Transcript Conflict of Position and Interest in Upstream

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
Countries
ERITERIA
SUDAN
ETHIOPIA
DRC
RWANDA
BRUNDI
Yacob Arsano
UGANNDA
KENYA
TANZANIA
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
-Diplomatic 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