The impartiality of development partners in the ongoing wrangle over the use of the River Nile waters has come into question after they issued a joint statement that appeared to endorse Egypt’s stand against the wishes of upstream countries.

A majority of riparian states, angry over the near veto powers Egypt and Sudan exercise over the use of Nile waters, wanted a recent meeting of Nile Basin Initiative members in Cairo to adopt a draft pact that provided for the establishment of a permanent Nile Basin Commission.

It is believed such a body would erode the significant influence Egypt and Sudan hold, and the donor statement is being interpreted as a veiled attempt to maintain the status quo.

The development partners, who are supposed to be impartial, issued a joint statement against the majority states who adopted a draft pact that would allow a permanent river-basin Commission to be established for fair use of the river’s riparian resources.

The statement, issued by the 12 development partners convening under a trust fund hosted by the World Bank, seemed to favour Egypt and Sudan against the other seven countries, who decided to adopt a draft agreement and annex controversial clauses on water security pending resolution.

Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda adopted a draft pact that does not recognise Egypt and Sudan’s “historical rights and uses” of the Nile waters during the Nile Council of Ministers (Nile CoM) meeting in Kinshasa in May.

The statement, a copy of which has been obtained by The EastAfrican, reads, “We are very concerned that outcomes of your meeting may result in some countries, without others, moving forward with an agreement and a Commission. Our experience of providing support in other river basins suggests that this will not deliver the scale of economic and security benefits and reductions of future risks that basin-wide co-operation will yield.”

The statement further reads, “We believe, however, that an inclusive agreement that establishes a Nile River Basin Commission is essential and is still achievable.”

Sources at the meeting said that some countries took this as a retreat from impartiality on the part of development partners, who should be observers only as far as negotiations are concerned.

In these negotiations, nine riparian states are active negotiators, while Eritrea and development partners represented by the World Bank are observers.

It is not clear what impact the development partners’ stand on the matter has had on the negotiations, but information from the recent Nile CoM meeting in Alexandria in Egypt shows that riparian states are angry at the intervention.

However, the Nile CoM has set a period of six months to conclude the much-anticipated blueprint in what appears to be an ultimatum for Egypt and Sudan to accept a draft agreement that the other seven countries accepted, or risk isolation.

Some countries have already given notice that they intend to pursue projects using the Nile waters in disregard of the old agreements that Egypt and Sudan want upheld because they give the duo superior rights over the water.

Kenyan legislators recently issued a statement on the anticipated agreement, which reads: “Before the conclusion and ratification of the co-operative framework, Kenya will continue to invest in projects within its side of the basin that will advance its interests without regard to the old and obsolete agreements.”

What is surprising is that the minutes of the Nile CoM meeting make no mention of the development partners’ intervention — although sources told The EastAfrican that the ministers have strong reservations against the joint statement, feeling that development partners have overstepped their observation and financial support role and are now forcing themselves onto the negotiating table, and even taking sides.

Sources present at that meeting told The EastAfrican that some ministers wanted the Nile CoM to officially condemn the development partners’ actions by asking them to respect the sovereignty of the riparian states and reminding them that they are only observers.

This would, however, have been hard to pull off, given that Egypt, which is the new chair of that body, gains from the donors’ outburst.

Other countries opted not to fuel a confrontation with the development partners, whose collective commitment to the Nile Basin Initiative programmes exceeds $250 million in grants, and is close to $1 billion in loans.

During the same meeting, Egypt’s Minister of Water Resources and Irrigation Mohamed Nasr Allam said, “We still want historical uses of the Nile water to be recognised by other Nile Basin countries because this is the only source of water we have, although we also recognise the need for others to use the water. So we want historical rights to be recognised in the agreement before it is signed.”

Article 14 of the agreement, which has caused a stalemate for years, reads: “Nile Basin states therefore, in a spirit of co-operation, a) agree to work together to ensure that all states achieve and sustain water security, b) not to significantly affect the water security of any other Nile Basin state.”

Whereas seven countries want this text to stay as above, Egypt and Sudan want part b) of this article to read, “Not to adversely affect the water security ‘and current uses and rights’ of any other Nile Basin states.”

The downstream countries fear that if the text remains as it is, other countries will use a lot of water and deny them enough flow downstream, while the seven countries fear that they will not be able to use the water reasonably if historical rights and uses of the water by some countries are maintained.