A seminar presentation by Yacob Arsano Associate professor of political science amp international relations Addis Ababa University At Global Meeting Place Forum 2010 Gotheburg University ID: 776007
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document " Negotiating Cooperation over the Nile? " is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
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
Slide2Abstract
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.
Slide3Introduction
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
Slide4Introduction 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
Slide5Trans-boundary water basins of North Eastern Africa
Slide62 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
Slide7EGYPT
ERITERIA
SUDAN
RWANDA
BRUNDI
ETHIOPIA
KENYA
TANZANIA
DRC
UGANNDA
Countries
Yacob Arsano
Slide83 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
Slide9Map of the Nile basin
Slide104 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.
Slide115 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)
Slide126 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)
Slide137 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
Slide14Assumed 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
Slide15Upstream 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
Slide16Assumed strategic means
-Alternative sources of financing water projects
-Global and national policies on poverty reduction
-Public political pressure to develop water resources
Slide178 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
Slide189 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