South-South Cooperation: an Option to Manage the Disputes in the Nile Basin? It’s timely to discuss Nile and opportunities for South-South cooperation as there is currently a serious altercation between Ethiopia and Egypt in relation to Ethiopia’s Grand Renaissance Dam. A lot has been going on in the media and social networks after the warmongering dialogue among the Egyptian politicians on a live TV transmission in June 2013. The Nile Basin comprises 11 African Countries namely Ethiopia, Uganda, South Sudan, Sudan, Burundi, DR Congo, Egypt, Tanzania, Kenya, Rwanda and Eritrea. Majority of the water (85%) originates from Ethiopia. Egypt has been making all the efforts to remain hydro-hegemonic on Nile issues by using the unilateral colonial treaty as a justification. But there are growing concerns that the current tension could turn into violent regional conflict if Egypt continues to attempt to control the water alone. With the current power changes in the region following relative economic and political stability of the up-streamers and emergence of new regional powers (from within and outside the region), Egypt’s ‘quasi-hegemony’ may no longer be valid. Furthermore, Egypt is at a critical crossroads given the ongoing political unrest. Therefore, there is an urgent need for south-south cooperation between the basin countries in agriculture and energy trades to sustainably utilize the water. The pressure due to climate change and population growth in the upstream riparians further consolidates to justify the urgency of cooperation. Potential considerations for cooperation include environmentally friendly agricultural practices along the watershed and sustainable energy supply. For example, 84% Ethiopians depend on small-scale agriculture for their livelihood and 94% rely on fuel wood for daily cooking and heating. This has implications on the watershed of rivers that originate in the country due to degradation of the hydro-ecosystem. Improved agricultural practices and environmentally sustainable energy sources is inevitable to meet the needs of the riparian countries in the long run. Researches estimated that potential cooperation to develop irrigation and hydropower among the basin countries could generate economic value of staggering US$ 7-11 billion annually (Whittington et al . 2005; Water resources management in the Nile Basin: the economic value of cooperation). A regional framework of cooperation called the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) emerged in 1999 to tackle the challenges faced by the upstream and downstream riparians. NBI is a “breakthrough with challenges” that seeks to develop the River in a cooperative manner, share substantial socio-economic benefits and promote regional peace and security. NBI envisions achieving “sustainable socio-economic development through equitable utilization of, and benefit from, the common Nile Basin Water resources” (NBI 2010). NBI is an excellent avenue to leverage South-South Cooperation. However, the likes of Mekonnen (2010) regrettably argue that NBI is faced with a serious deadlock as a result of introduction of the concept of “water security”. Therefore, the riparians should rethink and work on a well-built south-south and triangulation cooperation (as described in UN-CTAD 2009) framework to bring the already “grave-prognosis” NBI, back to life. To consolidate on my argument for a broader understanding of south-south cooperation within the Nile basin countries, I am presenting the profile of agriculture trade in the region. FAO’s (2004) report suggests that the Nile Basin countries were net importers of agricultural products in 2003-2004 with exception of Kenya and Tanzania. If we take Sudan, Ethiopia and Egypt, the net value of agriculture imports was estimated at $44 million, $70 million, and $2 billion, respectively. The contribution of importation within the basin countries was extremely low accounting for 1% (Ethiopia), 10% (Sudan) and 0% (Egypt). These countries import agricultural products such as wheat, maize, food oil, tea and processed food stuffs. There is strong agro-ecological evidence that most of the riparian countries have the potential to produce the aforementioned crops that are being imported from as far as USA, Australia and Asian Countries. Fugazza and Vanzetti (2006) highlighted that opening up of Northern markets would provide annual welfare gains to developing countries of $22 billion whereas the removal of South-South trade barriers has the potential to generate gains of $35 billion (60% larger than the Northern markets). The importance of having south-south trade cooperation in the Nile Basin Countries is broader than that of the conventional cooperation. Integrating their economic activities and creating interdependence through south-south cooperation for investment on agriculture and energy can promote lasting peace, people to people friendship and economic benefits. It has also the potential to create mutual understanding that provides a strong push for more inclusive partnerships among participating countries, and also facilitating sharing of experiences (UNCTAD 2009). The untapped potential of navigation through Nile River to connect the countries and also ease access to sea ports is another exciting rationalization for the countries to cooperate. Some authors argue that south-south cooperation has significant adverse effect on the revenue of government due to lifting of export/import tariffs (Fugazza and Vanzetti 2006). But a potential cooperation within the Nile Basins has more benefits in terms of socio-political landscape than economic terms. Unfortunately the current debate around Nile is mainly related to energy (hydroelectric power). Awulachew et al . (2010) argues that crops, livestock, fisheries and aquaculture have long been important in the Nile basin but do not feature in the water discourse. Agriculture is the most important sector in terms of playing significant roles in the lives and livelihoods of the population of the riparian countries at large. In view of this, support that targets productivity in agriculture and agricultural water sectors is expected to bring immense benefits and contribute positively to the overall economic and social development efforts in each of the riparian countries. A report by the NBI (http://nileis.nilebasin.org/system/files/CBTC%20Research%20Policy%20briefs.pdf) suggested that 17 million people in the basin derive their revenues from activities along the livestock (cattle, goats, sheep, and camels) value chains contributing 10-40% of the countries’ GDP. According to the report, a 2 months assessment of the value of livestock trade along the Ethiopia-Kenya-Sudan corridor is $6.6 million. This is despite the production, market/trade and infrastructural barriers. Similarly, vegetables and fruits trade in the riparian countries has a huge potential. The main products identified for tapping are bananas, passion fruits, pineapples and Irish potatoes. The above report shows that Uganda produced 10 million tons of bananas in 2010 for a regional as well as international export whereas Kenya possesses 61% of the total pineapple production. Some levels of cross border trade of maize, wheat, rice and beans have also been recorded in the basin countries. The report of NBI highlighted that the region’s yields for the major cereals (maize, wheat and rice) are only 13%, 10% and 20% of their potentials, respectively. The above experiences are only between the countries that exhibited peaceful co-existence and relationships. No reports are available to show any trade links between the 'hot-spot' countries such as Egypt and Ethiopia or Egypt. The future optimism about agriculture trade in the Nile Basin is that there is steady growth of demands for agricultural commodities. FAO (2000) in its article on “water and agriculture in the Nile Basin” projected an increment of demand for agricultural products from 87 million tons in 1989 to 138 million tons in 2010 in the Nile Basin. The riparian countries need to face the challenges and come up with a comprehensive strategy that fosters a win-win political, economic (investment and trade) and socio-cultural integrations in the area of agriculture and energy.
Taxonomy
- Sustainability
- River Basin management
- Water Governance