A historical legacy: putting conflicts over water resources in the Nile basin to a historical context

As mentioned in an earlier post, much of the conflict between Egypt and other riparian nations in the Nile basin stems from agreements created in the colonial era. It would therefore be appropriate for us to examine these agreements in a bit more detail and understand these agreements, signed some 50 odd years ago could still cast a shadow on current negotiations.

The first set of agreements over the utilisation of water resources in the Nile basin took place in the early part of the 20th century. These are truly colonial agreements: none of the African states (except Ethiopia) were at the negotiations table, as they were all 'represented' by colonial overlords. These series of agreements essentially established the domination of Great Britain in the Nile basin, as no changes to the river flow could take place without prior consent of the British empire. The real game-changer, however, came slightly later at 1929. This was an exchange of notes between Egypt and Great Britain (then representing Sudan, Uganda, Tanzania and Kenya), formally recognising Egypt's rights to Nile water and assuring that the nation would receive a minimum of 48 billion cubic metres of water per year (Swain, 1997). This agreement has proved to be controversial, as its validity has become a constant source of debate in negotiations between Nile basin nations. Whilst Egypt continues to maintain that the treaty is valid and applicable, other nations argue otherwise. As outlined in what became known as the Nyere Doctrine, it is argued that the agreement was signed by Great Britain and applicable to states under British control, the agreement is automatically voided when the nations declared independence of Great Britain (Okidi, 1994).

Another agreement that still have implications on current negotiations is the 1959 bilateral agreement between Sudan and Egypt. This agreement redivided water allocations between the two nations: Egypt is to receive 55.5 billion cubic metres annually and Sudan 18.5 billion cubic metres. This treaty has proved to be crucial for negotiations as Egypt regards the recognition of this treaty (something upstream riparian countries are, predictably, unwilling to do) as the starting point of any negotiations (Cascao, 2009). Sudan and Egypt also agreed to 'present an unified view in any other negotiations concerning the Nile waters' (Carroll, 1999: 280). The coming together of the two strongest powers in region meant that there is significant resistance to any actions that threaten the status quo, and it is only recently when other nations in the region begins to grow in stature that the situation is beginning to change.

Interestingly, whilst many would see these agreements as hindrance to cooperation in the Nile basin, Metawie (2004) actually sees these agreements as signs of bilateral cooperation. Whilst they could be interpreted as bilateral cooperation, it would require some stretch of imagination especially in the case of the 1929 agreement which is in essence a deal between two areas of British control (Egypt being a protectorate of the British empire in all but name at that time). Of course, writing for the Egyptian Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation, it is perhaps no surprise that Metawie would like to establish the legitimacy of these agreements and make the case for Egypt to have the greatest say in affairs of the Nile basin due to historic rights.

Examining transboundary aquifers in Africa

Unlike transboundary river basins, transboundary aquifers have received little attention thus far. This is perhaps due to a lack of understanding about how these systems work, but with some of these aquifers found in the world's most water-stressed regions we simply could not afford them any longer. This gap in knowledge has been the primary problem the Internationally Shared Aquifer Resource Management (ISARM) Programme has been set up to address (Puri and Aureli, 2005). ISARM aims to encourage cooperation between nations to eliminate and to encourage more scientific research that provides the data required for a better understanding of transboundary river basins.
The establishment of ISARM can perhaps be justified by the issues that have arose from the intensive use of transboundary aquifers: the consequences of intensive extraction may take place in the upstream riparian country and the extracting nation; the impacts of salt water intrusion and pollution dispersing through groundwater flows. Issues from intensive extraction is accentuated in the case of transboundary aquifers with little recharge as these aquifers are essentially a finite resource. As such, scientific data and international agreements are imperative for the management of these aquifers (Puri and Nasser, 2003).
Groundwater aquifers are especially important in Africa, where groundwater storage is estimated to be 100 times of annual renewable freshwater resources (MacDonald et al., 2012). Groundwater, given its relative independence from meteorological changes and good water quality, is also viewed as a natural buffer against climate change. Perhaps luckily, much of this groundwater is accessible and could be used to sustain community handpumps. Given this fact, groundwater could perhaps be regarded as a viable supplement to overground freshwater resources and a back-up source of freshwater in times of climate variability. However, it is important to note that groundwater storage in most African regions are unable to support large scale irrigation schemes and national governments must keep this in mind whilst exploiting aquifers.
Nevertheless, research on transboundary aquifers in southern Africa gives a cause for hope. Cobbing et al. (2008) suggests that conflicts over the use of transboundary aquifers are not always inevitable and the managing of these aquifers may not be as challenging as previously thought. Instead, they point to the need for technical cooperation and data sharing between nations, which is something that ISARM will be able to address in the near future.
In conclusion, transboundary aquifers in Africa have a lot of potential in solving some of the water-related problems in the continent, but a much better understanding of these aquifers and the processes taking place in them will be required before a suitable framework of management could be produced.