| dc.description.abstract | This study critically examined the impact of regime shift from bilateral to multilateral in the management of Nile water resources. It contends that despite the cataloguing of ambitious projects and plans, the Nile states have yet to agree on the modalities of how to regulate resource sharing. The crux of the problem is that in spite of the lip-service paid to the importance oflocal participation and ecological sustainability, non-state authority is ignored and nature is seen as an object of exploitation. This has the potential to trigger violent conflicts among the riparian states as Egypt in Sadat regime had declared openly, and the solution is the shift from bilateral to the multilateral agreements.
The objectives of the study included identifying all the bilateral and multilateral Nile water regimes agreements, determining state interests in the management of Nile water resources that have necessitated policy shift, and establishing the impact of the policy shift from bilateral to multilateral regimes in the management of Nile water resources. The study was significant in the sense that the management and use of the Nile River Basin resources has brought some unease among the member riparian states in the recent past with some such as Ethiopia and East African states questioning the validity and relevance of colonial treaties, and that there is no evidence of a systematic study on the impact of policy shifts from bilateral to multilateral regimes in the management of Nile water resources.
This study used explanatory research design to explain the impact of regime shift in the management of Nile water resources from bilateral to multilateral agreements. The study drew heavily from both primary and secondary sources. The researcher carried out interviews among Ministry of water officials in Nairobi, and spent time in the library reading books, journal articles, theses, pamphlets, etc.
The study concluded that the regime shift has had significant implications on regional geopolitics, with Egypt as the powerhouse, on bilateral agreements and multilateral agreements in the management of Nile water resources. In the bilateral agreements, the shift has brought many contradictions in the understanding of the specific agreements. For instance, Egypt has been in huge loss in trying to make riparian states to stick to the 1929 bilateral policy between it and the countries then under British protectorate. In the multilateral agreements, there is an incessant search for a more appropriate policy, with some state like Egypt favouring internal agreements as a replacement of the NBII NRBC initiatives after failing to sign Article 14B of NRBC. | en_US |
