.png)
By: Annika Hesse
The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) is a hydropower project nearing completion along the Nile River’s main tributary, the Blue Nile in Ethiopia. Owned and operated by the Ethiopian Electric Power company, the GERD is the largest hydropower project in Africa and has cost Ethiopia roughly $4.8 billion. In the eyes of Ethiopians, the GERD is a beacon of hope that will literally light up the country with 5 gigawatts of electricity. However downstream, in Sudan and Egypt, the dam represents a dark reality in which their main source of water is withheld from them by a foreign power. While this project has taken nearly a decade to complete, rising political tensions between Ethiopia, Sudan, and Egypt might prevent the dam from taking full effect.
Launched in April of 2011, the project was meant to be a fundamental part of Ethiopia’s transformation from a mainly rural country to a more developed one. Roughly 65% of Ethiopia’s population is not connected to the power grid, a primary reason behind their high levels of poverty. To address this, Ethiopian officials created a plan to harvest energy from the Nile, something they had never attempted previously because of Egypt’s long-standing monopoly on the river and its tributaries. Energy from the dam could more than double Ethiopia’s current output and could be the key to lifting millions of Ethiopian citizens out of poverty. However, it could also be the beginning of the downfall of countries downstream from the dam, namely Sudan and Egypt, for various reasons.
The GERD lies along the Blue Nile river coming from Ethiopia’s highlands just before it crosses into Sudan. After merging with the White Nile, it continues northwards to Egypt. The rivers are pictured down below, and the GERD is marked by the red dot.
The Nile, the world’s longest river, is a lifeline supplying both water and electricity to the 10 countries it traverses. The only countries directly affected by the GERD in regards to water flow, however, are those located downstream of the river, namely Sudan and Egypt. Both countries have their own reservations about the dam leading to lasting conflict between the three countries for the past few years.. As the dam is nearing completion, the dispute has since shifted to determine how quickly the dam’s reservoir should be filled. Egypt and Sudan, anticipating droughts and fearing a lack of water, have demanded that it be filled slowly, over more than a decade. Ethiopia, which built the dam largely with fundraised money from its own citizens, wants the reservoir full and generating maximum electricity as soon as the dam is complete — scheduled now for 2023.
Over 100 million Egyptians rely on the Nile for 90% of its water supply, with about 57% of that comes from the Blue Nile. The GERD’s reservoir will be large enough to store the full annual Blue Nile flow, completely overhauling the natural timing of the river. Egypt is concerned that if the dam is filled too quickly, there won’t be enough water to sustain its citizens, especially in regards to agriculture. Even without the dam, many of the delta’s irrigation canals are running dry. A multitude of factors including climate change, poor maintenance, mismanagement, and illegal water siphoning have dehydrated the already thirsty country. The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization says temperatures in some parts of Egypt are expected to rise between 1.8 and 3.6 degrees Celsius over the next century, requiring more water to grow crops as evaporation in the Nile and its canals increases. Egyptian farmers have already had to adapt to the drought when Egypt reduced the area used for rice production by almost half in an effort to save 3 billion cubic meters of water. Farmers fear that with the filling of the dam, their ability to grow rice will be further restricted and rationed.
Sudan, although skeptical, had initially seen the potential benefits of GERD. Sudanese Minister of Irrigation and Water Resources, Yasser Abbas, was even quoted saying that it “could be a gesture of regional cooperation between the three countries in providing energy from Ethiopia, food from Sudan by using its agricultural lands, and the capital and industrial investment from Egypt, with the establishment of a common market to enhance this integration.” Their tune changed, however, when Ethiopia went ahead to fill a portion of the completed dam reservoir despite Sudan and Egypt's reiterated demands to reach a legally binding agreement on operating the Renaissance Dam without disturbing the balance of the distribution of Blue Nile water shares. Recently, Abbas has stated that the GERD risks causing significant negative impacts on Sudan if not properly designed, constructed, filled, and operated. Another main concern of the Sudanese has been stated to be that the operation of GERD could threaten the safety of Sudan’s own dams and make it much more difficult for the government to manage its own development projects. Mohamed Dawoud, a researcher from the National Center for Water Research has clarified this by stating, “In the case of an abundance of water, or a sudden flood that necessitates the release of large quantities of water, it is possible that the Sudanese dams will not bear this pressure and collapse.” Sudanese officials fear that without coordination and data exchange from Ethiopia, such an event is very likely. This only emphasizes the necessity of a clear agreement and cooperation between the three countries.
One of the more complex concerns Egyptian and Sudanese officials have raised is the legal approach regarding any future projects on the Blue Nile. Over the years, Egypt has leveraged its colonial-era agreements of 1929 and 1959 to prevent any major infrastructure projects on the Nile or its tributaries. The agreement of 1959 allocated 48 billion cubic meters annually to Egypt and 4 billion cubic meters to Sudan, virtually disregarding the needs of upstream countries. The agreement also dictates that Egypt would not need the consent of upstream states to take on projects on the river, but they could also veto any projects on any of the Nile’s tributaries. Egypt had initially tried to levy the agreement to prevent the dam from starting construction in the first place, but as a result of the ability and willingness of Ethiopians at home and abroad to invest in the dam project, the government was able to raise a significant portion of the money needed to start the construction of the GERD. Since then, Egypt has shifted its position to trying to obtain a political agreement over the timetable for filling the reservoir. This brings us back to the question of who ultimately has control over the Nile. Egypt argues that their 70-year-old agreements give them exclusive rights to the river, while Ethiopia argues that the agreements are invalid and they deserve to take full advantage of the river to address poverty in their country. Other concerns raised by Egyptian officials include the impounding of the dam during periods of prolonged drought, the dam’s annual operating rules, and agreements to establish a means of resolving any disputes. All of these issues could be resolved by a new agreement between the three countries regarding the use of the Nile, however, such an agreement has been sought for many years to no avail.
Up until recently, the talks were being held in Kinshasa and overseen by the African Union, but the talks collapsed earlier this month. The Sudanese Minister of Irrigation and Water Resources Yassar Abbas stated that although the three countries had yielded agreement over 90 percent of outstanding issues, progress was doubtful. Sudan and Egypt had proposed including the European Union, the United States, and the United Nations as mediators in the dispute in addition to the continuing AU facilitation of the talks. Ethiopia claims that this is an attempt to “internationalize” the issue, and Foreign Minister Demeke Mekonnen sent a letter to the United Nations asking them to urge Sudan and Egypt to approach the talks in good faith. Fed up with the lack of progress, Ethiopia has also stated that they will move forward with the second phase of filling the dam in July during a rainy period. In response, Sudan threatened legal action, according to Abbas, and is considering The International Court of Justice, The Human Rights Commissions, and the COMESA Court. Ethiopia has yet to respond.
While the dispute began as a heated, but progressive negotiation between neighboring countries, it has now evolved into a full-blown rivalry involving countries and unions thousands of miles away. The conflict will only continue to escalate unless Ethiopia, Egypt, and Sudan can get out of their fixed mindset and understand that the river is a common resource whose effective management must be approached from a basin-wide perspective. Thus, it is only through cooperation that Egypt, Ethiopia, Sudan, and the other riparians can peacefully resolve conflicts over the Nile and achieve the type of water use that will contribute significantly to regional economic and human development.
Discussion Questions:
Should international organizations be brought in to moderate the discussions? If so, which one?
Should the other countries benefiting from the Nile be a part of the discussion or will it only complicate things?
How should the international community respond, if at all?
Sources:
Further Reading:
Comments