Egypt and Sudan have rejected the recently ratified Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA) for the Nile River Basin, asserting it undermines previous agreements while emphasizing the need for an inclusive management approach. They argue that the CFA is non-binding and contravenes international law, reaffirming their commitment to cooperation based on established international principles. The CFA, supported by six upstream nations, aims to enhance collaboration in Nile Basin management, yet tensions have emerged regarding its implications for upstream and downstream nations.
Egypt and Sudan have formally expressed their rejection of the newly ratified Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA) concerning the Nile River Basin, which took effect on October 13 following ratification by six upstream nations. In a joint statement released after a recent meeting in Cairo of the Egyptian-Sudanese Permanent Joint Technical Commission for Nile Waters, the two countries urged all Nile Basin states to restore the integrity of the Nile Basin Initiative established in 1999 and to refrain from unilateral actions that could deepen rifts between upstream and downstream states. The statement articulated that the commission created based on the incomplete CFA draft of 2010 cannot be perceived as representative of the entire Nile Basin. Egypt and Sudan have consistently contended that the CFA undermines the existing Nile agreements of 1929 and 1959. Egypt cites a ruling from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) recognizing the immutable nature of water agreements, akin to border agreements, which cannot be amended without the consensus of all parties involved. The commission criticized the 2010 draft CFA for failing to achieve the necessary consensus and not adhering to international law principles or best practices that encourage sustainable development and collaboration. It noted successful African models for transboundary water management, such as the Zambezi and Senegal river basins, as more effective frameworks. Despite advocating for a collaborative approach that emphasizes prior notification and consultation regarding water projects, Egypt and Sudan lamented that their efforts to engage constructively have not been reciprocated positively. They reiterated their willingness to cooperate with other Nile Basin nations based on recognized international principles that protect the interests of all parties while avoiding harm to any riparian state. Additionally, they emphasized that the CFA, originally signed by four upstream countries, is non-binding for them and contravenes customary and conventional international law. The statement underscored the necessity of restoring inclusivity within basin initiatives to establish a durable framework for collaboration. The CFA’s entry into force follows its ratification by Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, and Uganda during a meeting earlier this year. The agreement aims to establish the Nile River Basin Commission (RNBC), intended to inherit the rights, obligations, and assets of the previous Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) initiated in 1999. However, tensions regarding the agreement surfaced prior to its implementation, culminating in the cancellation of a major summit intended to mark this milestone in cooperative efforts regarding Nile management, originally scheduled for October 17 in Kampala.
The Nile River, one of the longest rivers in the world, serves as a critical water source for multiple African nations, particularly Egypt and Sudan, which rely heavily on it. Management of the Nile’s waters has historically been governed by treaties established in 1929 and 1959, which allocate the majority of the river’s resources to Egypt and Sudan, thus creating contention with upstream states that seek a more equitable share of the river’s waters. The new Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA), ratified by several upstream countries in 2023, seeks to reformulate management practices surrounding the Nile’s waters, emphasizing cooperation and shared usage among all riparian states. However, this has faced opposition from Egypt and Sudan, which perceive the CFA as a challenge to their established rights under previous agreements. The cancellation of key summits and the rejection of the CFA highlight ongoing tensions and the complex diplomatic relations between the involved nations.
In conclusion, the conflict surrounding the Nile River’s management exemplifies the complexities of transboundary water resources and the diplomatic challenges such disputes provoke. Egypt and Sudan’s rejection of the CFA emphasizes their commitment to their historical water rights and their call for a more inclusive approach to Nile management. The ongoing tensions underscore the necessity for cooperative frameworks that respect the interests of all Nile Basin states to avoid future conflicts over this vital water source.
Original Source: www.agenzianova.com
