Among other reasons, the settlement of issues through treaties is likely to be accepted by all of the parties in its true spirit and the execution and operation of the treaty is bound to be smooth and without tensions or strains. A treaty also plays a remedial as well as a preventive role by settling present disputes and prevents future disputes from flaring up by providing for mechanisms and procedures for dispute resolution. This stability can be consolidated and lead to integrated planning for the optimal exploitation and utilization of the shared resources.

However, to achieve a permanent agreement, the Blue-Nile sub-basin riparians must first be willing to negotiate. Negotiation requires the sub-basin’s riparians to be prepared to be convinced by principled arguments, respect the evidence others provide, and share a sense of responsibility for the common good grounded in “cooperation and consensus”. The relationships between the sub-basin riparians will tend toward cooperation only if each riparian realizes that the benefits of a mutually supportive relationship outweigh the possible perceived short-term economic or political advantages for some riparians by unilateral action.

In all of the studies of continuing as opposed to single-issue negotiation relationships, cooperation evolves when the parties work to satisfy the interests of those with whom they are negotiating. Furthermore, cooperation requires focus on additional gains and security that can be created by negotiation, rather than as a means to threaten, limit or deprive other riparians of benefits to which they are entitled. Indeed, the most important finding of recent theory and research in international negotiations is the importance of approaching negotiations from a problem solving rather than a confrontational perspective. In other words, rather than viewing one another as adversaries bargaining against one another, the sub-basin riparians must be prepared to view equitable utilization as the common problem that needs to be addressed by taking joint decisions. The essence of this approach is one of converting the present impasse in the sub-basin from a “zero-sum to a positive sum game.”

Indigenous Consensus Building

It is also established that national and domestic attitudes often influence the position national governments take or can take on the regional or international level. The principle of self-interest is a primary foundation for the actions of states in their foreign relations. Political leaders can rarely gain a sustainable internal political support for a generous or internationally minded foreign policy, irrespective of whether they are working within the framework of a parliamentary or an authoritarian regime, if they ignore the self-interest of the state.

Hence, in order for the three Blue Nile Sub-basin governments to cooperate and negotiate in an effective and representative manner, it is necessary to build trust, understanding, and empathy among the citizens in the sub-basin states because a sustainable agreement for the equitable utilization cannot be realized without their support. Inter-basin dialogue and consensus can lead to the erosion of negative images of the other side, and the establishment of a relationship among the basin riparians that helps foster an incremental process that may culminate in multilevel political and economic cooperation.

An inter-basin consensus building process, in which all those who have a stake in the outcome aim to reach agreement on facts, principles, actions, and outcomes that resolve or advance issues related to the sustainable and equitable utilization of the sub-basin’s water resources is therefore required. Namely, the basic substantive problems involved in international water resources, which form the core issues in the blue Nile Sub-basin such as: the problem of determination of order of priority for various uses; the problem of determination of the quantum of exact share of water for each sub-basin riparian; the problem of identifying the legal and equitable factors to determine the equitable shares of each contending riparian; and the problem of preservation, conservation, restoration, and sustainable and optimum use of the shared resource.

In part, the prospects of achieving an agreement depends on the realization by each riparian of the absence of rigid and concrete legal rules in the field of international water resources law; the absence of reciprocal rights and obligations among all of the sub-basin riparians involved; the recognition of the politico-legal character of issues underlying equitable utilization; the legitimate needs and aspirations of each riparian, the consequences of not achieving agreement; and finally, the limitations as well as the dimensions of the rights, claims and interests of each riparian.

To achieve common ground in the sub-basin and to elevate the quality of decisions in a problem solving atmosphere, the riparians must source the same knowledge base and make use of the best available information concerning:

(a) the geography of the sub-basin including and the size of the drainage area in the territory of each sub-basin state;

(b) the hydrology of the sub-basin including and the contribution of water by each sub-basin state;

(c) the climate affecting the sub-basin;

(d) the past utilization of the waters of the sub-basin including, in particular, existing utilization;

(e) the economic and social needs of each sub-basin state;

(f) the population dependent on the waters of the sub-basin in each state;

(g) the comparative costs of alternative means of satisfying the economic and social needs of each sub-basin state;

(h) the availability of other resources;

(I) the conservation, protection, development and economy of use of water and avoidance of unnecessary waste in the utilization of the waters of the sub-basin;

(j) the practicability of compensation to one or more of the co-basin states as a means of adjusting conflict among uses; and

(k) the degree to which the needs of the sub-basin state may be satisfied, without causing substantial injury to a co-basin state;

(l) the principles for determining preference among competing, conflicting or incompatible uses;

(m) the principles for protecting, creating or terminating of existing uses, and reserving by a co-basin state of the waters of an international drainage for future use;

(n) the obligation to prevent the causing of significant harm to other sub-basin states and general obligations to cooperate and exchange data;

(o) the obligation for prior notification, consultation and negotiation when a contemplated use by one sub-basin state affects another sub-basin state; and

(p) the obligation to protect, preserve and manage the watercourse in including ecosystem protection, pollution control and the introduction of new species in the sub-basin.

Studies have demonstrated that agreements that are impossible to make under conditions of high uncertainty often become possible only when uncertainty has been reduced. Supplying the citizens of the sub-basin states with such knowledge can minimize the negative effects of these factors and arouse empathy and the sense of judiciousness by making citizens realize that the status quo does not benefit the sub-basin and will not bring dividends to all of the concerned states. This awareness will help the concerned states to adopt a rational, reasonable and cooperative attitude to enable the political leaders to move forward in their negotiations to achieve a permanent agreement. Governments behave differently in information-rich environments and when high-quality and reliable information is made available on an even basis, states are likely to experience more cooperation notwithstanding self-interests and the distribution of power.

In the final analysis, states’ conception of their interests and how their objective should be pursued depend on the quality, quantity, and the distribution of reliable information. Creating indigenous epistemic communities within the sub-basin is therefore also a necessary corollary of the negotiation process.

Stakeholder and Citizen Involvement

However, consensus building also requires effective participation by all the stakeholders having an interest in the outcome – either because they are directly affected or because of some deeply held values that are enhanced or eroded. Therefore, an effective consensus building process must be inclusive; citizen participation, public involvement, as well as the involvement of all stakeholders (interested and/or impacted individuals, groups, and organizations) and the “authority” that has the mandate to make the ultimate decision must all be fostered.

Stakeholders and ordinary citizens are major actors because they can play a crucial role by holding governments accountable and serve as advisors, information gatherers and disseminators and play the role of advocates, mobilize public opinion and ensure that the concerns of all segments of the sub-basin population, are raised, known and addressed. Stakeholders and ordinary citizens can also assume the role of change agent, promoting new and different approaches that have not yet won support in government ranks and act as monitors to provide independent verification on information provided by their governments.

Stakeholders and ordinary citizen in the sub-basin countries can also engage in sub-basin wide issue definition to bring problems to the attention of the larger society and identify the scope and magnitude and the type of interaction required to address concerns. Once issues are identified, a consensus process can bring the citizens from each sub-basin state together to attempt to establish sub-basin wide “consensus” collectively on facts on which there is agreement and to clarify the scope and nature of differences in the understanding of the problem. They can also devise possible policy options for sub-basin wide consideration by their respective governments. Therefore, before cooperation can be secured not only the “elite” but also the stakeholders and ordinary citizens of each country in the sub-basin need to be able to discuss, acknowledge, appreciate, respect and address each other’s needs and concerns. Stakeholder and citizen involvement will also confer legitimacy on policy choices made and secure public acceptance and cooperation in the prioritization, compromise, negotiation, and implementation of the choices made.

Blue Nile River Sub-basin Indigenous Consensus Building Initiative (ICBI)

Consensus building and stakeholder and citizen involvement have been missing links in the negotiation or cooperation regime not only in the Blue Nile Sub-basin but also in most of the international river basins. Polemics, grandstanding, saber-rattling, feigned cooperation, delay, helplessness, and submission to self-serving western “experts”, institutions, and donors has been the conventional strategy. While it is short sighted and unsustainable, in view of the pressing socio-economic and political problems in the sub-basin, the dominant concern of western intervention is to advance western geo-political, security, and economic self-interests by maintaining the status quo in the sub-basin. Reliance on conventional western intervention, experts, and institutions to tackle “African problems” has not yet and is not likely to produce genuine peace, prosperity, employment, security, and respect for the rule of law, democracy and the protection of the environment in the sub-basin.

A genuine effort by western “donors” and institutions to achieve equitable us in the Blue Nile Sub-basin should at the very least focus on developing effective indigenous professional, technical, and institutional expertise aimed at building competence of local institutions, strengthening indigenous research capacity, and increasing the knowledge base in all of the sub-basin states. Therefore, the sub-basin states must reject the prevailing western “donor” and institutional self-serving approaches, which are based on hypothesis formulated to primarily advance western social and scientific research, interests, priorities, knowledge, and geopolitical concerns. With or without western financial support, the sub-basin states must strengthen their indigenous individual, institutional, and regional capability for knowledge, communication, cooperation, and consensus (epistemic communities) and create a positive sum environment to forge an effective treaty aimed at achieving lasting mutual benefits for all riparians in the sub-basin.

The ICBI could for example facilitate a genuine basin-wide stakeholder dialogue aimed at establishing the lacking indigenous, participatory, and adaptive management process for the equitable and sustainable utilization of the water resources in the Sub-basin.

Goals could include:

• strengthening the knowledge base;
• building local capacity to evaluate freshwater needs and management options for food security, poverty reduction, and ecosystem integrity in the sub-basin;
• raising awareness and building consensus between stakeholders at the local and national and regional levels on water resources allocation and use for sustainable economic development and environmental security.

The strategy for achieving this goal could include:

• establishment of interlocked research units within the sub-basin involving relevant institutions and policy makers to strength the knowledge base for equitable and sustainable utilization of the sub-basin;
• creation of an indigenous epistemic community, to conduct studies, research, analysis training and provide professional, expert, and technical support;
• establishment of a basin-wide program for public information, outreach, education and awareness;
• establishment of a basin-wide framework for grass roots involvement and participation; and
• establishment of an inclusive and comprehensive basin-wide dialogue and indigenous consensus building process to engage stakeholders and policy makers.

The ICBI should be a sustained indigenous program of activities managed from a Secretariat in Ethiopia (upper riparian) and Country Offices in Egypt and Sudan to instruct the implementation of the strategy for a policy system of consensus building by all stakeholders in the sub-basin and to direct the research agenda and priorities. The Secretariat should collaborate closely with the Nile Basin Initiative in Uganda, the Nile Basin Discourse, and the East Nile Basin Action Plan Coordinating Office in Ethiopia and all partners dedicated to an equitable and sustainable use of the waters of the Blue Nile River Sub-basin by all riparians.

Without indigenous sub-basin wide consensus, notwithstanding the millions of dollars of loans and “aid” from western institutions and donors to enlist western “experts,” “advisers,” consultants and “facilitators”, the aspiration to negotiate an agreement for the equitable, and sustainable utilization of the shared resources of the Blue Nile Sub-basin will not be realized. The conditional loans and “development aid” will continue to nurture the swelling western “NGO”, “AID”, and “EXPERT” communities and the accustomed conferences, workshops, dialogues, and forums on the Nile will continue to cater the interests of western experts to “exchange views,” “forge partnerships,” present papers, network, renew acquaintances and to meet, advise, and “facilitate” the “natives.”

The prevailing approach has and will continue to disenfranchise the sub-basin stakeholders’ and undermine their capacity to appreciate and deal with the acute social and economic inequalities that exist within the countries in the sub-basin. However, the challenge remains whether the “friends” of the sub-basin are ready to finance a “radical” notion as “indigenous” consensus building, which may subordinate their commanding role in the sub-basin, and empower and entrust the natives in the sub-basin to chart their own destiny.

The recent announcement by the Ministry of Water Resources Development that “Ethiopia Sticks To International Rules On Utilizing Cross Boundary Rivers and the follow up announcement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that “Ethiopia would not do ‘anything’ that may threaten the security of Egypt in connection with the utilization of the Nile waters amplify the need for a clear consensus in light of previous inconsistent declarations by the Prime Minister, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Water Resources Development, and Ethiopian Legal Scholars. The development of rain water harvesting “technology”, earthen dams, small irrigation projects, potable water projects, harnessing small streams, traditional agricultural practices, resettlement, power sharing arrangements with neighboring states, further new studies in southern and western river basins, solar and wind powered energy are clear examples of western interference and attitudes towards Ethiopia. While praiseworthy, such efforts will not address the apparent fundamental long-term needs of the Ethiopian people.

Notwithstanding the commendable efforts of the Ethiopian Government and the recent import of diesel generators, headlines such as “Load Shading Raised To Twice-A-Week As Water Volumes Dwindle” are neither likely to attract the sought foreign investment nor appease the growing needs of a country which provides less than 5% of its population with electricity. Is Ethiopia content with its present status as the poorest country in the world supplying the west with horticulture, coffee, hides, and agricultural products while relying on permanent foreign welfare, food aid, and relief to feed its population? Is Ethiopia content to limit its influence over the Nile basin to water shed, erosion (silt control), flood control, and pollution management, power sharing and forecasting for the primary benefit of the lower riparians?

The time has come for the Ethiopian Government to assert itself and to aggressively evaluate and reject approaches, experts, aid, ‘donations’, conditional loans and grants, and international institutions, which seek to enslave its citizens in perpetual poverty to preserve the status quo in favor of more important allies through enduring experiments, incentives, and delays. The time has also come for the government to recruit and employ competent Ethiopians to assist in formulating a coherent, comprehensive and effective policy rather than reliance on the present Ethiopian “technical experts” and bureaucrats who appear to have been effectively indoctrinated by the donor community to echo the western disposition.