The Nile Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA): Strengths, Weaknesses, and Sudan Position
Professor Siddig Eissa Ahmed
UNESCO professor and expert in water resources engineering and environment…
Ex- director general of Unesco chair in water resources, Omdurman Islamic University
Expert in Water Resources and Environmental Engineering
Former Director of the UNESCO Chair for Water
Summary
This paper examines the Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA), also known as the Entebbe Agreement, analyzing its strengths, weaknesses, and challenges, particularly concerning Sudan’s position. Signed in 2010 by six Nile Basin countries—Ethiopia, Uganda, Rwanda, Tanzania, Kenya, and Burundi—the CFA aims to regulate the use and distribution of Nile waters. It comprises 44 articles across six sections and an annex, addressing key issues like water security, equitable use, and cooperation mechanisms.
On July 8, 2024, South Sudan ratified the agreement, making it legally binding for the Nile Basin Initiative states as of October 13, 2024. However, Sudan and Egypt have consistently rejected the agreement due to its failure to acknowledge historical water-sharing treaties, including those of 1902, 1929, and 1959.
The paper highlights the CFA’s implications for Sudan, its weaknesses (e.g., potential reductions in Sudan’s water rights) and strengths (e.g., cooperative projects with upstream nations). It also underscores Sudan’s need to renegotiate the 1959 agreement with Egypt in light of modern geopolitical and climatic challenges.
Background
The Nile Basin Initiative (NBI), launched in 1999, laid the groundwork for the CFA. Supported by the World Bank and international donors, the initiative aimed to promote equitable and sustainable use of Nile waters among basin states.
CFA Provisions
The CFA outlines institutional frameworks and principles for cooperation, including the equitable utilization of resources and preventing significant harm. However, Sudan and Egypt argue that it disregards prior agreements and fails to safeguard their historical water rights.
Sudan’s Stance
Sudan’s opposition to the CFA is rooted in its alignment with Egypt under the 1959 agreement. The CFA’s dismissal of historical treaties and lack of clear provisions on prior notification for upstream projects remain key points of contention.
Strengths for Sudan
- Minimal immediate water consumption by upstream countries.
- Opportunities for joint infrastructure projects, such as hydropower dams, which could benefit Sudan.
- Potential inclusion of prior notification if Egypt and Sudan compromise on historical agreements and water security.
Weaknesses for Sudan
- Potential reductions in Sudan’s water allocation under the 1959 agreement.
- Lack of explicit recognition of historical rights and prior notification requirements.
- Ambiguity in defining “water security,” risking unfavorable interpretations for Sudan.
Challenges and Threats
- Political tensions with Ethiopia over projects like the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD).
- Vulnerability to droughts and climatic changes, exacerbating water insecurity.
- Dependence on Egypt’s stance in regional negotiations.
Opportunities
- Strengthening Sudan’s negotiating position by aligning policies across water, foreign affairs, and security sectors.
- Advocating for fair water-sharing principles based on international law and environmental sustainability.
Conclusion
The CFA’s implementation without Sudan and Egypt undermines its intended purpose of basin-wide cooperation. Sudan must prioritize renegotiating its water agreements, addressing geopolitical realities, and leveraging its resources for long-term development.
For further insights or a detailed analysis, let me know if you require any refinements.
