The development of the GERD serves as a power move for Ethiopia, and takes a step towards taking advantage of their upstream geography.
Conflicts arisen from the counter-hegemonic dam project raises questions of how fair the former political arrangements of the rights to the Nile and its governance were, in providing benefits to all its riparian countries. There is an argument that the building of the GERD may in fact lead to greater equity in water supply and access between Egypt and Ethiopia.
Unlike most damming concerns, although people will inevitably be displaced, the threat of reduced flow to Egypt is low. Ethiopia's main concern is hydro-electric power generation which only requires the river flow to turn turbines. The idea that the dam may reduce the unpredictability of inflows can help ensure a more constant supply to Egypt without much coordination with the Ethiopia.
Hydrosolidarity
The GERD has been seen as a symbol of Ethiopian nationalism and a way to shift development towards a more democratic, 'unity in diversity' as opposed to a politics of difference amongst its diverse population. But, if you take closer look, its design pushes a notion of
hydrosolidarity whereby bottom-up ethics and empathy restrict water usage from being harmful to downstream countries. This idea is rooted in transparency and good faith which ensures equity and reasonability. The politics of such hydrosolidarity within nationalism manifests in global, regional, and everyday politics (from the displacement of people to the legal frameworks of water sharing across riparian states). The GERD conflict that exists however, is resultant of
historical mistrust which hinders collaborative efforts - something that can potentially improve all lives within the Nile Basin.
Collaboration and Benefit Sharing
For collaboration to be effective, the concept of hydrosolidarity within nationalism must be present. Effective damming projects seek benefit sharing approaches that incentivise such collaborative efforts - the
Nile Basin Initiative has its own benefit-sharing framework. The
benefits of the GERD come in the form of poverty alleviation, economic cooperation, HEP, stable water flow and flood control. The GERD seems to have Ethiopia and Sudan on the same page, but
Egypt's apprehension about the proportion of benefits it receives in comparison to its new susceptibility to upstream riparian countries' policies hinders the debate. The question of
keeping its political hegemony and control over national policy supresses the goal of
equitable water security that collaboration can bring for Egypt. The example of the Collaborative Framework Agenda being rejected, a legal and institutional framework aimed at regulating water allocation and utilisation of the Nile, reflects Egypt's unwillingness to cooperate with an agreement that is
beneficial to all.
Cases of nationalism justifying water resources being used as political weapons (e.g. to starve riparian nations or assert dominance) aren't infrequent. However, in a world where global discourse is urgently shifting towards collaboration and equity, especially in the face of climate change, effective collaborative frameworks based on hydrosolidarity stand out as potentially successful solutions that
reap benefits and reinforce resilience. It also goes without saying that, like any management framework,
collaboration needs to be monitored to ensure its equitability and fairness. Unfortunately, most of this requires
political will.
Comments
Post a Comment