| dc.description.abstract | Scarcity of freshwater in certain regions of the world has led to international conflict based upon competition for shared water. An example of such international cooperation over shared water is the Indus Waters Treaty, signed in 1960 by India and Pakistan. This is an international water treaty signed by two enemy states which has lasted through two Indo-Pakistani wars to the nuclear era, in 1998, in the Indian Subcontinent. The World Bank intervention was critical to the creation of the Treaty. Cooperation among co-riparians is important because war does not lead to long term national water security. If the governments in question are willing to explore ways to cooperate, then cooperation will be more likely.
The Nile basin is one of the hotspots where violent conflict could erupt over the shared water resources because of the various hydro political intricacies involved and lack of an acceptable all-inclusive Agreement on how the Nile Waters should be shared.1 Kenya would be affected if the tension between Egypt and Ethiopia escalates over Addis Ababa‟s move to build the giant Renaissance Dam on River Nile. Egypt in the past has threatened to go to war over its “rights” to River Nile waters, given by a discredited 1929 colonial treaty that gave it and Sudan 90 per cent of the river‟s water. Life in Egypt depends on the Nile. The move to build the dam has increased tension between the Nile Basin Countries. Egypt‟s main concern is that the dam will diminish its share of the water from the river. The 1959 Treaty is the first Treaty to be concluded in post-colonial period and the only Nile Treaty that apportions annual water quotas. According to the 1959 Apportionment Treaty Egypt‟s annual share of the Nile waters is 55.5 billion cubic meters (BCM) while Sudan‟s is 18.5 BCM. Since the treaty was concluded between only two riparian states, the upstream states have persistently argued that they are not bound by its provisions, by virtue of the principle pactatertiisnecnocentnecprosunt (a treaty binds the parties and only the parties; it does not create obligations for a third state).
The major factors creating the potential for an extreme conflict in the basin include; mounting demands for more water, an alarming population growth rate, the absence of comprehensive legal and institutional frameworks, and relations among the riparian states that are marred with suspicion and misunderstanding. The Basin states have not been able to devise any solution in regard to the Nile issue. It is important to device a way on the utilization and management of Nile water for the benefit of all riparian States. Lack of a basin-wide agreement complicates the whole issue and thus the need for all riparian States to adopt an acceptable agreement. None of the agreements over the Nile River involves more than three states. The accords constitute one of the hurdles towards regional cooperation.
This research reviews the main agreements which have decided control over the Nile and the implications of such agreements in the path towards regional peace. This research aims at encouraging the need for a basin-wide agreement to resolve any potential conflict to the issue of the Nile. The research limits itself to the legal aspects of the questions of the Nile and proposes appropriate approaches to a basin-wide agreement. The research does not examine all the conflicts enveloping the Nile basin. | en_US |
