In stark contrast...

The case of the Nile River is a myriad of complexities, inconsistencies and futile treaties. Unlike the case of the Okavango river there has historically been many treaties of which are still in effect today and affect the ability to conserve and manage the Nile's resources equitably. 

The series of colonial-era agreements that exist on the nile are out of the scope of this blog however two of the most cited agreements that have significant impacts include the 1929 exchange of notes between the British and Egyptian government in regard to use of the River Nile for irrigation purposes. The other important agreement is the 1959 agreement between the Republic of Sudan and Egypt allowing the full utilisation of Nile Waters. The latter agreement is a renegotiation of the 1929 agreement terms. Other riparian states are not included in this and it essentially entitles Sudan and Egypt to unrestricted use of Nile waters. As described previously, this historical context provides unprecedented complications to the Nile situation that is yet to be resolved, understandably other riparian states have contested the status of these agreements.

I have a strong stance on the effectiveness of UN and International Law on the peaceful cooperation of states within a transboundary river basin. I do not wish to discuss in detail the flaws of these international laws and how they are futile in impacting the situation with the Nile Basin however i will briefly describe what they entail and why I feel strongly about them. The 1996 Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers was introduced at the 52nd International Law Association conference in Helsinki. The Helsinki Rules assert the rights of all bordering nations to an equitable share in the water resources with "reasonable consideration" of factors such as past uses. It consists of 37 articles spread over 6 chapters and is full of wordy ineffective statements such as "each basin state is entitled, within its territory, to a reasonable and equitable share in the beneficial uses of the waters of an international drainage basin."

The Convention on the Law of Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses stems from the spineless Helsinki Rules but with the intention on including both surface and groundwater and being more mindful of increasing demands of water and anthropogenic behaviour. once again the language used in this law has been criticised for the way it has been worded and its controversial nature. McCaffrey (1999) specifically criticises the statement 'in utilising an international watercourse in their territories... take all appropriate measures to preventive causing of significant harm to other watercourse states" and uses the following hypothetical case to illustrate his point that conflict could occur from a state having legitimate uses for a watercourse in its nation that can negatively impact other nations

"Suppose ... upstream State A has not significantly developed its water resources because of its mountainous terrain. The topography of the downstream states on the watercourse, B and C, is flatter, and they have used the watercourse extensively for irrigation for centuries, if not millennia. State A now wishes to develop its water resources for hydroelectric and agricultural purposes. States B and C cry foul, on the ground that this would significantly harm their established uses."

As emphasised by McCaffrey and many others, these international laws are simply not applicable to the heterogenous nature of transboundary river basins, the states involved, past agreements, historical and colonial contexts and many other factors.  

On a more aggregate level the Nile Basin Initiative was introduced as a partnership among Nile riparian states in 1999. I will look at this closer in my upcoming blog post and assess to what extent this has been more useful at coordinating cooperative efforts and moving forward from colonial agreements.