Since its 50th anniversary in 1994, the World Bank has been led by four presidents: Lewis Preston until his untimely death in 1995; then James Wolfensohn, who gave the institution new energy, purpose and legitimacy; followed by Paul Wolfowitz, whose fractious management tossed the World Bank into deep crisis; and most recently, Robert Zoellick, who will be remembered for having stabilized the bank and provided effective leadership during its remarkably swift and strong response to the global financial crisis.

Throughout these years of ups and downs in the bank’s leadership, standing and lending, the overall trend of its global role was downhill. While it remains one of the world’s largest multilateral development finance institutions, its position relative to other multilateral financing mechanisms is now much less prominent. Other multilateral institutions have taken over key roles. For example, the European Union agencies and the regional development banks have rapidly expanded their portfolios, and new “vertical funds” such as the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria have become major funding vehicles. At the same time, according to a 2011 OECD Development Assistance Committee report multilateral aid has declined as a share of total aid. Meanwhile, non-governmental aid flows have dramatically increased, including those from major foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, but also from new internet-based channels bundling small individual donations, such as Global Giving. The World Bank— which 20 years ago was still the biggest and most powerful global development agency and hence a ready target for criticism— today is just one of the many institutions that offer for development to the poor and emerging market economies.

Against this backdrop, the World Bank, its members and Dr. Kim face three options in its long-term trajectory over the next 10 to 20 years: 1) the bank can continue on its current path of gradual decline; 2) it might be radically scaled back and eventually eliminated, as other aid channels take over; or 3) it can dramatically reinvent itself as a global finance institution that bundles resources for growing global needs.

There is no doubt in this author’s mind that the World Bank should remain a key part of the global governance architecture, but that requires that the new president forge an ambitious long-term vision for the bank – something that has been lacking for the last 30 years – and then reform the institution and build the authorizing environment that will make it possible to achieve the vision.

Option 1: “Business as Usual” = Continued Gradual Decline

The first option, reflecting the business-as-usual approach that characterized most of the Zoellick years of leadership will mean that the bank will gradually continue to lose in scope, funding and relevance. Its scope will be reduced since the emerging market economies find the institution insufficiently responsive to their needs. They have seen the regional development banks take on increasing importance, as reflected in the substantially greater capital increases in recent years for some of these institutions than for the World Bank in relative terms (and in the case of the Asian Development Bank, even in absolute terms). And emerging market economies have set up their own thriving regional development banks without participation of the industrial countries, such as the Caja Andina de Fomento (CAF) in Latin America and the Eurasian Development Bank in the former Soviet Union. This trend will be reinforced with the creation of a “South Bank” or “BRIC Bank”, an initiative that is currently well underway.

At the same time, the World Bank’s soft loan window, the International Development Association (IDA), will face less support from industrial countries going through deep fiscal crises, heightened competition from other concessional funds, and a perception of reduced need, as many of the large and formerly poor developing countries graduate to middle-income status. It is significant that for the last IDA replenishment much of the increase in resources was due to its growing reliance on advance repayments made by some of its members and commitments against future repayments, thus in effect mortgaging its future financial capacity. The World Bank’s status as a knowledge leader in development will also continue to be challenged with the rise of research from developing countries and growing think tank capacity, as well as a proliferation of private and official agencies doling out advice and technical assistance.

As a result, under this option, over the next 10 to 20 years the World Bank will likely become no more than a shadow of the preeminent global institution it once was. It will linger on but will not be able to contribute substantially to address any of the major global financial, economic or social challenges in the future.
 
Option 2: “The Perfect Storm” = Breaking Up the World Bank

In 1998, the U.S. Congress established a commission to review and advise on the role of the international financial institutions. In 2000, the commission, led by Professor Allan Meltzer, released its recommendations, which included far-reaching changes for the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, most of them designed to reduce the scope and financial capacities of these institutions in line with the conservative leanings of the majority of the commission’s members. For the World Bank, the “Meltzer Report” called for much of its loan business and financial assets to be devolved to the regional development banks, in effect ending the life of the institution as we know it. The report garnered some attention when it was first issued, but did not have much impact in the way the institution was run in the following 10 years.

In 2010, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee released a report on the international financial institutions, which called on them to aim toward “succeeding in their development and economic missions and thereby putting them out of business”. However, it did not recommend a drastic restructuring of the multilateral development banks, and instead argued strongly against any dilution of the U.S. veto right, its lock on leadership selection, and its voting share at the IMF and World Bank. While not dramatic in its short-term impact, these recommendations were likely a strong factor in the subsequent decisions made by the Obama administration to oppose a substantial increase in contributions by emerging markets during the latest round of capital increase at the World Bank to push for an American to replace Robert Zoellick as World Bank president. These actions reinforced for emerging market countries that the World Bank would not change sufficiently and quickly enough to serve their interests, and thus helped create the momentum for setting up a new “South Bank.”

While there seems to be no imminent risk of a break-up of the World Bank along the lines recommended by the Meltzer Report, the combination of fiscal austerity and conservative governments in key industrial countries, compounded by a declining interest of the emerging market countries in sustaining the institution’s future, could create the perfect storm for the bank. Specifically, as governments face constrained fiscal resources, confront the increasing fragmentation of the multilateral aid architecture, and take steps to consolidate their own aid agencies, they might conclude that it would be more efficient and fiscally prudent to rationalize the international development system. There is a obvious overlap on the ground in the day-to-day business of the World Bank and that of the regional development banks. This is a reality which is being fostered by the growing decentralization of the World Bank into regional hubs; in fact, a recent evaluation by the World Bank’s Independent Evaluation Group concluded that “[r]ather than functioning as a global institution, the bank is at risk of evolving into six regional banks”. With the growing financial strength, institutional capacity and dynamism, and the apparently greater legitimacy of regional development banks among their regional members, shareholders might eventually decide that consolidation of the World Bank’s operations with those of the regional development banks, in favor of the latter, is the preferred approach.

There are lots of reasons to think that this drastic step would be difficult to take politically, financially and administratively, and therefore the inertia common to the international governance architecture will also prevail in this case. However, the new World Bank president would be well advised to be prepared for the possibility of a “perfect storm” under which the idea of eviscerating the World Bank could gain some traction,. The more the bank is seen to fade away, as postulated under Option 1 above, the greater is the likelihood that Option 2 would be given serious consideration.

Option 3: “A Different World Bank” = Creating a Stronger Global Institution for the Coming Decades

Despite all the criticism and the decline in its relative role as a development finance institution in recent decades, the World Bank is still one of the strongest and most effective development institutions in a world. According to a recent independent ranking of the principal multilateral and bilateral aid institutions by the Brookings Institution and the Center for Global Development “IDA consistently ranks among the best aid agencies in each dimension of quality”.

A third, radically different option from the first two, would build on this strength and ensure that the world has an institution 10 to 20 years from now which helps the global community and individual countries to respond effectively to the many global challenges which the world will undoubtedly face: continued poverty, hunger, conflict and fragility, major infrastructure and energy needs, education and health challenges, and global warming and environmental challenges. On top of this, global financial crises will likely recur and require institutions like the World Bank to help countries provide safety nets and the structural foundations of long-term growth, as the bank has amply demonstrated since 2008. With this as a broad mandate, how could the World Bank respond under new dynamic?

First, it would change its organizational and operating modalities to take a leaf out of the book of the vertical funds, which have been so successful in tackling major development challenges in a focused and scaled-up manner. This means substantially rebalancing the internal matrix between the regional and country departments on the one hand and the technical departments on the other hand. According to the same evaluation cited above, the World Bank has tipped too far toward short-term country priorities and has failed to adequately reflect the need for long-term, dedicated sectoral engagement. The World Bank needs to fortify its reputation as an institution that can muster the strongest technical expertise, fielding team with broad global experience and with first rate regional and country perspective. This does not imply that the World Bank would abandon its engagement at the country level, but it means that it would systematically support the pursuit of long-term sectoral and sub-sectoral strategies at the country level, linked to regional and global initiatives, and involving private-public partnership to assure that development challenges are addressed at scale and in a sustained manner.

Second, recognizing that all countries have unmet needs for which they need long-term finance and best practice in areas such as infrastructure, energy, climate change and environment, the World Bank could become a truly global development institution by opening up its funding windows to all countries, not just an arbitrarily defined subset of developing countries. This would require substantially revising the current graduation rules and possibly the financial instruments. This would mean that the World Bank becomes the global equivalent of the European Investment Bank (EIB) and of the German Kreditanstalt fuer Wiederaufbau (KfW)—development banks that have successfully supported the infrastructure development of the more advanced countries.

Third, the World Bank would focus its own knowledge management activities and support for research and development in developing countries much more on a search for effective and scalable solutions, linked closely to its operational engagement which would be specifically designed to support the scaling up of tested innovations, along the lines pioneered by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Fourth, for those countries with strong project management capacities, the World Bank would dramatically simplify its lending processes, following the example of the EIB. This would make it a much more efficient operational institution, making it a more attractive partner to its borrowing member countries, especially the emerging market economies.

Fifth, the membership of the World Bank would fix some fundamental problems with its financial structure and governance. It would invite the emerging market economies to make significantly larger contributions to its capital base in line with their much-enhanced economic and financial capacities. It would revamp the bank’s voting and voice rules to reflect the changed global economic weights and financial contributions of emerging markets. The bank would also explore, based on the experience of the vertical funds, tapping the resources of non-official partners, such as foundations and the private sector as part of its capital and contribution base. Of course, this would bring with it further significant changes in the governance of the World Bank. And the bank would move swiftly to a transparent selection of its leadership on the basis of merit without reference to nationality.

Conclusion: The New World Bank President Needs to Work with the G-20 Leaders to Chart a Course Forward
 
The new president will have to make a choice between these three options. Undoubtedly, the easiest choice is “business-as-usual”, perhaps embellished with some marginal changes that reflect the perspective and new insights that an outsider will bring. There is no doubt that the forces of institutional and political inertia tend to prevent dramatic change. However, it is also possible that Dr. Kim, with his background in a relatively narrow sectoral area may recognize the need for a more vertical approach in the bank’s organizational and operational model. Therefore, he may be more inclined than others to explore Option 3.

If he pursues Option 3, Dr. Kim will need a lot of help. The best place to look for help might be the G-20 leadership. One could hope that at least some of the leaders of the G-20 understand that Options 1 and 2 are not in the interest of their countries and the international community. Hopefully, they would be willing to push their peers to contemplate some radical changes in the multilateral development architecture. This might involve the setting up of a high-level commission as recently recommended by this author, which would review the future of the World Bank as part of a broader approach to rationalize the multilateral system in the interest of greater efficiency and effectiveness. But in setting up such a commission, the G-20 should state a clear objective, namely that the World Bank, perhaps the strongest existing global development institution, should not be gutted or gradually starved out of existence. Instead, it needs to be remade into a focused, effective and truly global institution. If Dr. Kim embraces this vision and develops actionable ideas for the commission and the G-20 leaders to consider and support, then he may bring the right medicine for an ailing giant.

Event Information

Para Español, hacer clic aquí

On December 17, 2014, President Barack Obama and President Raúl Castro announced that the United States and Cuba would seek to reestablish diplomatic relations. Since then, the two countries have engaged in bilateral negotiations in Havana and Washington, the United States has made several unilateral policy changes to facilitate greater trade and travel between the two countries, and bipartisan legislation has been introduced in the U.S. Congress to lift the travel ban. Meanwhile, conversations are ongoing about ending the 50-plus-year embargo and Cuba has continued the process of updating its economic system, including establishing new rules for foreign investment and the emerging private sector.

In light of the significant shifts underway in the U.S.-Cuba relationship, new questions arise about Cuba’s development model, and its economic relations with the region and the world. On Tuesday, June 2, the Latin America Initiative at Brookings hosted a series of panel discussions with various experts including economists, lawyers, academics, and practitioners to examine opportunities and challenges facing Cuba in this new context. Panels examined macroeconomic changes underway in Cuba, how to finance Cuba’s growth, the emerging private sector, and themes related to much-needed foreign investment.

Join the conversation on Twitter using #CubaGrowth

Video

• Panel 1: Trends in the Cuban economy in light of the new U.S.-Cuba context
• Panel 2: Financing Cuba’s growth, development, and trade
• Panel 3: Next steps for Cuba’s emerging private Sector–Cuentapropistas and cooperatives
• Panel 4: A New stage in foreign direct investment

Audio

• Rethinking Cuba: New opportunities for development - Part 1 (English)
• Rethinking Cuba: New opportunities for development - Part 2 (English)
• Rethinking Cuba: New opportunities for development - Part 1 (español)
• Rethinking Cuba: New opportunities for development - Part 2 (español)

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20150602_rethinking_cuba_transcript

The global consumer products company Unilever Plc announced on Monday a $35 million investment in Cuba’s Special Development Zone at Mariel. Late last year, Brascuba, a joint venture with a Brazilian firm, Souza Cruz, owned by the mega-conglomerate British American Tobacco (BAT), confirmed it would built a $120 million facility in the same location.

So far, these are the two biggest investments in the much-trumpeted Cuban effort to attract foreign investment, outside of traditional tourism. Yet, neither investment is really new. Unilever had been operating in Cuba since the mid-1990s, only to exit a few years ago in a contract dispute with the Cuban authorities. Brascuba will be moving its operations from an existing factory to the ZED Mariel site.

What is new is the willingness of Cuban authorities to accede to the corporate requirements of foreign investors. Finally, the Cubans appear to grasp that Cuba is a price-taker, and that it must fit into the global strategies of their international business partners. Certainly, Cuban negotiators can strike smart deals, but they cannot dictate the over-arching rules of the game.

Cuba still has a long way to go before it reaches the officially proclaimed goal of $2.5 billion in foreign investment inflows per year. Total approvals last year for ZED Mariel reached only some $200 million, and this year are officially projected to reach about $400 million. For many potential investors, the business climate remains too uncertain, and the project approval process too opaque and cumbersome. But the Brascuba and Unilever projects are definitely movements in the right direction.

But Unilever feared that granting its Cuban partner 51% would yield too much management control and could jeopardize brand quality. Unilever also balked at exporting products made in Cuba, where product costs were as much as one-third higher than in bigger Unilever plants in other Latin American countries.

The 2012 collapse of the Unilever contract renewal negotiations adversely affected investor perceptions of the business climate. If the Cuban government could not sustain a good working relationship with Unilever—a highly regarded, marquée multinational corporation with a global footprint—what international investor (at least one operating in the domestic consumer goods markets) could be confident of its ability to sustain a profitable long-term operation in Cuba?

In the design of the new joint venture, Cuba has allowed Unilever a majority 60% stake. Furthermore, in the old joint venture, Unilever executives complained that low salaries, as set by the government, contributed to low labor productivity. In ZED Mariel, worker salaries will be significantly higher: firms like Unilever will continue to pay the same wages to the government employment entity, but the entity’s tax will be significantly smaller, leaving a higher take-home pay for the workers. Hiring and firing will remain the domain of the official entity, however, not the joint venture.

Unilever is also looking forward to currency unification, widely anticipated for 2016. Previously, Unilever had enjoyed comfortable market shares in the hard-currency Cuban convertible currency (CUC) market, but had been largely excluded from the national currency markets, which state-owned firms had reserved for themselves. With currency unification, Unilever will be able to compete head-to-head with state-owned enterprises in a single national market.

Similarly, Brascuba will benefit from the new wage regime at Mariel and, as a consumer products firm, from currency unification. At its old location, Brascuba considered motivating and retaining talent to be among the firm’s key challenges; the higher wages in ZED Mariel will help to attract and retain high-quality labor.

Brascuba believes this is a good time for expansion. Better-paid workers at Mariel will be well motivated, and the expansion of the private sector is putting more money into consumer pockets. The joint venture will close its old facility in downtown Havana, in favor of the new facility at Mariel, sharply expanding production for both the domestic and international markets (primarily, Brazil).

A further incentive for investment today is the prospect of the lifting of U.S. economic sanctions, even if the precise timing is impossible to predict. Brascuba estimated that U.S. economic sanctions have raised its costs of doing business by some 20%. Inputs such as cigarette filters, manufacturing equipment and spare parts, and infrastructure such as information technology, must be sourced from more distant and often less cost-efficient sources.

Another sign of enhanced Cuban flexibility: neither investment is in a high technology sector, the loudly touted goal of ZED Mariel. A manufacturer of personal hygiene and home care product lines, Unilever will churn out toothpaste and soap, among other items. Brascuba will produce cigarettes. Cuban authorities now seem to accept that basic consumer products remain the bread-and-butter of any modern economy. An added benefit: international visitors will find a more ready supply of shampoo!

The Unilever and Brascuba renewals suggest a new realism in the Cuban camp. At ZED Mariel, Cuba is allowing their foreign partners to exert management control, to hire a higher-paid, better motivated workforce, and it is anticipated, to compete in a single currency market. And thanks to the forward-looking diplomacy of Raúl Castro and Barack Obama, international investors are also looking forward to the eventual lifting of U.S. economic sanctions.

This piece was originally published in Cuba Standard.

Event Information

For Cubans, “D17”—December 17, 2014—changed everything. On that day, the United States and Cuba announced that the two countries would renew diplomatic relations nearly 60 years after Fidel Castro came to power. For both countries, a new transformation has begun—but this time, it is the promise of Cuba’s insertion in the globalized economy and the crumbling U.S. embargo that is catalyzing change on the island.

On May 31, the Brookings Book Club hosted Nonresident Senior Fellow Richard E. Feinberg and NPR Correspondent Tom Gjelten for a discussion of Feinberg’s new book, “Open for Business: Building the New Cuban Economy” (Brookings Institution Press, 2016). The discussion focused on the factors that guided this monumental decision: international diplomacy; changes already underway in Cuba; successful Cuban entrepreneurs and foreign investments; and scenarios for Cuba’s future development path.

Three young Cuban leaders, including two whose vignettes appear in the book, “Open for Business,” joined the discussion and shared their personal experiences with the economic realities in Cuba today, as well as the opportunities created by the shift in Cuban-American relations.

Video

• Open for business: Building the new Cuban economy

Audio

• Open for business: Building the new Cuban economy

Transcript

• Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20160531_cuba_economy_transcript

Downloads

• Table of Contents
• Chapter One

• {9ABF977A-E4A6-41C8-B030-0FD655E07DBF}, 9780815726555, $32.00 Add to Cart

The Nile River is one of the most important resources in Africa and supports the livelihoods of millions of people. Recently, though, efficient and equitable utilization of the waters of the Nile River has become an increasingly contentious issue, with many of the riparian countries demanding a revision of what they believe is an inappropriate legal regime. Currently, allocation and utilization of the waters of the Nile River is governed by the colonial-era Nile Waters Agreements, which were negotiated and entered into with the help of Great Britain, but without the participation of most of the river’s riparian states. These agreements allocated most of the waters of the Nile River to the downstream riparians—Egypt and Sudan—largely ignoring the development needs of the upstream riparians, like Ethiopia, whose highlands provide most of the water that flows into the Nile River. The upstream riparians contend that they were not party to the Nile Waters Agreements and thus should not be bound by them. As such, they want these agreements set aside and a new, more equitable legal regime. Egypt, however, considers the existing legal regime binding on all the Nile River riparian states and, thus, is opposed to any changes that might interfere with or reduce its “historically acquired rights.” Already the decision by Addis Ababa to proceed with the construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam on the Blue Nile has caused significant deterioration in relations between Cairo and Addis Ababa.

With significant increases in population and pressure to deliver development, especially in the upstream riparian states, the demand for water has become a very important policy imperative in the region. In fact, earlier this year Egypt claimed that, in order to meet its growing water needs by 2050, it will need to add 21 billion cubic meters of water per year to its current water allocation of 55 billion cubic meters. Thus, there is a fear that if this issue is not fully resolved soon, it could morph into a military crisis.

In our new book, Governing the Nile River Basin: The Search for a New Legal Regime, we argue that the current legal regime governing the allocation and utilization of the waters of the Nile River is not tenable, and there is an urgent need for all the Nile River riparian states to enter into a mutually agreed upon legal regime. Issues pertaining to transboundary water resource management, the evolution of current agreements and the role and interests of colonial powers, theories of treaty succession, and the recent attempts by the riparian states to formulate a new legal agreement, are thoroughly examined. We conclude that the most effective way to deal with conflict arising from the allocation and utilization of the Nile River’s waters is for all the downstream and upstream riparians to engage in fresh negotiations to design and adopt a new legal regime. Through a fully consultative process, these countries can provide the Nile River Basin with a legal regime that enhances equitable allocation and utilization. 

On Monday, March 23, 2015, leaders of Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan met in the Sudanese capital Khartoum to sign an agreement that is expected to resolve various issues arising out of the decision by Ethiopia to construct a dam on the Blue Nile. The Khartoum declaration, which was signed by the heads of state of the three countries—Abdel Fattah al-Sisi (Egypt), Omar al-Bashir (Sudan), and Halemariam Desalegn (Ethiopia), has been referred to  as a “Nile Agreement,” and one that helps resolve conflicts over the sharing of the waters of the Nile River. However, this view is misleading because the agreement, as far we know, only deals with the Blue Nile’s Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam project (GERDP) and does not tackle the broader, still contentious issues of sharing of the Nile River waters among all riparian states. Thus, the new agreement does leave the conflict over the equitable, fair, and reasonable allocation and utilization of the waters of the Nile River unresolved.

As we celebrated Earth Day recently, it is important that we reflect upon the importance of natural resources such as the Nile and gain an understanding of why they are so important, especially for Africa and its long-term development. In fact, 160 million people rely on the waters of this important river for their livelihoods. Thus, preserving, maintaining, and using the waters and resources of the Nile River efficiently and sustainably is a goal shared by all.

These disagreements over the use of the Nile are not recent and, in fact, have a long history because of these countries’ high dependence on the waters of the Nile. In 1929, an agreement was concluded between Egypt and Great Britain regarding the utilization of the waters of the Nile River—Britain was supposedly representing its colonies in the Nile River Basin. [1] The Anglo-Egyptian Treaty covered many issues related to the Nile River and its tributaries. Of particular relevance to the present discussion is that it granted Egypt an annual water allocation of 48 billion cubic meters and Sudan 4 billion cubic meters out of an estimated average annual yield of 84 billion cubic meters. In addition, the 1929 agreement granted Egypt veto power over construction projects on the Nile River or any of its tributaries in an effort to minimize any interference with the flow of water into the Nile.

In 1959, Egypt and an independent Sudan signed a bilateral agreement, which effectively reinforced the provisions of the 1929 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty. The 1959 agreement increased water allocations to both Egypt and Sudan—Egypt’s water allocation was raised from 48 billion cubic meters to 55.5 billion cubic meters and Sudan’s from 4 billion cubic meters to 18.5 billion cubic meters, leaving 10 billion cubic meters to account for seepage and evaporation. Finally, the agreement stipulated that in the case of an increase in average water yield, the increased yield should be shared equally between the two downstream riparian states (i.e., Egypt and Sudan). The 1959 agreement, like the 1929 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty, did not make any allowance for the water needs of the other riparian states, including even Ethiopia, whose highlands supply more than 80 percent of the water that flows into the Nile River.

Over the years, especially as the populations of the other countries of the Nile River Basin have increased, and these countries have developed the capacity to more effectively harvest the waters of the Nile River for national development, disagreements have arisen over the fact that Egypt has insisted that the water rights it acquired through the 1929 and 1959 agreements (collectively referred to as the Nile Waters Agreements) be honored and that no construction project be undertaken on the Nile River or any of its tributaries without prior approval from Cairo. In fact, various Egyptian leaders have threatened to go to war to protect these so-called “acquired rights.” Upstream riparian states such as Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, and Ethiopia, have argued that they are not bound by these agreements because they were never parties to them. In fact, shortly after independence from Great Britain in 1961, Tanganyika’s (now Tanzania, after union with Zanzibar in 1964) new leader, Julius Nyerere, argued that the Nile Waters Agreements placed his country and other upstream riparian states at Egypt’s mercy, forced them to subject their national development plans to the scrutiny and supervision of Cairo, and that such an approach to public policy would not be compatible with the country’s status as a sovereign independent state. All the upstream riparian states have since argued in favor of a new, more inclusive legal framework for governing the Nile River Basin.

In 1999, the Nile River riparian states, [1] except Eritrea, signed the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) in an effort to enhance cooperation on the use of the “common Nile Basin water resources.” Under the auspices of the NBI, the riparian states began work on developing what they believed would be a permanent legal and institutional framework for governing the Nile River Basin. The Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA), as this agreement is called, formally introduced the concept of equitable water allocation into discussions about Nile governance, as well as a complicating concept called “water security.”

The CFA was ready for signature beginning May 10, 2010; Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda have signed it; and the Ethiopian parliament has ratified it. However, arguing that their “acquired rights” to the waters of the Nile River would not be protected, Egypt and Sudan immediately registered their intention not to sign the agreement because they objected to the wording of Article 14(b): “Nile Basin States therefore agree, in a spirit of cooperation: . . . (b) not to significantly affect the water security of any other Nile Basin State.” They then proposed an alternative wording for Article 14(b): “Nile Basin States therefore agree, in a spirit of cooperation: . . . (b) not to significantly affect the water security and current uses and rights of any other Nile Basin State,” (emphasis added). This wording was rejected by the upstream riparian states, who argue that “the current uses and rights” phrasing would entrench the concept of prior rights, including those created by the Nile Waters Agreements and effectively retain the inequity and unfairness that has characterized the allocation and utilization of water in the Nile River Basin since the 1920s.

On April 2, 2011, then-prime minister of Ethiopia, Meles Zenawi, laid the foundation for the construction of the Grand Ethiopia Renaissance Dam. The dam is located on the Blue Nile, in the Benishangul-Gumuz region of the country. Shortly after the announcement, authorities in Cairo immediately launched a campaign of words against what they believed was an attempt by Addis Ababa to interfere with Egypt’s water needs. Then Egyptian president, Mohamed Morsi, angrily stated that while he was not “calling for war” with Ethiopia, “Egypt’s water security cannot be violated at all,” that “all options are open,” and that Egyptians would not accept any projects on the Nile River that threatened their livelihood.

The 2015 agreement between Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan—with Sudan acting as an intermediary—represents an important but predictable shift in Cairo’s approach to the Nile River—that those colonial agreements are unsustainable. About 85 percent of the water that flows into the Nile River comes from the Ethiopian highlands through the Blue Nile; the rest comes from the White Nile. It was simply unrealistic and untenable for Egypt to believe that it could continue to prevent Ethiopia from using water resources located within its boundaries to meet the needs of its people. While it is true that Egyptians rely totally on the waters of the Nile River for all their needs, they must be sensitive to the development needs of the upstream riparian states, especially given the fact that the latter, particularly Ethiopia, are in a position to cause significant harm to the quantity and quality of water that flows into the Nile. Hence, the practical and more accommodating attitude taken by Egyptian leaders in their decision to endorse Addis Ababa’s Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam project (GERDP), should be welcomed. However, Cairo needs to go further and sign and ratify the CFA without insisting on changes to Article 14(b) to guarantee Egypt the rights created by the Nile Waters agreements. With the CFA in place, all 11 riparian states can negotiate in good faith to agree an allocation formula that is acceptable to all of them and considered fair, equitable, and reasonable. As Africa becomes more and more affected by climate change, the continent’s various groups must agree to cooperate in the development of institutional structures that can enhance their ability to live together peacefully and allocate their natural resources, including water, in a fair and sustainable manner.

Further reading

Mwangi S. Kimenyi & John Mukum Mbaku, Governing the Nile River Basin: The Search for a New Legal Regime (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 2015).

[1] Ethiopia was not one of those colonies. The British colonies then included Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika, and what was known as Anglo-Egyptian Sudan (a condominium under the control of Britain).

[2] The Nile River riparian states are Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, South Sudan, Sudan (Republic of), Tanzania, and Uganda. Egypt, Sudan, and South Sudan are downstream riparian states. South Sudan, however, has indicated that it does not recognize the 1959 bilateral agreement between Egypt and Sudan.