Egypt and Sudan Denounce New Nile River Agreement Amidst Ongoing Water Resource Disputes

Egypt and Sudan have rejected the recently ratified Nile River Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA), which commenced on October 13, after it was endorsed by six upstream countries. They argue that the agreement violates historic treaties and fails to represent all Nile Basin states, and call for the restoration of the 1999 Nile Basin Initiative to promote equitable resource management.

On October 13, Egypt and Sudan articulated their rejection of the newly ratified Nile River Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA), which officially commenced today after receiving endorsement from six upstream nations. This stance was expressed in a joint statement following the convening of the Egyptian-Sudanese Permanent Joint Technical Commission for the Nile Waters (PJTC) in Cairo on October 11-12. The two countries urged all Nile Basin states to revive the 1999 Nile Basin Initiative, asserting that unilateral actions could further divide upstream and downstream nations. They emphasized that the new six-state commission formed under an incomplete version of the CFA lacks legitimacy in representing the interests of the entire Nile Basin. Egypt and Sudan have consistently maintained that the CFA infringes upon the foundational agreements of 1929 and 1959 pertaining to Nile water resources. They point to a 1989 International Court of Justice ruling, highlighting that water agreements possess the same enduring nature as border treaties and cannot be altered without unanimous consent from involved parties. Furthermore, the PJTC criticized the 2010 CFA draft for failing to reach essential consensus and not conforming to established international law principles that foster sustainable development. Additionally, both nations reaffirmed their commitment to collaboration with all stakeholders in the Nile Basin, advocating for a framework that protects the interests of all riparian countries. They reiterated that the CFA, initially signed by four upstream states, is non-binding for them and violates established international legal norms. The recent entry into force of the CFA follows ratifications by Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, and Uganda, aimed at establishing the Nile River Basin Commission (RNBC) to oversee rights and responsibilities stemming from the Nile Basin Initiative, which commenced in February 1999. Tensions surrounding this agreement were notably underscored by the cancellation of a scheduled summit in Kampala, aimed at celebrating the transition from the Nile Basin Initiative to the RNBC.

The Nile River, a critical water resource for multiple countries in East Africa, has historically been the subject of treaties and negotiations primarily benefiting Egypt and Sudan, the two downstream nations. The 1929 Agreement and its 1959 successor granted a significant portion of the Nile’s water resources to these nations, establishing a framework that has been criticized as inequitable by upstream countries. In recent years, the establishment of the Nile Basin Initiative aimed to include more upstream nations in the governance of the river’s resources. However, differing national interests and historical agreements have led to contention, particularly with the introduction of the CFA, which has sparked protests from Egypt and Sudan, driving them to advocate for the longstanding treaties they deem vital.

In conclusion, Egypt and Sudan’s firm rejection of the CFA underscores deep-seated tensions regarding Nile River resource management. Their call for restoring the integrity of previous agreements and their insistence that the six-state commission cannot adequately represent Nile Basin interests reflect ongoing disputes over equitable water sharing. The situation exemplifies the complexities of transboundary natural resource governance, where historical treaties clash with contemporary geopolitical realities. Without consensus and collaboration among all Nile Basin nations, achieving a harmonious framework for sustainable water management remains challenging.

Original Source: www.agenzianova.com