Institutional arrangements for beneficial regional cooperation on water, energy and food priority issues in the Eastern Nile Basin

Accepted Manuscript Research papers Institutional Arrangements for Beneficial Regional Cooperation on Water, Energy and Food Priority Issues in the Eastern Nile Basin Mohammad Al-Saidi, Amr Hefny PII: DOI: Reference:

S0022-1694(18)30338-X https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.05.009 HYDROL 22786

To appear in:

Journal of Hydrology

Please cite this article as: Al-Saidi, M., Hefny, A., Institutional Arrangements for Beneficial Regional Cooperation on Water, Energy and Food Priority Issues in the Eastern Nile Basin, Journal of Hydrology (2018), doi: https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.05.009

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Institutional Arrangements for Beneficial Regional Cooperation on Water, Energy and Food Priority Issues in the Eastern Nile Basin Mohammad Al-Saidi & Amr Hefny

Mohammad Al-Saidi Center for Sustainable Development, College of Arts and Sciences, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar Address: Center for Sustainable Development; College of Arts and Sciences, Qatar University, P.O.Box: 2713 Doha – Qatar. Email: [email protected]

Amr Hefny Institute for Technology and Resources Management the Tropics and Subtropics, TH-Köln – University of Applied Sciences, Cologne, Germany Address: TH-Köln, Institute for Technology in the Tropics (ITT), Betzdorfer Straße 2, 50679 Cologne, Germany. Email: [email protected]

1

Abstract

Research on water cooperation in the Eastern Nile Basin has focused on expanding policy and diplomacy tools for a better allocation of transboundary water resources confined to the river. Regional cooperation on water and related sectors such as energy and land expands the bargaining and areas for mutual gain, and thus enhances cooperation perspectives. This paper looks at the contribution and the potential benefits of a regional cooperation approach to addressing the underlying challenges of water diplomacy, such as complexity and distrust. It also promotes the understanding of river basins as a “resource basin” of integrated and linked resource-use issues, not always related to the river flow. The paper provides an analysis of priority issues for water–energy– food nexus issues in regional cooperation in the Eastern Nile Basin. This basin represents an illustrative case for regional cooperation and increased integration due to multiple comparative advantages inherent in the uneven endowments of water, energy and arable land resources, and to varying levels of economic and technological advancement among the three riparian countries: Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia. The paper also analyses institutional arrangements on a regional scale, and elaborates on the inherent trade-offs associated with them.

Keywords: regional water cooperation; water diplomacy; water–energy–food nexus; transboundary water governance; Eastern Nile Basin

2

1.

Introduction

Cooperation among key riparian states (Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan) in the Eastern Nile Basin is now more critical than ever for resolving emerging conflicts around issues such as hydropower, and providing resources for growing populations and economies. Such cooperation has become more complex in light of growing national and economic aspirations since the independence from colonial powers (Wolf & Newton, 2009, Cascão 2008, Nicol & Cascão, 2011). Furthermore, stresses such as climate change, population growth and depleted and/or degraded water resources caused by poor management are causing instabilities and water use conflicts, as is the case with other transboundary basins in Africa (Chikozho, 2014). Being the largest basin in Africa, the history of transboundary water management in the Nile has involved various economic, political, social and environmental factors that have determined cooperation legacies (Paisley & Henshaw, 2013). Despite various attempts, the water conflict is as yet not resolved, as nobody has managed to accommodate Egypt’s concerns about “unfavourable outcomes” of dams constructed upstream, and Ethiopia’s recurrent uncertainties regarding recurrent droughts (Habteyes et al., 2015). The conflict over river development and hydropower underpin the need for multifaceted approaches to enhance cooperation and context-fit solutions that consider the overall environmental, hydrological, political, economic and social circumstances of a specific basin. The governance of transboundary basins has historically been state-centric and confined to water-related issues and to basin boundaries. Since there is no unique solution to bringing about immediate transboundary cooperation, a multifaceted approach and experimentation with issues and actors is needed. A focus on adaptive governance with public involvement and multiple stakeholder participation is necessary to overcome certain issues and failures

3

(Akamani & Wilson, 2011). In the context of the Nile Basin, institutional arrangements for water allocation should be complemented by other “softer” measures to build capacities, promote technical cooperation, favor political stability, and stimulate participatory processes (Habteyes et al., 2015; Paisley & Henshaw, 2013). In this sense, cooperation in the Nile basin has evolved to incorporate more issues and softer approaches (see part 4.1). Recently, the integrated management paradigm of the water–energy–food nexus (WEF Nexus) has provided an opportunity to expand the debate on transboundary basin cooperation to include new issues. Academic literature on the WEF Nexus has provided multiple useful tools for integrated analysis of natural resources, including on a river basin scale (Al-Saidi & Elagib, 2017). Major concerns in (transboundary) basins are sometimes not related to water availability and, depending on the basin, stakeholders might regard issues such as nutrients or sedimentation as more important (Lawford et al., 2013). Through a WEF Nexus perspective, benefit-sharing options can be extended to key sectors such as agriculture and energy, thus providing additional mechanisms for conflict resolution and basin development (Jalivov et al., 2015). In the Blue Nile Basin for example, linking operation policies of dams such as the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) to irrigation and energy demands downstream provides beneficial opportunities for co-management and coordination (Tan et al., 2017). A multi-issue analysis of transboundary river basin issues can help improve transboundary cooperation and provide additional tools for water diplomacy. Keskinen et al. (2016) and Keskinen and Varis (2016) have already showed in the case of large Asian rivers how a water–energy–food perspective complements traditional water-focused transboundary approaches, and enriches the transboundary context with new tools, approaches and actors. In the Eastern Nile Basin, a WEF Nexus approach is not only relevant at the basin scale, but is also viable on national and regional scales. Al-Saidi et al. (2017) introduced the resource-use profiles of the three countries, and analysed the sectors and the potentials for cooperation on

4

a regional level. As we begin to appreciate the merits of expanding the transboundary debate in the Eastern Nile basin, there is a need to advance knowledge on benefit-sharing and cooperation options beyond water issues and the basin boundaries. A regional and crosssectoral approach can move cooperation beyond the binary thinking in terms cooperation/conflict or nationalism/solidarity and also the current debate on mutual benefits from flow modification, such as the construction of the GERD (e.g. Habteyes et al., 2015; Whittington et al., 2014). This paper aims to analyse cooperation issues and institutional arrangements for future cooperation beyond the basin scale. First, on cooperation issues, it maps key water-, energy- and food-related issues, and highlights some priority issues based on key experts’ survey and workshops. Urgent as well as politically feasible issues are therefore proposed. Later, the development process of institutional arrangements is explained, and some arrangements are discussed using conceptualizations of the adequate level of institutional integration in the Nile.

2.

Beyond Water Diplomacy: Resource Basins and Regional Cooperation

Water diplomacy as a term summarizes endeavours by academics and practitioners to contribute to peaceful cooperation and conflict resolution among water users on different scales. There is no common definition of this term in literature, although two common premises for the different approaches exist: 1) the centrality of states, river basins and water issues; and 2) the instrumental, multi-approach character of facilitating cooperation. First, state-centric, water-sharing conflicts are central (see Petersen-Perlman et al., 2017), while the water basin can be seen as the basic analysis unit. In this sense, concepts of (water) diplomacy seek to help national states achieve mutually beneficial agreements through nonviolent measures. Often in transboundary contexts, “hydro-hegemonic” states threaten peace and incite conflicts (Warner & Zeitoun, 2008) while “hydro-diplomacy” via international

5

transboundary river agreements can reverse this equation (Kraska, 2009). There are various theories behind hydro-hegemony and the perceived causes, normative roles and appropriate remedies (see Warner et al., 2017). Whether water diplomacy, hydrodiplomacy or hydro-hegemony, such concepts are grounded in a water perspective to which all cooperation issues relate. In contrast, concepts such as benefit-sharing conceal the centrality of water issues behind the theoretical construct of “benefits”. These benefits are outputs of water use that can be negotiated and shared instead of having disputes over water quantities (Sadoff & Grey, 2005; Alam et al., 2009). If we reflect on the essence of this idea, the emphasis on benefits rather than water is quite valuable. In fact, this different perspective of benefit-sharing leaves the door open for determining the origins of the benefits. In theory, these benefits can be from direct or indirect water use. They also can arise “from” the river basin or “in” the river basin. At the same time, in comparison to water diplomacy, benefitsharing has the same premise of being a tool that itself entails a repository of technical tools to facilitate water cooperation. Water diplomacy and benefit-sharing are conceived as multitrack and interdisciplinary approaches to bringing about transboundary cooperation (Huntjens & Man, 2014; Huntjens et al., 2016; UNECE, 2015). Through negotiations and networks of states, communities and beneficiaries, water diplomacy is translated into beneficial agreements and thus enhanced cooperation (Islam & Susskind, 2012; Islam & Repella, 2015). It helps resolve disputes and acts to prevent such conflicts through the promotion of rules of international law (He, 2015). The perspective of the WEF Nexus in transboundary contexts shifts the focus further away from water issues than the concepts of water diplomacy or even benefit-sharing do. This is the key difference between these concepts. At the same time, the WEF Nexus shares the second premise of water diplomacy in the sense that different interdisciplinary tools promote cooperation (negotiations, benefits assessments, integrated analyses, regulations, laws, multi-

6

stakeholder platforms, etc.). Figure 1 shows the merits of a WEF Nexus perspective in expanding cooperation issues at different scales and beyond the traditional transboundary water basin approach. On a basin level, an integrated perspective on the totality of natural resources (water, energy and land) is used in nexus debates for the analysis of benefits and the development of cooperation mechanisms such as cross-sectoral projects or encouraging trade within the basin. As a result, the “water basin”, as the case with the overemphasized Blue Nile, slips out of focus. Instead, as a suitable term for the WEF Nexus at basin level, one can think of water basins as “resource basins”. A resource basin can be understood as a water basin where all water values (direct and indirect) are analyzed and other natural resources (energy and land) connected to the basin (rivers or certain groundwater bodies) or to other water bodies within the basin boundaries are considered for basin development and cooperation among users. In this sense, a resource basin is merely a spatial unit alluding to the importance of river-basin boundaries as fictive socio-political boundaries, within which river-based as well as non-river-based development, conflicts and negotiations takes place. We argue that thinking of water basins as resource basins can help approximate to the WEF Nexus idea on a basin level, and it adds cooperation issues and negotiation leverage. By comparison, in the case of bilateral integration, cooperation on the water, energy and food issues is more formal and binding. The issues expand to include inter-country trade, bilateral agreements and the exchange of technology and knowledge in accordance with international diplomacy and legal rules. In fact, bilateral and regional integrations in WEF Nexus issues are understood here as a higher level of harmonization and cooperation, which can greatly help to promote regional cooperation on water or WEF Nexus issues. The role of integration arrangements in helping transboundary water cooperation and, in general, regional cooperation on common pool resources, has been discussed by Schiff & Winters (2002) and Qaddumi (2008). In our conceptualization, regional integration is the most all-encompassing

7

form since it entails a high level of economic and institutional integration. At the same time, it is more economically beneficial and effective to address common future challenges for the wider Eastern Nile basin, such as stressors from climate and regional change. Figure 1 here Finally, in order to obtain a concrete picture of possible cooperation issues at any spatial scale using a WEF Nexus perspective, an issue-mapping matrix was developed (Tables 1a– 1c). It was filled and synthesized during workshops in 2016 with students from a WEF Nexus graduate class, together with five experts from the Nile Nexus Group at the Institute for Technology in the Tropics and Subtropics, at TH-Koeln, University of Applied Sciences in Cologne, Germany. Issues are mapped that cross different resource types whether at a national, regional or basin scale, and are not confined to the river waters. These issuemapping exercises represent a first step in the prioritization of cooperation issues, which is explained in the next section. Table 1a-1c here

3.

Priority Issues for Basin-Wide and Regional Cooperation 3.1 Methods

In order to investigate future priority issues related to water, energy and food security and transboundary cooperation among Eastern Nile riparian countries, we implemented an onlinebased survey and carried face-to-face interviews with 28 key experts from Egypt (10), Sudan (10) and Ethiopia (8) during research visits to the three countries in 2017. The semistructured interviews during the field visits aimed at acquiring qualitative data that helped in designing the survey. The experts are prominent experts working in ministries (14), research institutes or universities (8), the Eastern Nile Technical Regional Office (3), the Egyptian

8

Embassy in Ethiopia (1) or as independent consultants (2). Input from key experts was used together with the above-mentioned issue-mapping exercises for the survey design. These experts were also asked about their evaluation of the cooperation potential of certain issues, and the viability of a WEF Nexus approach to enhance transboundary cooperation both within the Nile basin and also on a regional level. Later, an online-based survey was conducted. Alongside survey questions on the prioritization of cooperation issues, questions were developed to gain insights into the current cooperation challenges and the evaluation of current cooperative, institutional arrangements. The survey was sent only to key experts using the authors’ professional networks, including key experts interviewed. Thirty-seven partly or fully filled surveys were returned, of which 15 were from Eastern Nile countries and the rest from other, mostly European, experts. Finally, it is worthwhile to note that survey and interviews focused by design on potentials for regional cooperation and WEF based cooperation and only indirectly referred to GERD. While moving issues beyond river utilization and the GERD debate might coincide with Egypt’s position, this is unintentional and the paper does seek to question the contribution of GERD in the current political debates nor question the rights and political views of riparian countries. 3.2 Results: Cooperation priorities and challenges The survey first assessed the perception of the importance of overarching cooperation areas in the uses of the resources water, energy and food ((table 2), largely based on a reformulation of issues in table 1 as focus areas for cooperation issues. The aim was to investigate which sectors and sub-sectors hold the highest potential. While water and land were higher rated, particularly trade, efficiency and resource protection, the 27 respondents had favourable opinion of all issues, except for a seemingly divided opinion on renewables (solar, thermal and wind) and small-scale hydropower In fact, the perception of interviewed experts converge with this. Large-scale hydropower projects, grid integration and energy

9

trade are more viable for cooperation, since other types are rather for domestic production. Water-use efficiency, for example, is highly important for agricultural development in the region. In this regard, Egypt has relatively well-performaning irrigation systems with internationally one of the highest water-use efficiencies for crops like cotton and wheat (Al Zayed et. al, 2015). On the other hand, Sudan’s poor irrigation systems are causing poor yields due to water inefficiency, poor canal maintenance, and lack of water. Sudan’s irrigated agriculture is stagnating while it irrigates only 1% of its arable land (Awulachew et al., 2012).

Table 2 here Table 3 presents results from an exercise designed in order to identify the most beneficial and viable cooperation priorities. The survey participants, of which 27 completed this part, were presented with 17 cooperation issues. These issues were selected using most recurrent cooperation issues in interviews as well as during the issue-mapping workshops. The selection includes future-oriented issues with cooperation potential. For example, the sediments issue was discarded as some experts considered the maintenance of channels and dams a core national task. Further, most experts attested significant future benefits from the GERD in addressing sediments. . In the survey exercise, of the 17 issues, only five could be chosen in each category without ranking between the five selected (e.g., “Select five issues that you consider the least vulnerable to climate change,” etc.). This constituted a game where respondents choose 5 of issues in 10 rounds on five positive reformulated questions (e.g. most feasible) and give negative ones (least feasible). This game was designed in order not to overwhelm respondents by rating each issue on each category, and to avoid redundant information by allowing them to select a large number ‘favorites’. Further, choosing ‘best’ and ‘worst’ five issues on each of the five criteria allows to identify inconsistencies and

10

controversial issues the aggregated results. Table 3 presents the results which are depicted here using the following coding: +++/- - - for issues receiving more than 50% of total votes; ++/- - for those between 30 and 50%; and +/- for those between 15 and 30%. For example, ‘wastewater reuse’ with + in the criteria ‘high adaptive capacity for climate change’ means that it received 30-50% out of the total 135 votes of all 27 respondents each giving 5 votes. As a consequence, a very good option for cooperation is the one that receives a large amount of pluses (+) with few or no minuses (-) Results on the most prioritized issues show that only a small number of issues are commonly agreed upon as being beneficial as well as viable. Technical cooperation, food and energy trade, eco-tourism, mechanization in agriculture, and water resources protection are perceived to be some of the best options in terms of being low-cost, politically feasible, and suitable for addressing the regional common challenge of climate change and variability, which is arguably one of the most important contemporary regional challenges (Swain, 2011; Barnes, 2017). Interestingly, the selected issues are not directly connected to the river flow; they represent regional or bilateral issues rather than water-basin ones. Issues such as water re-use and treatment, desalination, biofuels and groundwater are seen as difficult to tackle and resolve in cooperation negotiations. At the same time, opinions on issues like hydropower or rainwater harvesting seem to be divided. For example, rainwater harvesting is perceived to be vulnerable to climate variability, although it was considered as a priority for cooperation on many other aspects. In fact, this issue is highly interesting for the region due to the decent amount of precipitation. However, the major challenge here is the uneven distribution and the decrease of rainfall towards the north, since the main run-off producing areas are in the Ethiopian highlands and the south west of Sudan, a climatevulnerable region (NBI, 2012).

11

Table 3 here

Table 4 summarizes the answers of 21 respondents to statements assessing the perception of the need for enhancing legislations and agreements, transboundary institutions and cooperation. Here, the overall results show that experts look positively on the established legislations and institutions for transboundary cooperation in the Nile. Despite some ineffectiveness, the majority of participants disagree that there are already many cooperative mechanisms, or that they are not working. On the other hand, there is a clear majority in favor of additional cooperative arrangements of a binding nature in order to overcome a perceived difficult legacy of conflict and, to some extent, regional rivalry. Table 4 here Finally, Table 5 depicts standardized results on questions regarding cooperation challenges. 20 respondents ranked six challenges, recurrent challenge categories during interviews, from 1 to 5 (1 being not important and 5 being very important). The most relevant challenges identified were trust and political will. Conflict legacy, regional tensions and a sense of unfairness especially for pre-1990 agreements result in distrust and cooperation derails. Yihdego et al. (2016) suggested that post-1990 frameworks like the NBI might be more aligned with fairness and distributive justice principles while a basin-wide or regional approach to cooperation with participation of non-state actors at multiple levels can help rectify power imbalances and improve fairness. This is the same perception as that of most of the key experts interviewed who emphasize the value of broad cooperation and also agree that financial resources are less of a challenge. Moreover, knowledge and financial resources were identified as less important challenges.. Rather, they represent opportunities for collaboration. For instance, Sudan and Ethiopia have started to develop early-warning and forecasting systems through a joint project, with partial participation from Egypt.

12

Harmonization of data infrastructure can allow easy communication and knowledge transfer among riparian countries. Table 5 here

4.

Transformation of Issues into Institutional Arrangements 4.1 Issue expansion in the cooperation process

The perception of key stakeholders on cooperation priorities reveals that emerging issues such as trade, technical and financial cooperation, and transboundary investments in conservation and mechanization are well-received in the region.. If broader issues are included, they can increase the bargaining area in negotiations and eventually lead to additional mutual gains. There are plenty of specific topics under the above-mentioned broad cooperation priorities. Al-Saidi et al. (2017) reviewed specific WEF Nexus topics, which are based on the distinct comparative advantages inherent in the difference between the resource endowments of the Eastern Nile countries. Other studies have also demonstrated how a WEF Nexus perspective can highlight neglected issues in transboundary basins such as the Mekong Basin (Dore et al., 2012); the Euphrates-Tigris Basin (Kibaroglu & Gursoy, 2015); the Syr Darya Basin (Strasser et al., 2016), or other large basins in Asia (Keskinen et al., 2016). Expanding transboundary cooperation means incorporating regional issues, whether by integrating resource-use issues within the basin boundaries (river basin as a socio-political resource basin) or between states (state-based bilateral and regional cooperation). Emergent regional issues can to be embedded in the different phases of the cooperation process. Such cooperation processes are depicted in Figure 3 by extending the cooperation continuum into international rivers (Sadoff & Grey, 2005) to highlight key functions of each phase, and what each phase entails in terms of typical cooperation actions. We highlight functions related to the development and revision of institutional arrangements: i.e. policies, agreements, laws,

13

rules, practices, etc. Such arrangements are based on certain visions or regimes for governing previously prioritized transboundary issues. For example, water issues might be best tackled at the river-basin level through a river-basin organization (RBO), while trade, climate change and the promotion of renewables might require a regional governance approach. Furthermore, polycentric or multi-level governance can be preferred for conservation and restoration issues, as well as addressing the use of biofuels and their effects on land degradation. Once issues are prioritized and governance approaches are negotiated, actual cooperation can begin by formalizing arrangements and the process of institutionalization: i.e. ensuring that institutional arrangements will be accepted and translated into social and resource-use change. During their implementation, sufficient resources and monitoring are necessary, and lessons learnt need to lead to new issues for future reforms and transboundary negotiations. It is important that the development of suitable governance approaches as a basis for institutional choice begins early on, immediately following an initial phase focusing on the promotion and assessments of cooperation benefits. In this preparatory phase, diplomacy and trust-building are highly important, as they help promote the idea of benefit-sharing and its values (Susskind & Islam, 2012). These cooperation benefits can be broad, and arise at the river basin- or any other regional scale (Sadoff & Grey, 2002), and can be easily integrated into the various methods of benefits assessment (UNECE, 2015). Figure 3 here 4.2

Level of institutional integration

For many decades, transboundary cooperation in the Nile has been oriented towards the issue of the utilization of Nile waters in an equitable and sustainable manner, Table 5 summarizes major transboundary cooperation milestones, all of which are practically river-basin driven

14

despite the incorporation into them of a few overarching development aspects, especially after the establishment of the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI). However, the history of cooperation, conflicts, agreements and political power in the Nile has been dominated by the river control (see Tesfaye 2014; Metawie, 2004). The establishment of NBI in 1999 marked an important milestone since it sought to outline mutual benefits and a basin-wide collaboration framework. For example, the Shared Vision Program (SVP) promoted data sharing, pilot projects as best practices for sustainable development, knowledge infrastructure and regional power trade. A bigger and more relevant initiative for the ideas of benefitsharing and regionalism was the 2005 launched Joint Multipurpose Program (JMP) which entailed large investments in basin development such as improving storage or hydropower use. However, this promising program represented a donor-driven add-on mechanism. It did not institutionalize ‘beyond-the-basin’ or regional cooperation approaches while water sharing remained the dominant topic in the negotiation track. In fact, with no new broader institutional arrangements in place since the water-driven NBI act of 2002, Nile issues has continued to be resolved through an “ad hoc issue-based cooperation driven by ‘facts on the ground’ and the absence of a basin-wide perspective” with the Nile being managed as “a collection of connected but independent river reaches and sub-basins” (Hilhorst, 2016). The JMP failed in 2012 after Egypt’s opposition to the proposed focus of investments in the Blue Nile basin. At the same time, sectoral infrastructure project such as power transmission between Sudan and Ethiopia continued bilaterally with donor funds but formally under the auspices of the NBI. Despite the lack of institutionalized mechanisms behind the JMP, its collapse might be regrettable, especially for Egypt who witnessed the rising geopolitical ambitions of Ethiopia and Sudan challenge its water hegemony and, the unilateral move of Ethiopia to construct the GERD. As a result, a new era of cooperation begun (see Cascão and Nicol, 2016, Nicol and Cascão, 2011; Cascão, 2008). The GERD era means a return to single

15

issues and allocation conflicts but also offers new opportunities from technical cooperation, hydrosolidarity and the joint exploitation of development spillovers (Yihdego et al., 2016; Abdelhady et al., 2015). At the same time, failure of cooperation on the GERD can seriously threatened benefit-sharing, let alone regionalism, while Egypt is under pressure to advance its water policies and exploit additional resources (Yihdego et al., 2017; Tawfik, 2016). Yet, some scholars are optimistic about the prospects of cooperation on the GERD, especially in light of the recent 2015 Principles Agreement, between Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan (see Salman, 2013, 2016). The agreement included a commitment to regional integration but does not offer any specific regional topics, rather focusing on many points related to the construction of the GERD Table 5 here

Incorporating further issues into future transboundary institutional arrangements in the Eastern Nile Basin might require developing additional institutional arrangements and utilizing opportunities provided by international law. Figure 4 shows these trade-offs regarding the optimal level of institutional integration. The “hard” or legal-based approach entail various instruments such as substantive and procedural rules, bilateral and multilateral agreements, regional organizations, etc. (e.g., Belinskij, 2015; He, 2015). It results in “increased formality of cooperation, but a higher level of trust. At the same time, it increases institutional complexity and also coordination cost, two issues that often undermine the institutional effectiveness of the established governance regimes (Willis et al., 2011). Further, Abebe (2014) questions whether a legal resolution based international law can work in the absence of a central enforcement mechanism. Instead, an economic approach that minimizes transaction costs and establishes property and liability rules that balance state’s preferences can be more helpful. In fact, Egypt still regards the Nile as its historic right but might be

16

willing accept a smaller share in exchange for beneficial agreements on trade and technical cooperation. Regional cooperation can help accommodate creasing internal pressures such as increased population and unemployment. In any case, cooperation arrangements must strike a balance between formality, transaction costs and the issue complexity. The cooperation and diplomacy status quo is based on one issue (river flow utilization), and soft measures such as diplomacy and non-binding agreements. The formalization of transboundary water cooperation through an RBO, which can enhance trust and cooperation, is under discussion. A further development of this transboundary cooperation to include formal institutional arrangements for regional and bilateral cooperation can be mutually beneficial. Figure 4 here

5.

Discussion of Regional Cooperation Options

In the Eastern Nile basin, the highlighted emerging issues related to water, energy and land resources have risen from recent pressures such as increased river basin development, external risks such as climate change or variability, and technological advances in agriculture, conservation and renewables. Further, the global economic actors push to exploit local resources in Africa in order to increase water, energy and food outputs while African states are utilizing this opportunity to redefine their national politics (Vernhoeven, 2013). In the past, the hegemonic position of Egypt was associated with the favouritism of historic agreements, but also to superior adaptive capacity (e.g. diversified economy and virtual water) to withstand the asymmetric endowment of surface and soil water (Allan, 2009). Recently however, Sudan and Ethiopia are using their comparative advantages (e.g. surface water in Ethiopia and arable land in Sudan) to challenge Egypt’s hegemony. Increased land and energy investments from local and foreign actors helped the two countries cement their national ambitions, but also strained transboundary water relations (see Sandstrom et al.,

17

2016). While Ethiopia decided to a major unilateral step to boost its economy by constructing GERD using own funds, Sudan does not see itself obliged to stick to the historic pact with Egypt even if its national interests say otherwise. This new basin dynamics does not provide evident coalitions and incite a broad thinking in terms of what is best for the region while preserving national interests and sovereignty. The academic argument for moving beyond sharing the benefits from the direct use of transboundary rivers towards a regional perspective using the lens of transboundary natural resources has been around for some time now (e.g. Sadoff & Grey, 2002; Schiff & Winters, 2002; Qaddumi, 2008). In the Eastern Nile, regional cooperation can address common challenges and capitalize on development opportunities while breaking the zero-sum mentality of river-basin negotiation. Options to do this in terms of the set institutional arrangements depend on the negotiated political vision for the region and, consequently, the adopted regional governance regime. Arguably, these options range between the four poles depicted in Figure 5 Integration entails formal (i.e. based on international law) institutional arrangements that achieve a profound level of harmonization. Regional integration arrangements (RIAs) are established among state to advance regional integration. Regional cooperation (e.g. on water issues) can however advance without regional arrangements, e.g. Nile or Indus basins. Therefore, regional integration is seen as separate from cooperation, while integration can be a “facilitating factor” for cooperation by widening the issues, and thereby the bargaining arena, or helping develop effective enforcement of sectoral agreements (Schiff & Winters, 2002). On the other hand, Qaddumi (2008) sees a stronger influence of integration on cooperation since regional integration can be an “instrumental factor” in bringing about cooperation on issues such as transboundary water management e.g. the Rhine Commission The bottom-line is that cooperation entails more informality and less complexity in terms of binding institutional arrangements.

18

The other poles of cooperation are the state or basin level. For example, Eastern Nile countries can incorporate new issues using bilaterally or multilaterally agreements on issues not confined to river. These agreements can result in sector-based cooperation or a deeper integration as an economic community. On the basin level, the new issues can be embedded in current transboundary basin water cooperation arrangements, e.g. enhancing nexus issues. Alternatively, the countries can adopt a stronger approach of integration that considers the totality and interlinks between natural resources within the basin, thus perceiving the basin an economic and socio-political entity (resource basin). Figure 5 here Options for regional cooperation or regional integration might be determined in the end by the two factors of geopolitics and the aforementioned trade-offs of enhanced institutional integration. Examples from transboundary cooperation in other the African context can provide some orientation. In Eastern Africa, the 1996-founded Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) is a regional economic community comprising five NBI states, including Ethiopia and Sudan but not Egypt. As a successor to drought-focused regional organization, its vision is closely linked to environmental issues and, in practice, highly influenced by Nile conflicts Economic integration, free-trade and infrastructure development are aims of IGAD. However, members prioritize security concerns while they observe the growing influence of Ethiopian interests on the organization and the region at large with suspicion (Byiers, 2016). Egypt has occasionally expressed interest in joining IGAD, something that presumably depends on the outcome of regional hydro-rivalry. Joining IGAD might make a regional economic community for the Eastern Nile unnecessary. One should note that Egypt has tried to build such a community in the form of the UNDUGU group which Ethiopia did not join. However, the group was conceived to be an instrument by Egypt to maintain its status-quo

19

interests. With Ethiopia as a rising hydropower, both countries might reconsider this option. After all, in the post-GERD era, the region both Egypt and Ethiopia will still be confronted with rising populations of mostly young people eager to find jobs and use opportunities provided by peaceful relations, e.g. trade in food, energy or technology. At the same time, a new community implies more coordination costs and institutional complexity, while it might be an altogether difficult option due to weak cultural and geographical ties. On the other hand, Egypt might opt for strengthening bilateral and/or multilateral ties with Sudan and Ethiopia, or advance the transformation of RBO as a successor to the NBI. There have been recent indications of increased cooperation between Egypt and Ethiopia as the new Egyptian regime seems, for now, to favor good relations and trade over the instrumentalization of the conflict (von Lossow & Roll, 2015). At the same time, reforming the hydro-centric organization, NBI, into an RBO is still an integral part of the regional vision. The ability of such an organization to effectively incorporate water and land issues as well as other common challenges such as climate change is not clear. It is also difficult to explain how joint action on overarching issues such as resource trade, infrastructure and grid integration, groundwater and others can take place without some integration arrangements, at least on a bilateral level, or through international agreements supporting or complementing arrangements at the basin level. In the African context, regional integration in western and southern parts is increasingly linking the regional and the basin levels together. The Southern African Development Community (SADC) of 16 countries sharing many rivers covers a number of natural resources, including shared water, through a lens of regional integration and economic interdependence. In the case of SADC, Muller et al. (2015) highlighted the role of water, although small due to limited interactions on shared rivers, as a showcase for mutual benefits through cooperation, and recommends “hydro-supportive” transboundary water management

20

for this region. This means managing water on the same geographical scale as other sectors, and in alignment with wider socio-economic activities or regional development. Similarly, shared waters in Western Africa are also promoted as part of a larger zone of regional integration. However, Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) excludes Cameroon, an important riparian country (UNECA, 2015). Similarly, in the Eastern Nile, true regional integration seems distant from current diplomatic negotiation realities. Instead, if riparian countries favor an enhancement of basin approaches, they can consider broader approaches such as resource integration (WEF Nexus), cross-sectoral institutional arrangements, and a (hydro-supportive) basin organization with inclusive participation.

6.

Conclusions

The water- and state-centric approach of water diplomacy emphasizes the use of interdisciplinary negotiations tools , conflict resolution and transboundary institutions in order to facilitate cooperation, mostly on the river-basin level. Benefit-sharing, a wider and not entirely water-basin-related lens on cooperation, promises to move beyond the zero-sum game of allocating water quantities. Many of the emerging resource-use issues in transboundary rivers are not adequately incorporated into concepts such as water diplomacy or t approach of benefit-sharing. At the same time, Growing economies, demands and external climatic risks are leading to an appreciation of the regional level for cooperation on common pool resources. The WEF Nexus approach can be useful for highlighting key neglected issues on interlinked resources at the basin and regional levels. To conceptually accommodate these new issues and concepts at the basin level, there is a need to move beyond water perspectives, whether hydro-centric or hydro-supportive. We argue that an understanding of a river basin from a broader perspective as a resource basin can be helpful in this regard. In such a conceptualisation, basin boundaries are seen as common socio-

21

economic boundaries within which interlinked water, energy and resources, whether connected to the river flow or not, are utilized for basin development, while the benefits therefrom are shared among users. Such a conceptualization helps broaden cooperation issues, incorporate non-state actors and increase mutual gains, and is also less associated with institutional complexity than the maybe unwanted or unfeasible, fully-fledged regional integration. This paper has aimed at highlighting new issues for transboundary cooperation while exploring institutional arrangements for dealing with them in the Eastern Nile, as a region with a common destiny. Such issues include WEF nexus ones and increased regional cooperation. Despite the current focus on the transboundary water cooperation issues related to equitable utilization and hydropower projects, scholars and practitioners perceive land and energy use issues as being increasingly important and appropriate for future negotiation agendas. The issues considered to be the most beneficial and also viable for cooperation are cross-sectoral and rather regional. Technical cooperation, trade, certain services of Nile-based eco-systems, and improving agricultural technologies can help enhance cooperation, are more financially and politically feasible, and represent climate-resistant issues. There is also a large degree of support among Nile Basin experts for the idea of enhancing cooperative institutions and legislations. These are seen to have had a positive contribution on transboundary riverbasin management. They also mitigate underlying cooperation challenges such as distrust and regional rivalry. Finally, in order to achieve enhanced cooperation in the region, we make the following recommendations. These recommendations are based on the study of emerging issues, and the analysis of the institutional challenges and set-up in the Eastern Nile basin. 

The transboundary cooperation vision and the issues in the negotiation agenda can be enhanced through a more integrated and regional perspective. This means 22

incorporating WEF Nexus issues, overarching challenges such as trade, climate change and variability, low resource-use efficiencies, and eco-systems protection. 

There are beneficial and not-difficult issues that represent low-hanging fruits in transboundary cooperation (e.g. technical cooperation, technology transfer, and investments in Nile resources). Addressing these issues can help build trust, showcase cooperation benefits, and help, although indirectly, foster regional integration.



Emergent issues needs to be incorporated into the cooperation process at different phases: i.e. during the preparation phase until the phases of implementation, monitoring and learning. The cooperation agenda needs be revised regularly to accommodate new issues arising due to the rapid change of pace in the region.



New regional institutional arrangements should be based on a negotiated governance approach concerning transboundary natural resources. Regional integration is an ambitious goal, and institutional integration entails important trade-offs. However, deep integration can facilitate cooperation on resource conflicts and governance.



The basin level is a suitable scale for many resource-use issues, especially if strengthened through more inclusive institutions, in terms of issues and actors. The basin is, however, not only a management scale or a water-resources delineation. Moreover, it can be purposefully conceived as a resource basin, and thus understood as an integrative entity with a common set of development goals and, to certain extent, as a coherent socio-economic community.



Eastern Nile Basin countries should deliberate on options for regional integration while considering cooperation trajectories, existing arrangements in the region, and experiences from other parts of the African continent. Any institutional arrangements

23

need to reflect cooperation between equals, and the appreciation of benefits of interdependence over rivalry or competition. References Abdelhady, D., Aggestam, K., Andersson, D-E., Beckman, O., Berndtsson, R., Palmgren, K. B., Madani, K., Ozkirimli, U., Persson, K.M. and Pilesjö, P. 2015, The Nile and the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam: Is there a meeting point between nationalism and hydrosolidarity? Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education, 155, 73–82. Abebe, D. 2014. Egypt, Ethiopia, and the Nile: The economics of international water law.. University of Chicago Public Law & Legal. Theory Working Paper, 484,

1-26.

Akamani, K., Wilson, P. 2011. Toward the adaptive governance of transboundary water resources. Conservation Letters, 4(6), 409–416. Alam, U., Dione, O., Jeffrey, P. 2009. The benefit-sharing principle: implementing sovereignty bargains on water. Political Geography, 28(2) ,90–100. Allan J.A. 2009. Nile Basin Asymmetries: A Closed Fresh Water Resource, Soil Water Potential, the Political Economy and Nile Transboundary Hydropolitics. In: Dumont H.J. (eds) The Nile. Monographiae Biologicae, 89. Springer, Dordrecht. Al Zayed, I. S., Elagib, N. A., Ribbe, L., Heinrich, J. 2015. Spatio-temporal performance of large-scale Gezira irrigation scheme, Sudan. Agricultural Systems, 133, 131-142. Awulachew, S.B., Smakhtin, V., Molden, D., Peden, D. 2012. The Nile River Basin: water, agriculture, governance and livelihoods. Routledge, Earthscan. Al-Saidi, M., Elagib N., Ribbe L., Schellenberg T., Roach E., Oezhan D. 2017. Water, energy and food security nexus in the Eastern Nile Basin – Assessing the potential of transboundary

24

regional cooperation, in Abdul Salam, P., Shrestha, S., Pandey, V.P., Anar, A.K., Water– Energy–Food Nexus: Principles and Practices, Wiley,103–116. Al-Saidi, M., Elagib, N. 2017. Towards understanding the integrative approach of the water, energy and food nexus. Science of the Total Environment, 574, 1131–1139. Barnes, J. 2017. The future of the Nile: climate change, land use, infrastructure management, and treaty negotiations in the transboundary river basin. Wires Climate Change, 8 (2). Belinskij, A. 2015. Water–Energy–Food Nexus within the framework of international water law. Water, 7(10), 5396–5415. Byiers, B. 2016. The political economy of regional integration in Africa. Intergovernmental Authority on Development. http://ecdpm.org/wp-content/uploads/ECDPM-2016-PoliticalEconomy-Regional-Integration-Africa-IGAD-Report.pdf Cascão, A E. 2008. Ethiopia-challenges to Egyptian hegemony in the Nile Basin. Water Policy 10 (S2), 13-28. DOI: 10.2166/wp.2008.206 Cascão, A. E.,Nicol, A. 2016. GERD: New norms of cooperation in the Nile Basin? Water International, 41(4), 550–573. Chikozho, C. 2014. Pathways for building capacity and ensuring effective transboundary water resources management in Africa: revisiting the key issues, opportunities and challenges. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 76–78, 72–82 Dore, J., Lebel, L., Molle, F. 2012. A framework for analysing transboundary water governance complexes, illustrated in the Mekong Region. Journal of Hydrology, 466–567, 23–36,

25

Habteyes, B.G., Hasseen El-bardisy, H.A.E., Amer, S.A., Schneider, V.R., Ward, F.A. 2015. Mutually beneficial and sustainable management of Ethiopian and Egyptian dams in the Nile Basin. Journal of Hydrology, 529, 1235–1246. He, Y. 2015. China's practice on the non-navigational uses of transboundary waters: transforming diplomacy through rules of international law. Water International, 40(2), 312– 327. Hilhorst, B 2016. Water management in the Nile Basin. A fragmented but effective cooperative regime. Center for International and Regional Studies. Georgetown University Qatar,

available

at

https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/1041961/CIRSOccasionalP aper17BartHilhorst2016.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Huntjens, P., de Man, R. 2014. Water Diplomacy: Making Water Cooperation Work. In Internal Project Proposal: The Hague Institute for Global Justice. https://www.planetarysecurityinitiative.org/sites/default/files/201704/PB_Water_Diplomacy_WG_4.pdf Huntjens, P., Yasuda, Y., Swain, A., de Man, R., Magsig, B., Islam, S. 2016. The multi-track water diplomacy framework: a legal and political economy analysis for advancing cooperation over shared waters. The Hague Institute for Global Justice. http://internationalwatercooperation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/THIGJ_The-Multitrack-Water-Diplomacy-Framework_Webversion-1.pdf Islam, S., Susskind, L. 2012. Water Diplomacy: A Negotiated Approach to Managing Complex Water Networks. RFF Press Policy Series, Taylor and Francis. Islam, S., Repella, A.C. 2015. Water Diplomacy: A negotiated approach to manage complex water problems. Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education, 155, 1–10.

26

Jalivov, S., Varis, O., Keskinen, M. 2015. Sharing benefits in transboundary rivers: an experimental case study of Central Asian Water–Energy–Agriculture Nexus. Water, (7), 4778–4805 Kibaroglu, A., Gursoy, S.I. 2015. Water–energy–food nexus in a transboundary context: the Euphrates-Tigris river basin as a case study. Water International, 40(4–5), 824–838. Keskinen, M., Guillaume, J.H.A., Kattelus, M., Porkka, M., Raesaenen, T.A., Varis, O. 2016. The Water–Energy–Food Nexus and the transboundary context: Insights from large Asian rivers. Water, 8(5), 193. Keskinen, M., Varis, O. 2016. Water–energy–food nexus in large Asian river basins. Water, 8, 446. Kraska, J. 2009. Sharing water, preventing war – hydrodiplomacy in South Asia. Diplomacy & Statecraft, 20(3), 515–530. Lawford, R., Bogardi, J., Marx, S., Jain, S., Wostl, C.P., Knüppe, K., Ringler, C., Lansigan, F., Meza, F., 2013. Basin perspectives on the water–energy–food security nexus. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5(6), 607–616. Metawie, A. 2004. History of cooperation in the Nile basin. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 20(1), 47-63. Muller, M., Chikozho, C., Hollingworth, B. 2015. The role of water as a driver of regional economic integration in Southern Africa. Water Research Commission. Available at http://www.wrc.org.za/Knowledge%20Hub%20Documents/Research%20Reports/2252-115.pdf NBI, Nile Basin Initiative (2012), State of the River Nile Basin Report, NBI. Available at http://nileis.nilebasin.org/content/state-river-nile-basin-report

27

Nicol, A., Cascão, A. E. 2011. Against the flow – new power dynamics and upstream mobilization in the Nile Basin, 38(128), 317-325. Paisley, R.K., Henshaw, T.W. 2013. Transboundary governance of the Nile River Basin: Past, present and future. Environmental Development 7, 59–71. Petersen-Perlman, J., Veilleux, J.C., Wolf, A.T. 2017. International water conflict and cooperation: challenges and opportunities. Water International, 42(2), 105–120. Qaddumi, H. 2008. Practical approaches to transboundary water benefit sharing. Overseas Development

Institute

(ODI).

Working

Paper

292.

https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/2576.pdf Sadoff, C.W., Grey. D. 2002. Beyond the river: the benefits of cooperation on international rivers. Water policy 4(5), 389–403. Sadoff, C.W., Grey, D. 2005. Cooperation on international rivers – a continuum for securing sharing benefits. Water International 30(4), 420–427. Salman, S. M. A. (2016). The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam: The road to the declaration of principles and the Khartoum document. Water International, 41(4), 512–527 Salman, S. M. A. 2013. The Nile Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement: a peacefully unfolding African spring?, Water International, 38(1), 17-29 Sandstorm, E., Jagerskog, A., Oestigaard, T. 2016. Land and hydropolitics in the Nile River Basin: challenges and new investments. Routledge, Abingdon. Schiff, M., Winters, L.A., 2002. Regional Cooperation, and the Role of International Organizations and Regional Integration, Policy Research Working Paper 2872. World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/19263/multi0page.pdf?sequen ce=1&isAllowed=y

28

Strasser, L.D., Lipponen, A., Howells, M., Stec, S., Brethaut, C. 2016. A methodology to assess the water energy food ecosystems nexus in transboundary river basins. Water, 8, 59 Susskind, L., Islam, S. 2012. Water diplomacy: creating value and building trust in transboundary water negotiations. Science and Diplomacy, 1 (3). Swain, A. 2011. Challenges for water sharing in the Nile basin: Changing geopolitical and changing climate, Hydrol. Sci. J., 54(4), 687–702. Tan, C.C., Erfani, T., Erfani, R. 2017. Water for energy and food: a system modelling approach for Blue Nile river basin. Environments, 4(1), 15. Tesfaye, A. 2014. Conflict and cooperation and the evolution of the nascent Nile Basin regime. Northeast African Studies, 14(1), 123-144. Tawfik, R. 2016. The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam: a benefit-sharing project in the Eastern Nile? Water International, 41(4), 574-592. UNECA (United Nations Economic Commission for Africa) 2015. An assessment of progress towards regional integration in the economic community of West African states since its inception. United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, Economic Community of

West

African

States.

https://www.uneca.org/sites/default/files/PublicationFiles/int_progr_ri_inceptionecowaseng.p df UNECE 2015. Policy guidance note on the benefits of transboundary water cooperation. United

Nations

Commission

for

Europe

(UNECE).

Switzerland.

Available

at

https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/water/publications/WAT_Benefits_of_Transbou ndary_Cooperation/ECE_MP.WAT_47_PolicyGuidanceNote_BenefitsCooperation_1522750 _E_pdf_web.pdf

29

Verhoeven H. 2013. The politics of African energy development: Ethiopia’s hydroagricultural state-building strategy and clashing paradigms of water security. Phil Trans R Soc A 371: 20120411. von Lossow, T., Roll, S. 2015. Egypt’s Nile water policy under Sisi. SWP

Comments

11.

Berlin:

Stiftung

Wissenschaft

und

Politik.

Available

at

https://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/comments/2015C11_lsw_rll.pdf Wallis, P.J., Ison, R.J. 2011. Appreciating institutional complexity in water governance dynamics: a case from the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Water Resources Management, 25, 4081–4097. Warner, J.F., Zeitoun, M. 2008. International relations theory and water do mix: A response to Furlong’s troubled waters, hydro-hegemony and international water relations. Political Geography, 27, 802–810. Warner, J., Mirumachi, N., Farnum, R.L., Grandi, M., Menga, F., Zeitoun, M. 2017. Transboundary “hydro-hegemony”: 10 years later. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 4(6). Whittington, D., Waterbury, J., Jeuland, M. 2014. The Grand Renaissance Dam and prospects for cooperation on the Eastern Nile. Water Policy, 16(4), 595–608. Wolf, A.T., Newton, J.T. 2009. Case studies of transboundary dispute resolution. In Managing and Transforming Water Conflicts. Cambridge University Press, 169–248. Yihdego, Y., Khalil, A., Salem, H. 2017. Nile River’s Basin Dispute: Perspectives of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). Global Journal of Human-Social Science, 17 (2). Yihdego, Z., Rieu-Clarke, A., Cascão, A. E. 2016. How has the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam changed the legal, political and economic and scientific dynamics in the Nile Bain? Water International, 41(4), 503-511.

30

Yihdego, Z., Rieu-Clarke, A. 2016. An exploration of fairness in international law through the Blue Nile and GERD. Water International, 41(4), 528-549.

Table 1a: Energy–water issue mapping Water

Groundwater

Wastewater treatment

Desalination

purification

exploitation

plants

plants

Fossil fuel

31

plants Cooling for Aquaculture Fishery Thermal energy thermal plants

Cooling for thermal plants

Biomass energy

Irrigation for

Irrigation for fuel

Water reuse for

(Fuel wood and

fuel crops

crops field

agriculture (fuel crops)

biofuel) Ground water

Renewables-

exploitation

based

using renewables

desalination

Wind and solar energy

Hydropower

Energy/water

Flow control,

Increasing

Power for treatment

Micro-

hydropower,

discharge of

process

hydropower

sedimentation

aquifers

Surface water

Groundwater

Grey water/ Treated

Rainwater

wastewater

Table 1b: Land–water issue mapping

32

Seawater

Protecting water

Protected

Conservation

resources from

areas and

of marine eco-

pollution,

land

systems

protected areas and

conservations

Ecosystem services land conservations Livestock farms

Livestock

Livestock farms Water re-use for

Rain-fed

(Irrigated and

agriculture (non-

irrigation

rain-fed)

edible)

schemes

Grey water/

Rainwater

Agriculture

Land/water

Irrigation

Surface water

Irrigation

Groundwater

treated wastewater

Table 1c: Energy–land issue mapping

33

Seawater

New irrigation technique (drip, Fossil fuel sprinkler), machinery in agriculture Electricity Thermal energy for farms Biomass energy

Forestry and

(wood fuel and

agroforestry

Forestry and agroforestry

biofuel) Wind and solar

Renewables

energy

for farms

Hydropower

Energy/land

Increasing

Protected area,

fishing activity

recreation and

in reservoirs

tourism

Fishery

Ecosystem

Clean energy for irrigation systems

Irrigated agriculture

Livestock

services

Agriculture (irrigated and rainfed)

Table 2: Potential water, energy and food issue focus areas for transboundary cooperation 34

Energy

Micro-

issues

hydropower

Solar energy

Electricity

Thermal

Wind

Energy

grids

power

farming

trade

plants Yes

57.7

57.7

89.3

44.0

52.0

96.6

No

42.3

42.3

10.7

56.0

48.0

3.4

Water

Rainwater

Groundwater

Water

Water use

Water and

issues

harvesting

exploitation

protection

efficiency in

wastewater

from

agriculture

reuse

pollution Yes

77.8

77.8

93.1

96.6

82.1

No

22.2

22.2

6.9

3.4

17.09

Land

Food trade

Livestock

Fisheries

Irrigation

issues

trade

Yes

86.2

86.2

71.4

85.7

No

13.8

13.8

28.6

14.03

35

Most feasible financially

Most feasible politically

Easy to implement in the short term

Most vulnerable to climate change

Low adaptive capacity for climate change

Least feasible financially

Least feasible politically

Difficult to implement in the short term

High adaptive capacity for climate change

Least vulnerable to climate change

Table 3: Prioritization of specific cooperation issues

+

+

+

--

-

-

-

-

Hydropower projects (Small-scale dams) Flood-control systems +

--

and flow-rate monitoring Water purification and domestic wastewater

-

-

-

-

-

treatment plants Wastewater re-use

++

+

Foreign direct investments in land and

+

-

-

energy Improving irrigation efficiency (surface, drip

+

and sprinkler irrigation) Groundwater extraction Eco-tourism Food trade Technical cooperation

+++

+

+

+

+

-

++

+

+

+

+

++

++

++

++

-

--

-

Protecting water -

resources from pollution

36

Protection of areas and land conservation Bio-fuel and wood fuel -

-

-

-

-

production Machinery in agriculture

++

Rainwater harvesting

+

Energy trade Seawater desalination

++

+

+

+

--

+

++

+

-

+

--

Table 4: Transboundary legislations, rivalry, and cooperation legacies

37

-

--

Strongly

Disagree

disagree

Neither

Agree

agree nor

Strongly agree

disagree The current large number of agreements and

4.8%

38.1%

28.6%

19%

9.5%

4.8%

23.8%

28.6%

28.6%

14.3%

0%

28.6%

9.5%

42.9%

19%

5%

10%

10%

30%

45%

16%

0%

21%

47%

16%

0%

5%

20%

55%

20%

legislations negatively affect the possibility of better management. There are many legislations and agreements, but they are not enforced. The current legislations and agreements to regulate the different issues have not been effective. There is a necessity for new legislations and agreements to manage and utilize Nile waters among the riparian states. Progress in cooperation between the Eastern Nile Basin states has been slow due to regional rivalry between them. The burden of historical events is a major challenge faced by Eastern Nile states when attempting to achieve cooperation.

Table 5: Main cooperation challenges

38

Challenge

Trust

Political

History

will

Political

Political

will

instability

Knowledge

Lack of financial resources

Arithmetic

4.43

4.38

4.05

4.38

3.81

3.62

3.29

0.98

1.02

1.36

1.02

1.03

1.24

1.1

mean Standard deviation

Table 5: Overview of transboundary cooperation arrangements in the Nile basin

39

Initiative Nile Projects Commission (1920)

Description Allocation scheme for riparian states Agreement between Egypt and Sudan for sharing Nile water

Nile Water Agreement (1929) between them Negotiations for the construction of a

Negotiations between Egypt and Sudan for the construction of the

dam in Aswan (1950s)

dam in Aswan Agreement for the full utilisation of the Nile waters between Egypt

Nile Water Treaty (1959) and Sudan Basin-wide organization with all riparian states except Ethiopia HYROMET (1967-1993)

and DRC intended to analyse the hydrometeorological survey of lake Victoria. Unofficial regional grouping for a basin-wide cooperation and Nile

UNDUGU (1983-1993)

Economic Community, pushed by Egypt with Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania not participating Technical Cooperation Committee for the Promotion of the

TECCONILE (1993)

Development and Environmental Protection of the Nile Basin to address development agenda for the Nile basin A part of the TECCONILE to provide the foundation for the Nile

Nile River Basin Action Plan (1995) Basin Initiative A council of the Ministers of Water from each of the riparian Nile-COM (1997) nations of the Nile Basin Cooperative framework for the sustainable development and Nile Basin Initiative, NBI (1999) management of the Nile Created by an official forum for legal and institutional dialogue Cooperative Framework (2000) with support of UNDP and a panel of experts The first basin-wide project under the NBI to promote waterNile Transboundary Environmental related development projects in the Nile basin Action Project (2004)

40

Cooperative Framework Agreement

Signed by six riparian states for equitable utilization of Nile

(CFA) (2010)

waters, though with strong objections from Egypt

Agreement on Declaration of Principles on the Grand Ethiopian

Signed by Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia

Renaissance Dam Project (2015)

41

42

43

44

45