| This research mainly attempts to examine how the changing hydro political interactions among the Eastern Nile Sub-Basin states afffects the riparian states’ utilization of water from the Eastern Nile Sub-Basin that thereby determines their energy and food securities in what is called the ‘power-water-food-energy nexus’.In this research,the Eastern Nile Sub-Basin(ENSB),is a sub-basin that comprises the states of Egypt,Ethiopia and Sudan.Ethiopia is the country that contributes a voluminous amount of the Nile waters.And the two most downstream but most dependent on the waters of the Nile riparians of Egypt and Sudan are also found in the Eastern Nile sub-basin.The ENSB is worth researching because of many reasons.Primarily,the ENSB comprises riparian states that have the highest interests as well as concerns along the Nile River basin.They all need the ENSB water resources for their development efforts.Secondly,from hydro political interaction point of view,the counter hegemon state of Ethiopia and the most downstream states of Egypt and Sudan that had been striving to maintain the status quo are found in this sub-basin.From water security viewpoint,Egypt and Sudan are dependent on water resources that mainly come from Ethiopia and Ethiopia wants to use its water resources for its development efforts.Besides,this sub-basin connects the two conflict-ridden regions of the Nile and the Horn of Africa,hence has geo-strategic importance.From geo-political point of view,the headquarters of African Union and the Arab League are also found in Ethiopia and Egypt respectively.All the above reasons make the hydro political interaction among ENSB riparians to be very complicated and as a result the ENSB has become a hot spot of a wider scale hydro political contest.Food security is largely affected by the availability of both water and fertile lands.Energy security,in the case of generating energy from hydropower plants,is by the same token affected by the sustainable and sufficient availability of water from a certain river.Hence,utilizing the waters of the ENSB is a decisive factor for multifaceted development schemes of the ENSB riparian states.Power relations matters a lot in understanding the issues of energy and food securities.Which country uses how much amount of water from a transboundary river is measured by how much cumulative power it has or whether it allies itself with a powerful state.For the sake of clarity,the researcher has divided the research project into six chapters.The first chapter contains introductory part of the thesis.Preliminary ideas on the issues under discussion;the significance of the project;the research questions;the objectives of the study;purpose of statement;research methodology and methods;a short introduction to the theoretical framework;hypothesis;dependent and independent variables and literature review have all been included in the first chapter.This research made use of both qualitative and quantitative data followed by qualitative analysis,and based on both primary and secondary data.The main objective of this research project is to find out to what extent the hydro political interaction among the riparian states of the ENSB affect the utilization of the Nile waters for development efforts in general and their attempt to achieve food and energy securities in particular.This research project has attempted to answer the main research question: How does the hydro political interaction among the ENSB states affect their endeavor to achieve food and energy securities? To answer the above question,there was a need to divide the main research question into two sub-questions that are relatable to the objectives of chapters 4 and 5.The first sub-question is: How did the asymmetrical hydro political interaction along the ENSB riparian states affect their endeavor to achieve food and energy securities? And the second sub-question is:How does the non-asymmetrical hydro political interaction along the ENSB riparian states affect their endeavor to achieve food and energy securities?The second chapter focuses on the theoretical framework of Critical Hydro Politics and all related concepts with it.In this case,the International Relations(IR)theories and their relation with water politics has been discussed at length.Critical Hydro Politics borrows concepts from the mainstream International Relations theories of realism,liberalism,and constructivism and also from Gramscian theory of hegemony.In order to understand the concept of hydro hegemony,the tactics used by a hydro hegemon;the mechanisms used by the hydro-hegemony to ensure the perpetuity of its control;the different types of power manipulated by the hydro hegemon have all been explained in relation to the theories of International Relations.Besides,the issues of power asymmetry and power symmetry have also been discussed in relation to water politics.Doing so is helpful to grasp the current situation of power non-asymmetry where the former hydro-hegemon Egypt can no longer dominate the riparian relations among the Nile and ENSB states nor power symmetry is irreversibly achieved.Linked with the spectrum of power symmetry and power asymmetry,there are some reactions that come from the so called ‘weaker states’ against the hydro hegemon.Some countries bandwagon for profit and others go into ‘an alliance of counter-hegemony’.When the concept of bandwagoning is applied to water politics it is called ‘hydro-bandwagoning’.The relationship between the hydro hegemon and the hydro bandwagoning state is based on reciprocity.The hydro hegemon wants to use the bandwagoning state in maintaining the equilibrium and for veto power along a certain river.As in the case of the Nile(and also along the ENSB),Sudan provided the best example of hydro-bandwagoning.Egypt and Sudan still consider the 1959 Bilateral Agreement as ‘technically binding’.Another possible contesting reaction that may come from ‘weaker’ states against the hydro hegemon is called ‘counterhydro hegemony’.The Nile river witnessed a slow but sure emergence of counterhegemonic block in which Ethiopia was the leading country among the upstream states’ six decades struggle against Egypt’s hydro hegemony.Issues of different types of cooperation and conflict within the hydro political interactions have also been discussed in chapter two.The approaches used by the riparian states’ and the interactions along a shared river can be understood through different concepts such as: unilateralism,bilateralism,multilateralism as well as mixed of two or more of the above mentioned approaches.Critical Hydro Politics mainly focuses on the types of power that are prevalent in a hydro hegemonic power,in a bandwagoning state and in a counter hydro-hegemonic state.By using all the earlier mentioned detailed IR theories and related concepts,the theoretical framework of Critical Hydro Politics has been elaborated and thereby contextualized in a way it fits the ENSB and the issues that have been examined thereof.The third chapter has been devoted to the issues of power symmetry and power asymmetry in the course of the Nile hydro politics and therefore along the ENSB.This chapter reflects on all the concepts and ideas discussed in chapter two.The Nile river hydro politics runs the trajectory of almost one century,but for several decades,Egypt had been the most dominant,and almost had monopolized the Nile waters by obstructing the emergence of any water regime that would have been much fairly beneficial for all riparians.Egypt’s dominance can be attributed to the power asymmetry that initially prevailed among the Nile riparian states.Egypt was able to successfully develop different types of power that enabled it to effectively sustain its hegemony along the Nile River for decades.And the initial energy for Egypt’s dominance emanated from the 1929 Treaty that granted Egypt a lion’s share on the Nile waters and the 1959 Bilateral Agreement with Sudan that ended with unequal apportionment of the Nile waters between the two downstreamers.Both water agreements were non-inclusive and unfair,hence unacceptable by the upstream riparians.From the outset,the upstream riparian states didn’t accept the two arrangements.In the long run,the upstream states’ grievances of different levels paved the way for hydro political contest between the upstream riparians and the then most beneficiary downstream riparians.In the history of hydro political interactions along the Nile River,one initiative after the other came into existence but for no avail.Up till now,no commonly acceptable basin wide or sub-basin level water regime has been established.The contest of the upstream riparians gradually gained the impetus and at last the thrust of such contest resulted in the downstream riparians’ readiness to discuss possibilities of cooperation along the Nile River basin.In reality,Egypt and Sudan attempted to thwart such initiatives.Due to the water security concern it has,Egypt securitizes the Nile waters and links it with its very survival.And this issue has been one of the rallying cries in the domestic politics of Egypt.The water insecurity issue is similar but not exactly the same in the case of Sudan.Sudan’s dependence on the Nile waters is obvious but the country has some domestically flowing rivers.Athough the plantations in eastern Sudan receive a certain amount of water from Eritrea,the water flow is seasonal and inadequate.For that reason,Sudan is not in any way in a significantly better position than Egypt.Amid such an upstream dependency,Egypt and Sudan had been jointly defending the privileges they got from the 1929 and 1959 Treaties.These two downstream states had mutual benefits in maintaining the status quo.In its attempt to maintain the status quo,Egypt made sedulous efforts by manipulating some riparians and tried to establish some ‘seemingly multilateral arrangements’.In between the two sides’ struggle to challenge as well as maintain the status quo,different approaches such as unilateralism,bilateralism,multilateralism and mixed ones co-existed all along.The main objective of the upstream riparians was to de-securitize water issues and to come up with an agreement-based fair utilization of the water resources of the Nile River through multilateralism.In so doing,the upstream riparians made different attempts to establish river basin organizations,though no visible success has yet been achieved.Attempts made by the counter-hegemons didn’t lead to a legally based arrangement among the Nile riparian states for the equal utilization of the Nile water resources.The issue of the reconfiguration of power has also been discussed in chapter three.At this stage,Ethiopia emerged not only as the leader of the counter-hegemonic states but also used that momentum to go for unilateralism.When the non-hydro political issues such as the end of the cold war and the possibility to access for alternative sources of funds for different water development related projects increased,Egypt’s bargaining power progressively declined.The more Ethiopia opted for unilateralism,the further it abandoned the upstream Nile riparians’ collective issue and resorted into safeguarding its own national interest.Hence,this paved the way for the shift of power from Nile Basin into the ENSB.The major move made by Ethiopia to construct the largest Dam in Africa witnessed the total shift of the Nile issue into the Eastern Nile.Through a tactic known as‘resource capture’,Ethiopia used its geographic power and commenced the construction of the GERD.The GERD is then hydro politically important because it clearly indicates the shift of power from asymmetry into non-asymmetry-though it is difficult to claim that power symmetry has already been achieved.The GERD is also a sense of pride to Ethiopia and will generate ideational power to the country.Once completed and goes fully operational,the hydro electric energy from the Dam will generate Ethiopia both material and bargaining powers within the ENSB and beyond.The issues of food and energy securities then have been examined vis-à-vis the above mentioned hydro political trajectory along the Nile.Chapter four answers sub-question number one: “How did the asymmetrical hydro political interactions along the ENSB riparian states affect their endeavor to achieve food and energy securities?” The first sub-question examines the issue of energy and food securities during the period of time of Egyptian hydro-hegemony;Sudan’s hydro-bandwagoning and Ethiopia’s status of a ‘weak’ riparian state.This period starts from the time the hydro political interaction took shape along the Nile River in general and the ENSB in particular.For the reasons mentioned in the last chapter,thanks to the 1959 Bilateral Agreement between two of them,Egypt and Sudan acquired exclusive rights for the utilization of the waters of Nile River(ENSB as well)and used such opportunity to boost their agricultural sectors and to enhance their energy sectors.Chapter five has attempted to answer sub-question number two i.e.“How does the non-asymmetrical hydro political interaction along the ENSB states affect their endeavor to achieve food and energy securities?” The main focus of this chapter is to find out the real hydro political impact of the departure from the Egyptian hydro hegemony into a situation where there is no new hydro-hegemonic power emerged nor the older one effectively maintained its control.During this period of post power reconfiguration,there emerged a number of changes linked with hydro political interactions.Ethiopia emerged as a prominent and leading country among the counter-hegemony block of upstream riparians and used mixed approaches of unilateralism,bilateralism as well as multilateralism to effectively challenge Egypt.Egypt’s relative decline of hydro-hegemony,combined with Ethiopia’s assertiveness due to the relative development in the country’s economic power capability,at last paved the way to a total shift of the hydro political contest from basin level into sub-basin level.Ethiopia’s tactics of resource capture finally exposed Egypt’s soft belly i.e.its water vulnerability.Within these developments in the ENSB,the issues of food and energy securities have then been examined in the sub-basin in chapter five.Sudan’s situation has also been affected by the change in hydro political interaction along the ENSB.After the reconfiguration of power,Sudan has been changing its positions.In the formative years of the post-cold war period,Sudan went into a tactical alliance with Ethiopia by so doing it challenged Egypt and contributed in the ‘shaking of the equilibrium’ of the downstream riparians.That was the time when Sudan went into unilateral abstraction of Nile waters for augmenting its agriculture and used the Nile waters to generate hydro electric power.When the construction of the GERD commenced,Sudan attempted to desecuritize the water issue and expressed its support to the project hoping that it would get cheap electricity from Ethiopia.But,Sudan no sooner changed its position and resecuritized the Dam issue and has now re-aligned itself with Egypt against Ethiopia.The main findings concerning the period of asymmetrical hydro-political interaction and its impact on the issues of energy and food securities is that Egypt utilized the Nile waters(and largely the ENSB waters)as much as it wanted and boosted its energy sector through hydroelectric power;and enhanced its food sector by expanding its irrigation of different scales.Taking into account the then relatively smaller number of population Egypt had,both the food and energy sectors of the country benefited from the Nile and chiefly from the ENSB waters.Next to Egypt,Sudan was the most beneficiary when it comes to the utilization of the Nile(and hence ENSB waters)for both energy and food sectors.During that time,Sudan was able to relatively increase its hydropower energy and expand its irrigation schemes.Despite that,the country suffered from problems that are not directly related with hydro politics.Civil war,ineffective water utilization and other factors were among the prominent hurdles Sudan had.Such problems in general had immensely incapacitated Sudan’s development endeavors.During the period of Egyptian hydro hegemony,Ethiopia was the only disadvantageous country among the ENSB riparians.Ethiopia was not able to utilize its water resources for development purposes mainly due to its ‘weak’ riparian status i.e.it was overwhelmed by Egypt’s dominance in ideational,bargaining and material powers.For that reason,Ethiopia was not capable to gear its water resources to generate sufficient hydropower energy to solve energy problems;and similarily Ethiopia was not able to expand its agriculture through irrigation to compensate the inadequacies of its rain-fed agriculture so that to achieve food security.But,it doesn’t mean all the food and energy related problems in Ethiopia were necessarily and directly linked with Ethiopia’s incapability to harness its water resources for development.During the period of Egypt’s hydro hegemony,no meaningful,sustainable and basin wide or sub-basin wide cooperation evolved.Except the apparently bilateral but unequal relationship that emerged between Egypt and Sudan.The main findings of the non-asymmetrical hydro political interaction and its impact on the issues of energy and food securities are that Ethiopia has been able to use its water resources with less restriction.Since the reconfiguration of power took its stage,Ethiopia’s abstraction of water for agricultural purposes has been gradually increasing and thus contributed to the augmentation of the country’s food sector.Similarly,the period of post-power reconfiguration along the Nile basin has enabled Ethiopia to utilize its water resources for the generation of hydroelectricity.Eventually,Ethiopia’s accessibility to electricity has been impressively increasing and the prospect to increase affordability and sustainability is very promising.Egypt’s apparent decline of power,the rising demand for water,its most downstream position and its resultant upstream dependency is gradually exposing the country to water insecurity.Though,Egypt has been able to register an enviable progress in ensuring access to electricity at a national level,this progress has been for the most part achieved through the exploitation of its non-renewable energy resources such as oil and natural gas that comprise more than 75 percent of the total energy production.But,the issues of sustainability will in the future be put into sticky situation because the availability of oil and natural gas will decline in the coming few decades.As of concerned Egypt’s food sector,the new development on power reconfiguration has exacerbated the problems of food availability that has already been under pressure due to the continuous increase of its population.Having lost its bargaining and ideational powers;having its material power jeopardized and its geographic position became its soft-belly due to Ethiopia’s manipulation of its geographic power,Egypt can do little to reverse the current situation.As of concerned to Sudan,the general trends in the post-power reconfiguration period pertaining the energy sector is that the sustainability and accessibility of energy supply is imperiled both because firstly Sudan doesn’t have any reliable sources of water that could adequately be used to generate hydro electric power.Secondly,Sudan has shown little progress in exploiting other renewable sources of energy such as wind,geo-thermal and solar.Thirdly,the country doesn’t have any dependable non-renewable sources of energy such as oil and bio-fuel due to mainly the separation of South Sudan.In the agricultural sector,despite Sudan has one of the largest irrigable fertile lands in Africa,recently it has been one of the importers of food products thus indicating its vulnerability to food gaps.There are different reasons behind Sudan’s failure to achieve food security.There are many conclusions that can be drawn from this research.Through out the two periods of the trajectories of hydro political interaction among the ENSB riparians,there existed a linear relationship in the nexus of power-water-food-energy.The state that had dominant power was able to abstract voluminous amount of water and used the water to increase its agricultural sector and also to enhance its energy sector.And equally true is,the weaker the power capability a riparian state has,the less amount of water it could withdraw and the lesser the state could attain in its energy and food securities.Another conclusion that can be drawn about the power relation between Ethiopia and Egypt is that,there was and there still is an inversely proportional power relations between two of them.For that reason,the two riparians have had mutually-exclusive national interests concerning water resources along the ENSB.Concerning Sudan,the state had so far been benefiting by aliening itself with either side and if there would be any agreement between Ethiopia and Egypt,Sudan can use its mid-stream riparian position and free ride by capitalizing from any would be agreement between Ethiopia and Egypt. |
PDF Full Text Request