The world’s longest river, the Nile, begins its journey in the heart of East Africa.

The White Nile can be traced to the Kagera in southern Rwanda and flows through Tanzania, and into Lake Victoria.

As the White Nile makes its way north, crossing through Uganda’s north of Lake Victoria and into Sudan, the Blue Nile is descending from its source in Lake Tana in the Ethiopian highlands and flows into Sudan from the southeast.

The Blue Nile is the source of most of the Nile’s water. The two rivers converge at Khartoum, and continue their journey north as one into Egypt and on to the Mediterranean Sea.

But back in East Africa, other tributaries rise from the DR Congo, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, and Burundi and drain into Lake Victoria, creating the larger Nile Basin.

On a map, the Nile appears to flow upwards, from south to north, but in reality it flows downhill, covering 6,695 kilometres on the way to Egypt.

Known to the world today as the Nile, from the Greek word “Nelios,” meaning River Valley, the ancient Egyptians named it Ar, meaning “black,” because of the black flood sediments it deposited on its banks.

In Uganda they call it Omugga Kiyira; in Ethiopia the Amharic name for the river is Abay.

The Nile is and always has been a source of life and prosperity.

In ancient times, the Nile spawned civilisations and empires. Agriculture, trade, and industry flourished as populations converged around this life source.

In our times, the Nile has made irrigation, hydropower and industry possible.

But in a region — East Africa — plagued by food insecurity, poverty and climate change, the inevitable conflict has simmered over the years, boiling down to the modern day Nile challenge: Can the 10 Nile basin states agree on sustainable and equitable ways of harnessing the Nile waters to their mutual benefit?

Egypt, the farthest country downstream, has been to date the greatest beneficiary of the Nile and continues to hang on to its claim of historical rights to the greatest share of the Nile waters with a death grip.

Indications are, however, that times are changing, as the sub-Saharan Nile basin states are asserting firmly their right to a fair share of the waters of a river that rises from sources in their country.

Add into the mix South Sudan’s impending independence, and its control of what is a fairly large portion of the Nile downstream, and it becomes clear that the hydropolitics of the Nile are on the verge of a new dawn.

Law and Conflict

Egypt’s claim to superior rights on the Nile’s water’s is rooted in a colonial treaty signed between Egypt and the British colony of Sudan in May 1929.

The agreement shared the entire rights to the Nile waters between Egypt and Sudan, leaving no rights to any other Nile Basin country.

Egypt was to get more than 90 per cent of the water and complete control over the Nile during the dry season when water is most needed for agricultural irrigation.

Egypt alone was allowed to undertake projects on the river without the consent of other Nile Basin states but had a right to veto construction projects by the other states.

At Independence Sudan re-negotiated its share of the water with Egypt in 1959, so that Sudan got 25 per cent and Egypt retained 75 per cent (18.5 and 55.5 billion cubic metres respectively).

Egypt insists these treaties are legitimate but the sub-Saharan states have been quick to point out that they were never party to the agreements and are therefore not bound by them.

Besides, the two treaties are in direct contravention of the international law principle that every country has a right to reasonable and equitable use of water flowing through its territory, provided they cause no harm to other states through their usage.

The dichotomy between the “reasonable and equitable utilisation” principle and the “cause no harm” principle is hard to ignore.

Arguably, upstream nations, merely by virtue of utilising their waters in a reasonable and equitable manner, for irrigation, generation of power and industry, reduce the quantity of water that flows to downstream nations.

This, in and of itself, may be considered “harm” by the downstream nations.

It is no surprise then, that downstream nations such as Egypt lay emphasis on the “cause no harm” principle, while upstream nations such as Ethiopia, Uganda, and Kenya emphasise the right to “reasonable and equitable use.”

An equitable share is by no means an equal share. Several factors have been identified by international law principles in determining reasonable and equitable utilisation of international waterways such as the Nile.

Among the factors are climatic factors; social and economic needs; the population dependent on the watercourse; the effects of use on other watercourse states; existing and potential uses; measures taken towards conservation, protection and development; and the availability of alternatives to a particular planned or existing use.

Balancing these factors is no minor feat. Egypt, for instance, has no alternative water sources and most of its Nile Basin land is arid.

However, much of Sudan and Uganda’s land within the Basin is arid as well.

Most of the sub-Saharan Nile states can legitimately assert great social and economic need.

With the exception of Egypt, the countries in the Nile Basin are all food-insecure, with Ethiopia suffering a very high percentage of undernourishment.

International law principles however are merely guidelines, not binding on any state.

Indeed there is currently no binding international convention or treaty regulating the use of shared watercourses such as the Nile.

The 1997 United Nations Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses has yet to come into force.

It requires 35 instruments of ratification or accessions, and in close to 14 years now, has only 21.

None of the Nile Basin states has ratified or acceded to the Convention.

The Convention is at any rate merely a framework that leaves it up to riparian states to enter into agreements that take into account the specific characteristics of the watercourse in question.

Five of the 10 Nile Basin states have done just that. In May 2010, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda, Ethiopia and Kenya signed the Nile Comprehensive Framework agreement.

Burundi and DR Congo are expected to sign soon. This in itself is a major feat, considering that most of the countries have had their own internal conflicts to deal with.

The fact that they are united over the Nile issue signifies a slow but steady coming of age.

Egypt and Sudan have been invited to sign but are unlikely to do so. The Nile Basin agreement removes Egypt’s rights to veto upstream projects along the Nile and gives upstream countries the green light to initiate projects on the river, provided the usage does not significantly affect other riparian states.

The Nile Basin States have been engaged in the quest for a solution to the equitable sharing of the Nile since 1999 when the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) was founded with the aim of co-operating to develop the river and to share substantial socioeconomic benefits; now it seems they are at an impasse.

Water flows uphill

The upstream Nile states have more to contend with than unity and agreement over the use of the Nile water.

They need funding to bring the Nile projects to actualisation. Most of this funding comes from the World Bank-managed, multidonor Nile Basin Trust Fund.

The World Bank does not sponsor projects that are under dispute.

They may have to look elsewhere for funding, and only time will tell the direction in which international funding will gravitate; upstream or downstream.

There is a common saying that “water flows uphill towards money,” which means that resources are often allocated disproportionately, with the wealthy getting a larger share, when reason would demand the opposite.

Funding remains a central issue to the equitable use of the Nile for most of the upstream countries.

Tipping the balance

By all appearances, the lines are now clearly drawn in the conflict over the Nile; Egypt and Sudan, the downstream states on the one hand, and the sub-Saharan upstream states on the other, with South Sudan as the newest addition.

South Sudan’s soon-to-be independent status is causing a headache downstream.

According to US diplomatic cables unveiled by WikiLeaks, Egypt sought to persuade the United States to help postpone the January 8 Independence referendum in South Sudan by four to six years because of the potential loss of Nile water.

Egypt has reason to be nervous about the impending Independence of South Sudan.

Not only does the soon-to-be newest State in Africa have strong links with Ethiopia, Uganda and Kenya, it is likely that it will join the upstream States is demanding more equitable utilisation of the Nile’s waters for upstream nations.

Water has been a major issue between South Sudan and the North Sudan for decades.

Construction of the Jonglei Canal in the south was a major cause of tension between the North and South.

The project, intended mainly to benefit the North and Egypt, began in 1978 and has been stalled since 1984.

To get to the bottom of the Nile challenge, the 10 nations in the river basin must come to an agreement on what is equitable.

One thing is clear, the Nile is a single geographical entity that knows no boundaries. Upstream projects affect downstream quantity and quality.

Conservation measures upstream to prevent loss of water benefit downstream countries.

A hardline stance by any of the Nile Basin countries is detrimental, not only to the others but to itself. The only beneficial way forward is co-operation.

To this end, perhaps a serious effort towards mediation, such as we have seen when political impasses occur, is necessary to achieve a solution.

It does after all affect the economic and social well-being of about 300 million people that depend on the Nile Basin for their lives and livelihood.

The cradle of civilisation

The ancient Kush and Egyptian empires in what is modern day Egypt and Sudan, among the greatest in history, would probably not have come about but for the Nile and its life-giving waters.

People converged to take advantage of the rich alluvial soils that annual floods deposited along the Nile banks and in the delta and the flood plains, much like they converge today in major cities like Nairobi, Kampala, Addis Ababa, Khartoum and Cairo in search of a livelihood.

As people moved into the Nile valley, they brought with them goods and ideas, so that not only agriculture, but trade and technology, grew and flourished.

It is here that Imhotep, the true father of medicine, wrote medical journals indicating that he was able to diagnose and treat over 200 diseases, perform surgery and practise some dentistry in 1,500BC, a thousand years before Hippocrates was born.

Here too, the first paper was made from papyrus reeds growing on the banks of the Nile, and the art of writing was born.

Modern Egypt, much like Ancient Egypt, would not be what it is today without the Nile.

The Nile River and now the Aswan High Dam are Egypt’s lifeline.

About 95 per cent of Egypt’s population live within 20 kilometres of the river basin, while the Aswan High Dam, built at a cost of about $1 billion, provides a significant proportion of Egypt’s power supply.

Much of Egypt is desert, with very little annual rainfall. The Nile is the main source of water for domestic use and irrigation.

Egypt produces cotton, rice, wheat, maize, sugar, alfalfa, beans, fruits and vegetables, using the Nile waters.

The capital city of Cairo depends solely on the Nile for its water and power supply.

But Egypt is not the only one of the Nile Basin states that needs and depends on the Nile.

Sudan’s economy depends heavily upon irrigated cotton.

Kenya, intermittently suffering from drought, needs to increase the area under irrigation.

Despite the fact that 85 per cent of the Nile’s waters originate from Ethiopia, through the Blue Nile, that country has suffered crippling power outages, a situation it is now set to remedy with the recent completion of the Tana Beles hydropower station, the largest in the country.