Colonial Era Water Treaties

The “Scramble for Africa”

In this blog I want to look at the colonial impact on the water politics of the Nile Basin. Different areas of the African continent have experienced forms of colonisation by people from Europe and Asia since ancient times. I want to focus on the Modern Era when Western European countries colonised most of the continent in what has been termed “the Scramble for Africa”, beginning around 1884. Prior to this, in the 1870s only about 10% of the continent was directly controlled by Europeans (David, 2011). However, by 1900 there had been a gigantic increase, with more than 90% of the continent having been colonised (David, 2011). This huge change can be seen in Figure 1.

In 1884 and 1885 the European powers began the process of extending their spheres of influence, which ultimately divided the continent into 50 countries (Rosenberg, 2019).  Geometric boundaries were superimposed over regions established upon cultural and linguistic lines by the indigenous populations (Gathara, 2019). The new boundaries divided groups of people whilst forcing other disparate people together (Rosenberg, 2019). Similar to the rest of Africa, the majority of the Nile Basin region also suffered from colonisation. The only Nile riparian to have avoided colonisation is Ethiopia, although this is hotly debated by those who believe that the country did not remain fully independent due to being under foreign control for a brief period (Boddy-Evans, 2020).

 

Figure 1: Map comparing the European presence in Africa in 1880 compared to in 1913 after the scramble for Africa.

Source: brilliantmaps

Impact on the Nile Basin

Colonial rule had a large impact on the regulations of the Nile and it still plays an important role to this day. Political tensions have arisen over the years due to the agreements signed in the colonial era. Egypt sees them as binding. It is the riparian furthest downstream and is the most dependent on the Nile waters (Kasimbazi, 2010). The treaties worked in the favour of Egypt, as this was the goal of the British. Egypt was granted the largest share of the waters; allowing the country to be the dominant consumer (Zayed, 2011). Britain ensured this water allocation Upper riparian countries such as Ethiopia (the primary supplier of the river), Uganda and Tanzania argue that the treaties are not binding anymore since the countries have gained their independence (Kasimbazi, 2010). The two opposing viewpoints have caused issues about the equitable sharing of the water and have made developing a basin-wide agreement on the use of the waters extremely difficult. 

1929 Agreement

Now I will outline the 2 major Nile waters agreements of the colonial era. In 1929 the Nile Waters Agreement was signed by Britain and Egypt. During the colonial period, Britain was in control of most of the river Nile Basin, therefore they signed on behalf of the Sudan, Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika which is now Tanzania. The agreement is clearly in support of Egypts dominant interests over the waters (Kasimbazi, 2010). The primary motive for Britain was to facilitate a greater volume of water reaching Egypt. Out of a total of 84 billion cubic meters average annual yield, the treaty allocated Egypt 48 billion cubic meters of water per year and Sudan 4 billion cubic meters (Kimenyi & Mbaku, 2015). The document also granted Egypt the power to veto any projects on the river or on any tributaries in order to prevent any reductions to its water share (Zayed, 2011).

1959 Agreement

The second of the agreements was signed in 1959 between Egypt and Sudan, reinforcing the previous Anglo-Egyptian treaty. This bilateral accord was majorly beneficial for both countries as it increased their water allocations substantially. Egypt was now entitled to 55.5 billion cubic meters of water a year and Sudan 18.5 cubic meters of Nile water (Zayed, 2011). Neither the 1929 or 1959 treaty granted any allowance for the other riparian states, ignoring their water needs (Kimenyi & Mbaku, 2015). The inequitable distribution of river flow can be seen clearly in figure 2 below.  

Figure 2: 1959 treaty water allocations

Source: Al Jazeera, 2018

The inequitable colonial era agreements have caused resentment from the other Nile riparians, creating a tense atmosphere and potential for conflict in the region. This is shown by the fact that numerous Egyptian leaders have threatened to go to war in order to protect their rights over their allocated water share. Threat of conflict has not deterred upstream riparians like Ethiopia and Tanzania from stating that they do not believe themselves bound by agreements and arguing for new frameworks to be put in place for regulating the use of the Nile waters. I will look at developments in this area in later blogs. 

To sum up the blog

The 2 treaties outlined above and the ongoing controversy around whether they are binding, shows the significant impact of the colonial era. The inequitable water allocations which have the potential to destabilise the region highlight how water politics in the Nile Basin is inherently linked to colonialism.