Negotiating Cooperation over the Nile? - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Negotiating Cooperation over the Nile?

A seminar presentation

by

Yacob

Arsano

Associate professor of political science & international relations

Addis Ababa University

At Global Meeting Place Forum 2010

Gotheburg

University

7 December 2010

Abstract

Upstream

and downstream nations

may often stack to agree

on

shared waters. They may lack the know how or political will or confidence on one another to establish principles

, rules of

procedure, institutional framework and mechanisms to anchor their cooperation. The riparian states may not know what best they can anticipate from cooperation.

Although

“give-and-take” or “win-win” is the name of the game states, as sovereign entities,

seek from a cooperation, they still hung on to their cherished BATNA-“

best alternative to negotiated agreement”.

Nine riparian states in the Nile basin have negotiated for a Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA) for ten years in the spirit of cooperation and in anticipation to gain the best out of it. Negotiation is about to transform each country’s best to a collective best. The ten year intensive negotiation for the CFA has been concluded short of achieving a collective best. The presentation aims to explain the

hydrological, historical, geopolitical and legal/ institutional contexts

as drivers of potential cooperation.

Introduction

Drivers for cooperation

-accepting the unity of the basin

Unity is about equality, equitability, and mutual interest.

-accept the integrity of the basin

Integrity is about linkage, recognition, trust, confidence on

owneself

and others, etc.

-accept the continuity of the shared waters

Continuity is about predictability, establishing mutually accepted principles, rules of procedure institutional mechanisms, protecting mutual benefits accruable from the shared resource for now and for the future

Introduction cont.

Detractors of cooperation in the Nile Basin (elements of drawback)

-Fear

-anxiety

-lack

of confidence on others

-lack of confidence on

own

capacity

-rigidity /circular argumentation

-resort

to and hide behind

BATNA

-lack of resolve for cooperation

-withdrawal

from the process

Trans-boundary water basins of North Eastern Africa

2 Geopolitical overview

The

Nile basin encompasses Northeastern and Central

Africa

*Comprises

10 riparian

states.

8

in the upstream (

Burundi ,DRC, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda)

2

in the downstream

(Egypt and Sudan)

They have negotiated with equal status as sovereign states. (Eritrea did not negotiate)

**The riparian states cherish sovereign rights over their waters

EGYPT

ERITERIA

SUDAN

RWANDA

BRUNDI

ETHIOPIA

KENYA

TANZANIA

DRC

UGANNDA

Countries

Yacob Arsano

3 Hydrological overview

*Estimated

annual average flow of the Nile is 84

billion cubic meters (BCM)

*Upstream contribution is 100%

Ethiopia’s

contribution is 86% (72 BCM

)

The

other six upstream countries contribute 14% (12 BCM)

Egypt

and Sudan are net recipients

In

Egypt the evaporation rate is 10-20 BCM (10BCM from Lake Nassir alone

)

Countries plan to use more water than available in the Nile course

Map of the Nile basin

4 Historical overview

*No basin-wide water convention, treaty or agreement

*Existing controversial agreements:

1929: Anglo-Egyptian

exchange of

notes (

Britain

recognized

“historical

and

natural rights

to Egypt on the waters of the Nile” ;

Egypt

got independence from Britain in 1922

)

1959: “Full Utilization of the waters of the Nile Agreement”

(Egypt & Sudan)

Upstream nations rejecting

-

Ethiopia’s rejection

(1957)

-Tanzania,

Neyerere

Dotrine

(1962

)

-Kenya and Uganda rejecting (1963

)

*Disagreement is clear: 1) Downstream nations –status quo; 2)Upstream nations –new agreement 3) But all agreed to negotiate and negotiated.

5 Towards new Nile Negotiation

Background

1967:

Hydromet

(Increase

water supply for

Egypt)

1983:

Undugu

(brotherhood,

increase water supply for

Egypt)

1992:

Tcconile

(technical cooperation),

increase

water

supply for Egypt

None of the above resulted in

a meaningful negotiation

A number of Nile basin nations were not party

-1993-2002 Nile

2002 conferences

(trans-disciplinary forum)

-1997: Adoption

of UN Convention on Non-navigation

Uses

of International Water Courses

(UNCNUIWC)

-1999: NBI (Nile Basin Initiative)

6 Negotiation for the CFA(Cooperative framework agreement)

The approach:

Integrated

water resources development agenda (WB,

UNDP, CIDA…)

1999 : Agreed

minutes of the Nile Ministers of Water

Resources (

signed by nine riparian

states in Dar-

es

-salaam)

Two

major aims:

-SAP

(Subsidiary Action

Program)

to initiate trans-boundary development activities through cooperative programs and joint

projects

-CFA

(Negotiation for Cooperative Framework

Agreement)

7 Outcome of the Nile CFA Negotiation

The negotiation

*Negotiations

proceeded through different

phases (

Panel

of

experts, Negotiating committee, transitional committee, Ministerial committee)

Downstream position

-

Historical

rights

(1929 Anglo-Egyptian agreement)

-Full utilization (1959 Egyptian-Sudanese agreement)

-Status quo (as established by the two agreements)

Downstream

BATNA

Assumed policy support

-Prior

appropriation right

argument

-Total dependence situation

-Compromise

if additional water supply is

made available

Assumed strategic means

-

D

iplomatic

pressure from strategic and geopolitical

allies

-Threat

of force (can exhibit greater balance of

military power)

-World Bank regulation 7.50

Upstream position

-No

recognition to the downstream agreements

-No

legal obligation to be bound by those

agreements

-They wee not a party

-Previous agreements are contrary to their national interests

Upstream

BATNA

, proceed

with national water development

works

Assumed policy support:

-Need for urgent socio-economic development

-Population increase

-Among poorest countries in the world

-Water starts is in their territorial

juridiction

Assumed strategic means

-Alternative sources of financing water projects

-Global and national policies on poverty reduction

-Public political pressure to develop water resources

8 Final outcome of CFA negotiation

Two downstream

nations have maintained the position of “status quo”

Their

BATNA

: not to accept the CFA

Seven upstream

countries reject the “status quo”. Have adopted CFA.

Their

BATNA:

utilizing the Nile waters within their respective territories

Five upstream countries have signed CFA

If 6 countries ratify CFA, NBC will be established

Present as impasse, with many results closer for a basin-wide agreement

9 Some conclusions

Negotiation failed to achieve “give and take” (use, mgt, protection of the shared waters)

The present impasse can be taken as a stage of negotiation

Downstream countries, at disadvantage

The advantages of upstream countries:

-terms of

UNCNUIWCs

(equitable & reasonable use, no appreciable harm)

-Water in their territories

-Alternative financing for water projects

Nile negotiation has missed to establish a roadmap for peace and prosperity for the riparian nations

But this cannot be taken as the end of the tunnel