Nile Debate Beats around the Bush – Saddening!

There is nothing as preoccupying as the issue surrounding the Great Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) for the administration of Prime MinisterHailemariam Desalegn. It is the one project that all eyes are staring at with historic interest and unflinching curiosity. There is a universal consensus within the varying sections of the Ethiopian community that the project represents the unity of the nation.

If one flows with the very water on which the Dam is being built, however, the magnitude of uncertainty increases. This very feeling goes through the roof as one reaches to Cairo, the Egyptian capital. What is felt there is worsened with the commitment of Ethiopia, the upper riparian country for the Nile River, contributing over 80pc of the water, to continue to realise its flagship prosect projected to generate about 6,000Mw power. Egyptian politicians and policymakers are having sleepless nights tinkering over ways to maintain their long overdue dominance in the use of the Nile waters.

As the time comes for Egypt to elect its second presidential election, after the overthrow of Hosni Mubark, wherein the general-turned-candidate Abdel-Fettah Sisi (F. Marshall) is seen to be the foremost favourite, the issue of the Nile waters has become central to the debate. Although the stance of Sisi is not clear, some of the candidates have started to throw stones on the face of Ethiopian decision makers by declaring possible future war. But both the silence of Sisi and the shouts of some of the presidential candidates relate less to the nature of the water and more with the construction of the GERD.

By and large, the Ethiopian government has preferred to be selective in its public relation activities. All of the official statements being made over the GERD try to highlight the commitment of the government for equitable use of the waters of the River. Stating the facts right is, by and large, the strategy.

It all happens while the Nile Basin is witnessing its own political dynamics. At the core, there is the stability of Ethiopia, the independence of the South Sudan and its subsequent sinking to chaos, the economic volatility of the Sudan, largely by the progressively hurtful sanctions of the United States, and the political volatility of Egypt.

At the periphery is the continuous infighting in Somalia, a regional nightmare, and the belligerence of Eritrea, a riparian nation, largely fuelled by its isolation. Of course, complementing this regional picture is the political twist happening in the other riparian countries, such as Rwanda, Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Burundi, Kenya and Tanzania.

As it stands, Egypt seems to be standing alone in the spectrum and is trying to befriend as many of the riparian nations as possible to obstruct the progress of the GERD. More than  the very issue of the grand dam, there seems to be a deep-seated insecurity within the Egyptian elite of losing regional hegemony along with the completion of the GERD. This relates to the fundamental political and economic changes that the very completion of the GERD could bring to Ethiopia, its regional compatriots and the regional balance of power, in general.

On the Ethiopian end of the thread, there is this long overdue desire to eradicate poverty. If one is to go by the statist approach to development of the incumbent government, then, public investment on infrastructure is an important undertaking to tap the potentials of the nation.

One way to do this, according to the guidebooks of the government, ensuring the energy self-sufficiency of the nation. Therein lays the role the GERD will be playing to jumpstart industrialisation in the predominantly agrarian economy and bring foreign exchange.

The political ball remains oscillating between the two sides. Even those efforts that tend to create a comprehensive consensus on the use of the water, which entails a total catchment area of 2.9 million square kilometres and a total basin population of 280 million, such as the Comprehensive Framework Agreement (CFA), seem to get troubled by the swinging political ball. Nothing is certain about the end of the ongoing war of words, diplomatic tussle and military lumbering.

Aside the political debate, however, reports after reports are showing that global water resources are under distress from climate change. All latest reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the most authoritative body on studies relating to the trends and impacts of climate change, show that the increasing warming of the planet is putting a huge burden on the scarce accessible water resources. Desertification is spreading, river flows are diminishing, soil erosion is increasing and rainfalls are getting erratic, the reports show. This applies to all water bodies, including the Nile, the longest river on the planet.

There is nothing new about what the reports of the IPCC declare, though. Anyone who has travelled around Ethiopia could see that these various elements of climate change are real time challenges for the waters of the Blue Nile, the largest tributary of the Nile. Environmental degradation is visibly the pertinent threat, not only for the waters of the Blue Nile, but also for broader agricultural production system of the localities around the river.

Considering the magnitude of the challenge climate change and environmental degradation pose to the very waters of the Nile, one could expect for governments of the riparian nations to factor it in their discussions. But it remains to be marginalised in all the ongoing rhetoric. By and large, the debate seems to assume that the waters of the river are going to stay intact, regardless of the natural and anthropogenic factors.

Of course, the Ethiopian government is trying to undertake some catchment treatment works. Its commitment is manifest in its official policies, stated in the Growth & Transformation Plan (GTP). Yet, the undertaking is far lower than the challenge.

Upper catchment treatment ought to have been the area wherein all countries of the basin need to jointly put their money, technical capacity, institutional determination and political commitment into. Regardless of their location along the basin, they ought to have been attentive to the impacts of the factors on the very water they are basing their development on.

Dismayingly, as if they are just beating around the bush, their focus is more on the superstructures being built over the water, and less on the very existence of the water. This is despite the fact that all climate change projections are foreseeing reduction in water flow.

Any utilisation of the waters of the Nile, be it in the form of hydropower plants or irrigation scheme, could happen only if the upper catchment is rehabilitated with concerted catchment management investment. In the case of crossborder rivers, such a task could not be left to one country only. It rather is a front where cooperation ought to exist, in its fullest sence.

Sadly, Nile is getting deprived of this essential treatment, largely because the focus has been on the superstructures being built over it. This dynamics ought to change, if the whole focus is to bring development to the people of the basin.

As much as the riparian countries ought to come to the discussion table to resolve their differences on superstructures, such as the GERD, they ought to give due concern for the challenge that climate change and environmental degradation pose to the existence of the very water. As the saying goes, they ought to put their money where their mouth is.

Refocusing the Nile debate on the challenges of climate change and environmental degradation could change the whole debate. It could also bring functional cooperations, if not end the long overdue animosity prevalent within the riparian nations.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.