Site icon Energy News Beat

The Long-Term Water Politics of Ethiopia’s Nile River Mega-Dam will impact millions

A general view of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam in Ethiopia - source Getty Images.

A general view shows the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) in Guba, Ethiopia, on Feb. 19, 2022. (AMANUEL SILESHI/AFP via Getty Images)

Ethiopia’s unilateral filling of the dam’s reservoir will worsen water scarcity in Egypt and Sudan, threatening to set a dangerous precedent for regional water politics if the three states do not resume negotiations. Ethiopia completed its third filling of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) in early August, ignoring Egypt and Sudan’s emphatic objections to increasing the amount of water in the dam’s reservoir to nearly a third of its total capacity of 74 billion cubic meters. This filling brings Ethiopia closer to its rumored goal of reaching the reservoir’s full capacity by 2027, and is the latest round of unilateral action in a decade-long dispute. Situated in the highlands of the Benishangul-Gumuz region of northwestern Ethiopia, the GERD’s annual fillings and ongoing operations will alter the flow of the Nile River, which contains more than 85% of the water passing through Sudan and Egypt. The two downstream countries — fearing long-term consequences for water scarcity and sovereignty — have long insisted on a tripartite binding agreement on filling and operating the GERD. But, years of negotiations have fallen through as Ethiopia continues to advance the dam’s development.

The GERD has become central to the development of the Ethiopian economy, as it will more than double the country’s electricity capacity and regulate the flow of water to the benefit of non-Ethiopian downstream dams. The Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation expects the GERD to generate more than 5,000 megawatts (MW) of power once fully operational, which would mean greatly increased electricity access for the half of the country that is currently without power. The dam will also likely enable the Ethiopian government to export surplus electricity to neighboring countries. Additionally, the GERD will regulate the flow of the Blue Nile and decrease the amount of downstream sediment. This will moderate the impact of seasonal flooding, increase food supplies in Ethiopia by providing reliable access to irrigation, and extend the lifespans of downstream dams in Sudan and Egypt by trapping sedimentary silt.

Nonetheless, Ethiopia’s filling of the reservoir will all but certainly worsen existing water stress in Egypt and Sudan, particularly if the region faces drought conditions. Scientists have determined that the GERD’s completion will produce varying degrees of water deficits, depending on the rate of the reservoir’s filling. Egypt and Sudan are already experiencing extreme water stress as population growth, environmental degradation, pollution and expanding agricultural areas increase the demand for (and decrease the supply of) uncontaminated water. The shorter the filling timeline, the bigger the impact on downstream countries, as more water is diverted to the reservoir annually, (explaining why Egypt and Sudan oppose Ethiopia’s unilateral actions). With Ethiopia’s suspected seven-year timeline in mind, climate and GERD-induced water deficits will be further exacerbated by potential droughts. This will not only reduce water flows in Egypt and Sudan, but will also increase the amount of Blue Nile water required to reach the GERD reservoir’s full capacity via evaporation. Furthermore, Ethiopia’s unilateral filling and resulting poor relations with Egypt and Sudan make crisis management more difficult in the event of a drought.

Egypt’s Water-Saving Strategies

Egypt is attempting to avert its worst-case scenario of ”absolute water scarcity” — brought on by a combination of population growth, climate change and development projects like the GERD — through various mitigation strategies. The country has already begun expanding modern irrigation systems that use less water than traditional drip systems, as well as implementing coastal protection projects (including rain harvesting facilities) to prevent flooding along Egypt’s northwest coast. Egypt is also considering reducing the cultivation of rice, sugar cane and other water-consuming plants, along with building a new management system and distribution facilities to better ration its limited water supplies. Other proposals on the table include increasing the country’s desalination capacity to boost the available amount of treated wastewater, and creating new systems that maximize the use of groundwater.
Greater water deficits in Egypt and Sudan will worsen food insecurity and unemployment, decrease agricultural output, and increase migration flows throughout the region during the GERD’s filling period. Approximately 95% of Egypt’s farmland is located within a narrow zone of the Nile riverbank, which means that decreased water volume will directly harm both agricultural zones and irrigation water supplies in the country. According to the aforementioned 2021 Environmental Research study, Egypt could lose $28 billion in total agricultural GDP if it does nothing to mitigate water deficits and Ethiopia fills the GERD in five years (a scenario where Ethiopia fills the dam filled more gradually over 10 years would result in $17 billion worth of agricultural losses for Egypt, according to the same study). Both the Egyptian and Sudanese governments already struggle to feed their respective populations, particularly as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine disrupted wheat exports to two of Africa’s largest importers. In addition to damaging food security, such losses would also worsen unemployment, given that the agricultural sector employs nearly 20% of Egypt’s workforce and nearly 40% of Sudan’s workforce. Egypt’s economic crisis adds an additional dimension, as mitigation measures (such as taking additional water from the Aswan dam) would reduce power generation capacity, forcing the state to bear the increased cost of generating more electricity using natural gas, coal and other hydrocarbons. Taken together, these factors will likely boost migration outflows, adding to the region’s internally displaced population and creating additional stressors on struggling economies.

Amid Egyptian and Sudanese concerns over water scarcity, long-standing disagreements over fundamental aspects of negotiations will continue to inhibit a diplomatic solution. On top of the threat to Egypt and Sudan’s water supplies, six key points of contention have prevented Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan from moving past even the initial stages of talks.

  1. Format of GERD agreement: Ethiopia says that it will only negotiate under a nonbinding dispute resolution mechanism, while Egypt and Sudan say that all negotiated commitments should be binding.
  2. Drought protocols: Egypt and Sudan want clear commitments from Ethiopia to ensure that the GERD will release enough water during drought or low rainfall periods, but Ethiopia refuses to agree on what constitutes a drought or commit to releasing specific amounts of water.
  3. Timeline for reservoir’s filling: Ethiopia had previously expressed willingness to fill the dam over a seven-year period with completion slated for 2027, but Egypt has demanded a longer period, initially 12 to 21 years and more recently 11 years, to minimize disruptions to downstream flows. Such a delay would cost Ethiopia billions in lost revenue from the GERD’s electricity generation capacity.
  4. External mediation of GERD talks: Ethiopia rejects third-party mediation on principle, while Sudan and Egypt have at different times requested that the European Union, United States, United Nations and/or the African Union mediate the dispute.
  5. Overall impact on the Nile: The three parties disagree over the validity of previous scientific assessments of the GERD’s impact on water scarcity and the Nile riverbed ecosystem. Ethiopia contends that the 2013 study submitted by the International Panel of Experts (IPoE) — a commission formed by Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt — found that the GERD will not harm downstream states, but Sudan and Egypt point to the panel’s findings that its results were inconclusive and require further study.
  6. Recognition of past water treaties: As the two downstream states, Sudan and Egypt draw on historical water-sharing agreements as evidence of irrefutable rights to Nile waters. But Ethiopia has said it will not recognize the 1929 Anglo-Egyptian treaty or subsequent colonial-era agreements (which allocated all water rights to the two downstream states and granted Egypt veto power over upstream projects) because it was not part of those negotiations.

With limited leverage and means of retaliation, Sudan and Egypt are unlikely to convince Ethiopia to return to negotiations or slow its progress on the GERD anytime soon, which will further increase tensions between the Nile countries. As Ethiopia continues to raise the GERD’s reservoir levels, thereby strengthening its control over downstream Nile waters, the governments of Egypt and Sudan will likely grow increasingly uncomfortable with their own weakening water sovereignty. But Egypt and Sudan have largely exhausted their political options to dissuade Ethiopia from continuing with the GERD’s development. Poor diplomatic relations, mutual mistrust and calls for international mediation have had no effect on Ethiopia’s willingness to make concessions. The downstream states have limited economic and/or security recourse to elicit compliance from Ethiopia that wouldn’t also spark an even greater conflict, which neither Sudan nor Egypt appears willing to do at this point in the dispute. In the near term, a continuation of the status quo is the most likely scenario. As such, Ethiopia is likely to proceed with subsequent fillings of the reservoir, which could further elevate tensions with Sudan and Egypt. Within this context, ongoing disputes over contested border areas in the region, or accusations of Egypt or Sudan interfering in Ethiopia’s civil war, could more easily escalate into potentially violent clashes between the Nile countries.

In the long term, Ethiopia’s continued unilateral filling of the GERD will set a precedent for water politics that will likely complicate the region’s response to future climate shocks. If negotiations remain stalled and Ethiopia proceeds with filling the GERD’s reservoir, the East African giant will have set a regional precedent for unilateral action on transboundary water issues. In the future, construction of additional dams on the Blue Nile and Atbarah River (also known as the Black Nile, which begins in northwestern Ethiopia), could reference the GERD as justification for increased control over river flows without negotiations. This is particularly important for future irrigation projects. Even though the GERD does not currently include irrigation plans, future irrigation projects built using other dams could cause permanent loss of flows, rather than the temporary loss of flows caused by the GERD’s filling — further exacerbating extant water scarcity for downstream states. As global temperatures rise, Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan are all expected to see more intense and frequent weather shocks with cross-border implications. Flash floods caused by unusually heavy rainfalls (as recently evidenced in Pakistan), for example, could damage a dam in one country that submerges another country’s agricultural areas under water. And on the other end of the spectrum, longer and more severe droughts could cause irrigation shortages, among other issues, by reducing overall water levels in the region. In response to these looming climate-related threats, Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan will lack the institutional framework for diplomatic resolution and coordination necessary to come up with regional solutions. While the GERD itself does not represent the existential threat that previous attempts at saber-rattling by Egypt and Sudan would suggest, the precedent that it sets for future projects will exacerbate the volatility of the wider region — particularly as extreme and unpredictable weather events become the new norm due to the growing effects of climate change.

Source: Stradford Reports

Exit mobile version