The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), located 25 miles from Ethiopia’s border with Sudan, marks the start of a new chapter in the disputed history of Nile water sovereignty, with far-reaching ramifications for the entire region. However, will the differences over the water supply exacerbate tensions between Ethiopia, Sudan, and Egypt?
Ethiopia declared that it would begin creating a new Nile River project in April 2011. The GERD, formerly known as the Millennium Dam, will be Africa’s primary hydropower source and aspires to aid Ethiopia in becoming a lead energy exporter. With an expected capacity of 5,150 megawatts, the GERD is set to become Africa’s largest hydroelectric power plant, as stated by Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy on October 31, 2024. Ethiopia’s dedication to utilizing the Blue Nile’s potential for both economic expansion and energy generation is demonstrated by the prime minister’s declaration. It is anticipated that the GERD’s completion will improve access to energy within Ethiopia and make it more feasible to export electricity to nearby nations, promoting regional integration and growth.
However, since downstream countries look for certainty in water flow and resource sharing, the dam’s operation is still being discussed diplomatically. Given the importance of the GERD for regional cooperation and stability, the international world is still keeping a close eye on the results of these talks. Concerns regarding the GERD’s possible financial impact were brought to light by Egypt’s ambassador to the US, Motaz Zaran, who stated that “if unilaterally filled and operated, the GERD could inflict incalculable socioeconomic and environmental harm downstream in Egypt and Sudan”. As a result, Sudan received four billion cubic meters of Nile waters annually, while Egypt received over 48 billion cubic meters. Additionally, they were able to deny any constructions in the Nile that may interfere with the water’s flow.
It was claimed that for more than ten years, Ethiopia has been negotiating with Egypt and Sudan about the future of the GERD. Like all earlier attempts, the latest phase concluded without agreement. Egypt declared that it would reserve the right to “defend its national security” because of the significance of the Nile when the negotiations broke down.
Before a newly independent Sudan and Egypt forged a bilateral agreement in 1959, the agreement remained in effect for thirty years. Consequently, Egypt’s portion of the Nile waters rose to 55.5 billion cubic meters, while Sudan’s part rose to 18.5 billion cubic meters. The 1959 agreement, which required countries like Ethiopia and its highlands to provide more than 80% of the water, resulted in the failure to address the water demands of other Nile basin territories. The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance dam, according to Egyptians, threatens Egypt’s future, especially its agricultural growth. Similar to ancient times, Egypt depended on Nile water in the twentieth century to maintain irrigation systems and permit ships to go up and down the river. With the GERD in place, Egypt’s economic situation is now challenged, potentially endangering relations with the states in the Nile Basin, especially Ethiopia.
The capital of Sudan, Khartoum, was once thought to be the largest country in Africa, where the White and Blue Niles converge. This led to the growth of local agriculture and the establishment of communities. Sudan’s agricultural sector may be severely impacted by this dam because of its close proximity to the GERD. He goes on to say that “For Sudan, the Blue Nile is the lifeline for Sudan’s 40 million people [and it] serves 70 percent of the irrigated land in the country, and as such represents the heart of the agricultural activities on which the country’s population and economy are largely dependent”.
Due to past agreements and continuing disagreements over the use of Nile water, the GERD has long been at the center of diplomatic initiatives and tensions between Ethiopia, Egypt, and Sudan. Ethiopia coordinated the creation of the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) in 1999, which subsequently developed into the Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA) in 2010, because the Nile basin was historically dominated by “unilateralism, exclusion, and colonial treaties” that favored Egypt and Sudan. This framework gave states in the Nile basin the authority to build projects without Egypt’s and Sudan’s prior approval. Tensions still exist despite these advancements; in April 2021, trilateral talks under the African Union (AU) came to a standstill.
Ethiopia has continuously resisted outside intervention outside of the AU-led framework, while Egypt has pursued external mediation through organizations like the Arab League, the UN Security Council, and the Gulf States. As a result, the GERD project has the potential to have a major economic impact on Sudan, comparable to the amount of harm inflicted by the remaining Nile basin regions. If the GERD worsens, a future battle between the nations for control of the Nile rivers is possible. The law shows signs of favoring Ethiopia, but the future is undoubtedly bleak.
