New

Viewpoint – The case for reconciling water principles with treaty practices in crafting a comprehensive Nile River Basin Treaty

Berhanu Abegaz
Department of Economics, William & Mary, Williamsburg, VA, USA; bxabeg@wm.edu

ABSTRACT: The Nile River Basin (NRB) is home to a long-standing dispute with colonial roots. A comprehensive agreement on water allocation and joint basin management has so far eluded its eleven riparians. How might the states reconcile downstream dependence on existing uses with upstream development needs? Principles of equitable and reasonable utilization and prevention of significant harm are indispensable, but they leave open important operational questions. Agreements on other transboundary rivers offer instructive, although imperfect, examples of fixed deliveries, percentage formulas, seasonal schedules, drought adjustments, joint commissions, and dispute procedures. This Viewpoint argues that the disagreement is ultimately about power and legality rather than hydrology. A positive path to treaty engagement is for (i) Ethiopia to articulate a coherent national water strategy and a model treaty proposal; (ii) all riparians to recognize that negotiated allocation, alongside dam operation and basin management, belongs on the agenda; (iii) the parties to draw jointly on international watercourse principles and, just as importantly, relevant treaty practices; and (iv) the basin states to develop reciprocal arrangements for sediment management, water use, and watershed protection. A phased agreement would protect vital existing uses while creating tangible opportunities for equitable upstream development.

KEYWORDS: Nile River Basin, watercourse conventions, water treaties, Ethiopia, Egypt, Sudan