Nile Treaty needs to be re-examined critically

THE manner in which the 1929 Anglo-Egyptian Nile Treaty, that has generated controversy the among riparian countries, is handled will either open new ground for joint and sustained development of the river’s basin or enhance the current tensions over the utilisation of the water resources.
The debate, which revolves around a historically lopsided pact that ignores the upper riparian countries’ rights and influence on the amount and pattern of water flow to the lower states, is getting more polarised and extremist.
The treaty gives Egypt, the lowermost riparian country, exclusive control over the waters, while the upper riparian countries cannot undertake any project with a massive out-take of water from Lake Victoria where the Nile originates, or on any of the rivers draining into the lake without consulting Egypt.
The clause on the water control is meant to ensure that a certain level of flows downstream uninterrupted for the North African country’s benefit. The treaty was reviewed in 1959 to take into consideration the interests of Sudan.
But the upper states, Ethiopia in particular, are increasingly demanding their fair share of their Nile basin water resources.
Proponents of ignore-the-treaty say its obsolete and heavily skewed in favour of Egypt, denying upstream countries the right to harness the Lake Victoria waters for the socio-economic good of their people.
The conflict is a reflection of the tragedies of the colonial legacy in Africa, where the colonisers apportioned the continent’s resources for their benefit.
The Nile Treaty was meant to benefit the British, who wanted to strategically secure the Suez Canal for their own economic and military interests. In a nutshell, it was for their own best interests that the British easily gave concessions that are the cause of the current dispute among the riparian states.
Egypt and Sudan, the beneficiaries of the treaty, are standing their ground and saying no to any renegotiation over the document, while the politicians and intellectuals from the three East African countries the custodians of the lake are arguing that the treaty is obsolete and should be ignored.
Egypt, in particular, maintains that the pact needs to be observed as any projects with massive water out-takes may affect the volume of flow down and hit badly 90 per cent of its population, which directly depends on River Nile.
Both positions are genuine and this is why a common approach needs to be adopted to resolve the issue and devise a joint proactive development strategy to harness the Nile basin for the benefit of all the countries.
We urge all the parties concerned to acknowledge that the matter is delicate and needs a sober approach to resolve. And this is possible through constructive dialogue.
It is a fact that rising and competitive demands on the waters from both the upper and the lower basin states make basinwide planning and equitable water allocation and development imperative. The alternative could be civil unrest and intra- and inter-state conflict, which would be difficult to control or reverse.
To avert an unreasonable and costly recourse to the dispute, there is urgent need for serious engagement among the riparian states towards equitable allocation of Nile water resources, and the creation of a cooperative mechanism. And, perhaps on a positive note, the inauguration of the Nile Basin Initiative is a forum to address this thorny issue.