Editor’s note:
Ethiopia’s Water,  Irrigation and Energy Minister and the respective ministers from Sudan and Egypt held three rounds of talks from November 2013 to January 2014 in Khartoum.

The Ministers were expected to to setup a mechanism implementation mechanism for the recommendations of International Panel of Experts regarding the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance dam, which is under construction on the source of Nile in north-west of Ethiopia.

The talks broke down after the Egyptian delegation made demands that were deemed unreasonable by Ethiopian and Sudanese officials.

A senior expert of Ethiopia’s Water, Irrigation and Energy Ministry, Fekahmed Negash, explained the matter in an interview with journalist Abiy Hailu of Ethiopian Herald.

* Fekahmed Negash is Director General of Boundary and Trans-boundary Rivers Affairs Directorate of Ethiopia’s Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Energy.

Abiy Hailu:
What is the situation and progress of the dam construction?

Fekahmed Negash:
The construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam is going well according to plan. All the necessary inputs at this stage of the construction have been fulfilled. Moreover, all the necessary studies and assessments related to the dam have been finalized. The under grounding drilling activities have also been finalized and the construction has begun. Also in terms of finance, the dam is not facing any constraint. The dam is also being constructed with great care regarding technical issues. Thus, all in all, there are no problems in terms of finance and technical issues.

Currently, huge culvert tunnels are being interred. When their construction is concluded, the water would start to pass through them. In addition, two cement and gravel factories have been built near the main construction site which would supply inputs for the dam construction. Conveyor belts, which would transport the mixture of cement and gravel to the construction site have also been installed. Moreover, very small and complicated works which are related to the building of foundation have been finalized. All in all, we can say that 30 per cent of the construction work has been finalized.

Abiy Hailu:
Recently, some Egyptian scholars and politicians are propagating distorted information about the dam and they are expressing their objection to the construction work. What is the intention behind this consistent objection while it is being repeatedly said that the dam would not harm the interests of Egypt and what is the response of Ethiopia?

Fekahmed Negash:
When the construction of the dam began, the stance on the side of Egypt was that they had concerns about the dam being constructed claiming that there was not sufficient information about it. At the time, in order to overcome this concern, the former Prime Minister of Ethiopia took the initiative for establishing an International Panel of Experts which comprised experts from Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt as well as four neutral international experts. Accordingly, the Panel was established and documents related to the dam were made accessible to the Panel to make its assessment on the dam for a year. Moreover, various efforts were also made so that the Panel can carry out its assessment on the construction site and have discussions with the contractor as well as Ethiopian experts to acquire all the information it needed.

Following that the Panel had prepared its own report. The report noted, generally the dam would be beneficial to all the three countries [Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt] and would not have significant harm. It also recommended that two further assessments should be held that would revise the assessment so as to build mutual trust. Ethiopia has also shown its readiness to implement these recommendations.

Being this the fact, however, what we observe repeatedly is that there is opposition to the construction of the dam [from the Egyptian side]. This is because of Egypt’s prolonged unilateral ownership which it claims over the Nile waters. And the intention originates from Egypt’s interest to put Ethiopia under pressure for its ownership claims. That is what we understand and they would try to achieve this till the end. But, we will try to convince them till the end as the dam would not harm their interests.

The Egypt media fans various issues. However, there is a conviction from the side of Ethiopia that is ‘it is not always necessary to respond to each and every destructive message on their media’. But we will make all the necessary efforts to reveal the truth to the people of Egypt. We are making the preparations for this. What their media, scholars and some officials are trying to do is creating tension and dispute between the two governments and peoples. And nobody would benefit out of that. But we are finalizing our preparation to make the truth be known.

Abiy Hailu:
The final conclusion of the International Panel of Experts in its report was that the construction of the dam would not bring any harm to both Egypt and Sudan. So, is there any change of stance from the side of Egypt?

Fekahmed Negash:
In relation to the construction of the dam, there is no change of stance from Egypt’s side. From the start, they [Egyptian officials and scholars] know that the the dam is in their interest. They even know that it would benefit them. But the government of Egypt takes the issue of the Nile water as part of its national security. Thus, they take any development activity undertaken on the Nile as an act of aggression on their national security.

The second thing is, they perceive making negotiation and reaching agreement on the water as if negotiating on their national security. Thus, they consider that if other countries use the water, their national security would be under threat and they would do anything to prevent other countries from utilizing the water.

Thus, on the one hand, they see the utilization of the water as an act of aggression on their national security. They also calculate Ethiopia’s success in economic growth with its increased potential to utilize the water. Thus, we know that they would do anything in their capacity to prevent this.

Abiy Hailu:
What are the benefits of the dam to Egypt?

Fekahmed Negash:
The major benefits of the dam are that it would reduce the level of siltation at Aswan Dam and protect it from the danger of flooding. Egypt has been releasing water from the dam to the desert to reduce its level. Had they not released the water, it would have risked the dam and also flooded Cairo. The Renaissance Dam would prevent such threats from occurring as it controls the flow of the water. Thus, once the Renaissance Dam is filled with water, the water flow would be regular hence it prevents such types of disaster. This by itself would bring about various benefits to Egypt.

Abiy Hailu:
What is the status of negotiation between the two countries. Is it still progressing in the right direction?

Fekahmed Negash:-
It is better to use the word discussion than negotiation. So the discussion is still being held. As it is well known, when the report of the International Panel of Experts was released, some unnecessary comments were made from the side of Egypt. Following that, the Foreign Minister of Egypt came to Addis on the 18th of June [2013] and held discussion with his Ethiopian counterpart. They held discussion on ways of implementing the recommendations forwarded by the International Panel of Experts. They had decided that the water Ministers of the three countries would meet and hold discussions on the issue to prepare framework for follow up of the implementation of the recommendation of the Panel.

Accordingly, in the past three months, three discussions have been held in Sudan, Khartoum. The first discussion was held on 4th November 2013 and we have agreed to jointly implement the recommendations of the Panel of Experts. Further, we have also agreed to establish a committee of experts that would over see the implementation. However, we did not agree on the composition of the committee. The idea brought forth by Sudan and Ethiopia is that the committee should comprise experts from the three countries. The stance of Egypt was that international experts should also be part of it. We at the time said the necessary input from international experts had been delivered and the Panel terminated meeting its mandate. We presented sufficient justification saying that there is no justification to hire other international experts as the rest of the works could be undertaken by the experts of the three countries. Then, we waited for their response and after a 30 minute break, they could not do so.

The meeting was postponed for a month and held again on December 9 and 10, 2013 in Khartoum. In this meeting, we have managed to reach agreements on many issues. For instance, we have agreed that the main objective of the committee to be established is to follow up the implementation of the recommendations. Further, we have also agreed that the committee comprises four experts from each country.

Moreover, we have also agreed mostly on the committee’s tasks and responsibilities. Some unacceptable tasks and responsibilities were also recommended to the committee by Egypt’s delegation. For instance, they have suggested that the committee should follow up the construction of the dam. But this idea was not accepted. They also suggested that the committee should prepare various alternatives and take actions based on these alternatives. This idea was also automatically rejected. Again, they said that the committee and consulting organizations should be accountable to all countries. But all these are unacceptable, even by any international standards. We have discussed and agreed to withdraw them. But we have also reached agreement on other issues.

But in the process, the Egyptian delegation also raised two proposals which were again rejected by the Ethiopian delegation.

First, even if we agreed that international experts would not have any role in the process, they have raised another proposal which says a panel of international experts should be established in addition to the committee. But the reasons put forth by them regarding the necessity of the panel were unacceptable as there are no tasks that go beyond the Panel. For instance, when we looked at the tasks to be done, it is all about conducting two studies/assessments at once, which are parts of the recommendations put forth by the previous International Panel of Experts. The first is the Hydrology Simulation Model and the second is the cross boundary rivers social, economic and environmental explanation study.

The Ethiopian government had conducted prior assessments on these two areas. But the assessments would be conducted in order to bringing about better consensus and agreement regarding the studies. So, the task of the committee is that first it would formulate its own detailed tasks and rules. Doing so does not need the support of international experts.

The second is the finalization of the Terms of References for the two assessments to be conducted. The Terms of Reference have already been formulated by the previous International Panel Experts. So the main task of the committee is hiring an international consultant that undertakes the two studies indicated, follow up the implementation of the consultancies and review and improve the final reports of the studies. So the main thing is finalizing the Terms of References. This also does not require other international experts.

The third thing would be hiring international consultants that would conduct the two assessments. So, we should not hire another international consultant for this purpose. This can also be undertaken by experts found in the three countries. The other thing is monitoring the international consultants while they conduct the study. For this purpose also, we do not need another international consultant. The final step is assessing and receiving the studies when the experts complete their tasks. The three countries’ experts have the capacity to do so .

However, Ethiopia has agreed on some conditions for the establishment of a new panel. For instance, if the technical experts fail to agree with the results of the assessment in the final report of the two studies, they can present the issues to the [water] Ministers of the three countries. And certainly, the Ministers can resolve these issues amicably. But again, if the Ministers fail to resolve the issues, it will be possible to hire a neutral international panel of experts which would give its technical opinion. We have also opened the door for this process in our recommendations.

In addition, they [Egyptian delegation] raised another proposal that was to establish the panel immediately. So, we did not accept it as the panel would only be necessary if there are differences on the final results of the assessments. Plus, the studies would be completed after a year. As a result, the proposal to establishing the panel immediately is not rational.

Consequently, the discussion was further postponed to January 4 and 5, 2014. And when we had met in Khartoum again, they were not ready to change their stance. Not only that, but they also come up with another document, a so called, – Principles of Confidence Building – which incorporates seven points. This document is not part of the recommendations given by the previous Panel of International Experts. Secondly, it has nothing to do with the implementations of the recommendations.

Again, the Ethiopian delegation had been there to discuss issues related to the implementation of the recommendations by the panel. It was not to discuss other issues. Moreover, some of the issues included in the principles contradict with the Cooperative Framework Agreement which Ethiopia is signatory to. Not only that, but negotiations have also been terminated regarding the Nile Cooperative Forum. So, there would not be another negotiation. More importantly, the Nile Cooperative Forum should be undertaken under the Nile Basin Initiative, not only between Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt. Hence, when we say that discussions should not be held on such issues, they twisted the matter to wrong direction and they are saying that Ethiopia does not need cooperation and does not accept their cooperation plan. As a result, the discussion has been terminated.

But at the end of the discussion, the Ministers have agreed to continue the discussion. The time and place have not been decided. The Egyptian delegation have returned to have appointment for another discussion after meeting and discussing with their government. We know that they are currently transmitting various messages. We have also heard them say that unless Ethiopia accepts their proposals, they would not resume the discussion.

Last week again, they have said that they were ready for discussion and this is good. This is a good message because we also believe in negotiation and discussion. Because, if there is discussion, we can narrow our differences. Thus, we have the conviction that they would come to the discussion and cooperation.

But what we have understood is that the Egyptian delegation is deliberately proposing unacceptable ideas which harm the sovereignty of Ethiopia. And this is aimed at making Ethiopia to appear as if it does not accept any of the proposals of Egypt as if Ethiopia rejected the entire proposal.

And we can clearly foretell this fact to the international community as the ideas proposed by the Egyptian delegation did not go in line with the discussion agendas and they affect the sovereignty of Ethiopia. That is why Ethiopia automatically rejected them. Ethiopia is ready to accept the request for international panel of experts when ever it is necessary. Thus as a principle, it is because the panel is unnecessary that Ethiopia has said it does not accept it. This is what we want the people of Egypt and the international community to know.

Abiy Hailu:
What will be the future prospect of the discussion and what are the efforts Ethiopia are doing to bring the discussion to the right track?

Fekahmed Negash:
The recommendations of the International Panel of Experts is of two types. The first recommendation is to the government of Ethiopia. Ethiopia has already implemented the recommendation given to it and it is ready to implement the recommendations of the International Panel of Experts whenever it is necessary.

What remains is the recommendations given to the three countries. The recommendations given to the three countries are intended to build confidence among three states. And the two countries need these recommendations more than Ethiopia does. Thus, as the will is theirs, we have a conviction that they would return to the discussions.

Regarding trans-boundary river, it is a shared resource of the three countries. We can only utilize this resources in common when we can talk and discuss in good manners. Developing the water through cooperation is beneficial to the three of us. Be it as it may, still, the discussion would be more beneficial to the lower riparian countries. Thus, we believe that resuming discussion and consultation after carefully assessing the situation is salient. And, we are always ready for that. But this does not mean that we would hold discussion on issues which would harm our country’s national interest, sovereignty and development. But we will make all the necessary effort to bring them to the discussion table and our door is always open for negotiation.

 *********