Learning to Cooperate - Benefit Sharing in the Nile Basin

Where transboundary waters make conflict a possibility, they can create opportunities for lasting cooperation (Wolf, 1998). Similarly, political treaties over access to shared waters can either enshrine principles of equitability or exclusion.

This post will break down the recent political attempts to promote cooperation between Nile Basin nations. We will then explore the principle of benefit sharing via a West African case-study.

NBI, CFA, TBC...

The NBI was set-up in 1999 as a multilateral, transitional agreement between 10 Nile Basin nations with the aim of 'sustainable socio-economic development through the equitable utilisation of, and benefits from, the common Nile Basin water resources' (NBI). It sought to initiate a productive dialogue between all Nile Basin countries so that a long-term agreement could be established. Mekonnen (2011) suggests that this aim demands a two-pronged strategy: the creation of an equitable legal framework and a practical benefit-sharing framework.

The CFA was eventually established in 2010 to meet this first requirement. Ratified by four upstream countries and signed by a further two, the CFA distances itself from the historical precedent of quota-driven treaties, instead promoting a more adaptive model of water sharing - IWRM (NBI; Savenije and Van der Zaag, 2008).

Whilst this was a significant moment, the CFA's impact has been disappointing. For the agreement to come into force, six ratifications are needed. Furthermore, Egypt and Sudan have rejected the agreement, and are therefore not bound by it. Thus the CFA, in its current form, might actually serve to entrench the hydropolitical divides in the Basin (Tekuya, 2020). That said, the agreement has at least united the upstream states around a common intention to cooperate, to challenge downstream hegemony and catalyse regional development. Successful projects that have emerged through the NBI and CFA include the installation of a HydroMet system to collect reliable and monitorable data for water resource management (NBI, 2019) and NELSAP, which mobilises investments towards resource management projects and infrastructure provision (NELSAP).

Overall, if the NBI is to achieve its objectives, the CFA must be extended to include the downstream powers in the dialogue. A true benefit-sharing framework should then be developed on top of this strengthened legal framework. 

Learning from the Senegal Basin:

The Senegal River - tributaries included - runs through the modern nations of Senegal, Mauritania, Mali and Guinea. Post independence, all four countries recognised the need to work together to ensure lasting sovereignty, economic growth and welfare improvements (LeMarquand, 1990). A series of agreements enshrined a culture of cooperation. In July 1963, the river was given 'international status', granting landlocked Mali the possibility of coastal access. The CIE was also signed that month, establishing a framework for river management, whereby all four nations had veto power over developments (Alam, 2012). Five years later came the OERS which further expanded the scope for cooperation, even promoting a convergence of national legislation and the softening of borders (Alam et al., 2009). Although it provided a safe-haven for dialogue, Malian political unrest and Guinean isolationism proved to be too much for the OERS, which in 1972 had to be replaced by l'Espace OMVS. Exemplifying the undying spirit of cooperation in the region, Guinea chose not to veto the OMVS' establishment, despite excluding itself from the organisation.

Fishermen on the Senegal River
Wikicommons (Zinash Seyoum)

Map of the Senegal Basin
Wikicommons (Bourrichon)

Alam et al. (2009) analysed the effectiveness of the benefit-sharing approach using Sadoff and Grey's (2002) benefit classification, adapted and summarised below:

Type 1: Benefits to the River  Improving water quality and flow, soil conservation, biodiversity	Type 2: Benefits from the River Improving management of resources for hydropower or irrigation, flood/drought management, navigation
Type 3: Cost benefits because of the River Reducing conflict and increasing food security via cooperation	Type 4: Benefits beyond the River Integrating infrastructure and economic/social life in region

Their paper made the following conclusions about the success of benefit-sharing in l'Espace OMVS. 

Dam construction has induced negative ecological consequences, reducing biodiversity and promoting weed growth through uniform river flow. Undoing this damage is on the OMVS’ agenda.	Joint ownership of the Manantali and Diama dams empowered more reliable and equitable regional resource provision, although they could still benefit from greater supply capacity. Whilst financial contributions of members are asymmetric, benefits are distributed relatively fairly according to this, and the countries only pay 78-83% of their expected energy expenditures (UNESCO-WWAP, 2003).
L’espace OMVS offered a platform for conflict resolution during the Senegal-Mauritania Border War (1989-1991), since joint dam ownership necessitated cooperation. The nations normalised their relations in 1992.	Regional cooperation and integration stimulate each other in a positive feedback loop. Even Guinea, a non-member of the OMVS, is now explicitly benefiting from - and providing new opportunities to - l’Espace via the 2002 Water Charter and 2006 pledge of adhesion to l'Espace.

 

This case-study example highlights clear advantages of benefit sharing. However, we should approach comparisons with the Nile with caution; for instance, the popularity of Pan-Africanist discourse in the decolonisation era instilled a desire to cooperate from the off (Alam, 2012). In addition, the four Senegal Basin nations share a common colonial history and spoken language. 

PS: There were lots of acronyms in this blog post. Here's a glossary, in case you want to have a further look into any of them.

NBI: Nile Basin Initiative
CFA: Cooperative Framework Agreement
IWRM: Integrated Water Resources Management
NELSAP: Nile Equatorial Lake Subsidiary Action Program
CIE: Comité Inter-États pour l'aménagement du fleuve Sénégal
OERS: Organisation des États Riverains du fleuve Sénégal
OMVS: Organisation pour la Mise en Valeur du fleuve Sénégal