What You Need to Know About the Tensions Between Ethiopia and Egypt Over River Nile

“The CFA recognizes the legitimate needs of all Nile Basin states and commits us to the equitable sharing of these waters in a manner that promotes sustainable development. This agreement represents hope for the future, where each country can grow and prosper without depriving others of the same opportunity,” the NBI said in its statement.

Egypt’s rejection of the treaty continues its fight to ensure free flow of the Nile into its country, as it is hugely dependent on the water source. The Nile is also the cause of ongoing tensions with Ethiopia, due to the construction of a dam that would constrict waterflow.

Last month, Ethiopian authorities wrote a letter to the United Nations Security Council, rebuffing “a litany of unfounded allegations” levied against it by Egypt. Just before that, Egypt wrote to the Security Council, saying that it may have “exhausted all amicable means” to negotiate with Ethiopia over its Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), situated on the riverbank of, and diverting water from, the Blue Nile, the tributary where Nile River gets 85 percent of its waterflow. Egypt, a downstream country that is hugely dependent on the Nile River, has repeatedly stated that the construction of the dam would have serious consequences on its electricity, water and even agricultural needs.

Egypt’s letter to the UN decries Ethiopia’s unwillingness to “accept any of the existing compromise solutions that balance the interests and rights of all parties,” adding that the government would do everything within its power to defend the rights of its citizens.

In response, Ethiopia said Egypt “must abandon its aggressive approach,” reiterating its stance that any negotiations regarding the GERD is subject to the East African country’s sovereignty. This latest exchange between both countries continues the long-standing diplomatic tension centered around differing positions on the dam and heightens fears of escalation.

Why is GERD controversial?

The first cornerstone of the dam was laid in 2011 as a project to expand the reach of electricity to its citizens, about half of which don’t have access to power. The dam, which is 1.8 kilometers (1.1 miles) long and 145 meters (476 feet) high could generate 5,000 megawatts of electricity. This is similar in size to Egypt's Burullus Power Plant, Beni Suef Power Plant and New Capital Power Plant, which started operating in 2018 and can each generate around 4,800 megawatts of electricity.

Since its announcement and early construction days, Egypt has opposed the GERD. The North African country also cites a 1959 agreement it signed with Sudan, which shares borders with Ethiopia, as a foundation for its diplomatic case. The agreement was based on a treaty Egypt signed with English colonizers in 1929, regarding sharing the Nile as a joint resource.

The 1929 treaty covered former colonies in Eastern Africa, including Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania, all dependent on the Nile, but none of these countries, or Ethiopia, were consulted. The 1959 agreement with Sudan simply adjusted the Anglo-Egyptian treaty, increasing Egypt’s guaranteed annual allotment of water to 55.5 billion cubic meters and Sudan’s to 18.5 billion cubic meters.

When it started building the dam, Ethiopia said the construction was a matter of national sovereignty. In response, Egypt said the treaty and agreement with Sudan gave it the power to vote down any construction on the Nile waterway. However, both parties seemed to become more flexible a few years after work on the dam started.

In 2015, Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan signed a Declaration of Principles (DoP) agreement, with one of the terms being that Ethiopia would implement recommendations from an international panel of experts that will study the impact of the GERD. However, Ethiopia returned to its original stance that the dam is a matter of national interest, and refused to allow an environmental and social impact assessment, which is usually required under international law for projects like these.

Since Ethiopia’s reversion, both countries have met on several occasions for talks, with interference by the African Union, however very little headway has been made.

What are the latest developments?

In late August, Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed announced that the dam was in the fifth stage of its first filling, continuing a process that commenced in 2020. Ahmed also stated that the third and fourth turbines of the dam are now operational.

The continuation of the GERD project has led to Egypt seemingly sending thinly veiled threats to Ethiopia. Last month, it signed a defense agreement with Somalia, which shares a long border with Ethiopia. Under the agreement, Egypt would provide military support to Somalia, and while that is meant for the Somali government’s fight against al-Shabaab terrorists, it also gives Egyptian forces proximity to Ethiopia.

Somalia’s involvement stems from its currently rocky relationship with Ethiopia. At the beginning of the year, Ethiopia signed a port agreement with the independent but widely unrecognized state of Somaliland, which would give landlocked Ethiopia access to the Red Sea. With Somalia still claiming Somaliland as part of its territory, it considers Ethiopia’s deal a threat and has now chosen to be allied with Egypt.

Shortly after Ahmed’s update, reports filtered in that Egypt had deployed 1,000 troops and military equipment to Somalia’s capital Mogadishu. The Ethiopian government followed that with a statement that it is “vigilantly monitoring developments in the region that could threaten its national security.”

What role can Sudan play?

The GERD is located in the Benishangul-Gumuz region, 15 kilometers (9 miles) away from Ethiopia’s border with Sudan. Previously, analysts wondered if Sudan could play a role in easing the tension between Egypt and Ethiopia, seeing as it signed an agreement with the former and is a neighbor to the latter. However, the ongoing conflict in the country has dwindled the prospects of that influence.

If anything, Sudan’s position is complicated by the possibility of being dragged into a war, should Egypt take armed action against the GERD and Ethiopia. If that happens, not only could Sudan’s airspace be intruded, it could also lead to civilian casualties from flooding if the dam is damaged. In 2020, thousands of households were affected and over one-third of the cultivated farmlands in Sudan were wiped out due to heavy rains that caused flooding from the Blue Nile.

Also, Sudan could benefit from the cheaper electricity that will be generated from the GERD, which splits its alliance between the 1959 agreement and the potential of being located beside a potentially momentous dam.

Are there any solutions?

Egypt believes that, without an agreement, the GERD threatens its very existence. The North African country wants a guarantee of a certain volume of water, but Ethiopia’s adamant stance on national sovereignty means there’s no sure path to a bilateral agreement.

In April, scientists from the University of Manchester, in collaboration with regional organizations, published a report that presents a detailed simulation of a combined energy-water system that shows different scenarios of how international energy trades could help alleviate the Nile water conflict.

The simulator, designed using open-source technology, models potential energy trade agreements among Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan. None of the three countries have indicated whether they’ve read the report.

Amid the tension it is expected that there will be more discussions between all countries involved, Ethiopia and Egypt especially, with hopes that a resolution is reached soon.