) Not only does Egypt
      lack the military capacity to strike at countries two thousand miles
      outside its borders, but it will be hard pressed to justify a military
      action to enforce the provision of a 75-year old agreement concluded to
      satisfy colonialist considerations and priorities but dissatisfy the needs
      of the countries upstream. A Kenyan father of two, who owns eight ponds
      for fish farming, was quoted as saying: "If the Egyptians try to
      invade Kenya for the sake of its water we are ready to die for our rights.
      Kenya must forget the Nile agreement and return to the commercial
      consumption of the Lake Victoria Lake."(18)
 
 * Nimrod Raphaeli is a Senior Analyst at MEMRI
 
 |