You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:
You are not allowed to execute the action you have requested.
While the historical, geographical and scientific facts involved in a water management problem or water conflict can often be attributed to well-respected sources and agreed upon by multiple parties, each problem can also have multiple facets and not all issues may be considered equally important by all parties. Certain perspectives may interpret the implications of neutral facts in a different way from others.
Because of this, each case study can be linked to multiple articles in which contributors can provide analysis or insights and synthesis different viewpoints or lines of evidence. Professionals, academics, and community-members who have some involvement with the case first hand might have different experiences or interpretations to share. The goal is to collect a wide range of knowledge on these cases, which requires incorporating multiple (and sometimes conflicting) viewpoints into each case.
Each of these Analysis, Synthesis, & Insights (ASI) sections is protected -- only the user who created the section, official editors, and administrators have the ability to change the content in an individual ASI. Editors who take on the task of editing a user-contributed ASI section are committed to only adjust grammar and stylistic issues, and will avoid any changes that could lead to a different meaning or adjust content.
We suggest that anyone who would like to help improve an ASI section leave comments for the author and community on the discussion page for the specific ASI section. If you have questions about how this works, please refer to the help section or contact a site administrator.
Tameisha Henry Enter the contributor's name and (optional) link to a descriptive website, such as a professional bio or AquaPedia user page.
Enter the contributor's name and (optional) link to a descriptive website, such as a professional bio or AquaPedia user page.
Link to Case Study :
Summary - Displayed only in Case Study: The key to mitigating the negative effects of power asymmetry in water negotiations is to expand the proverbial pie by creating additional value and diversifying the menu of negotiating agenda items. This should include efforts to move away from viewing the Nile as a fixed resource towards the efficient and effective use, reuse, and repurposing of the Nile waters.
Image Upload - open the image upload page in a new tab: Upload a File View all Files You can find or upload a file and then return here.
ASI - Extended Article Content The key to mitigating the negative effects of power asymmetry in water negotiations is to expand the proverbial pie by creating additional value and diversifying the menu of negotiating agenda items. This should include efforts to move away from viewing the Nile as a fixed resource towards the efficient and effective use, reuse, and repurposing of the Nile waters. This should also include options for aquifer storage and demand management, in addition to scientifically-supported water management tools like dams. Part of the challenge with this protracted transboundary water conflict has been that, because of the vulnerable position of the downstream riparian states and the unilateral moves of Ethiopia, the states are acting reactively, rather than proactively, in defense of access to what they view as a fixed and finite resource. The future of this conflict will need to move towards a combination of state-led demand management and cooperative supply allocation with less focus on the quantity of water each state receives and increased attention to the varying domestic infrastructural situations. The Cooperative Framework Agreement negotiations should be revisited in light of recent changes to the geopolitical situation and the discussion should be oriented around a scientific and empirical understanding of each state’s water situation. Success will require the negotiations to move away from the deep-seated, nationalistic emotions surrounding the Nile towards a view of the Nile as a shared resource able to satisfy all states’ needs, through joint needs assessments and Nile River water analyses and modeling to increase transparency. Additionally, the negotiating agenda should be expanded to include non-water issues like commodities trading so that the upstream nations are incentivized to participate fully. Without this expansion the upstream nations will not feel any “pain” which means the conflict will not move towards a mutually hurting stalemate and the parties will not be motivated to make any changes to the status quo. Since enhancing negotiating power is about improving the combined potential of multiple factors the lower riparian states should leverage their trade advantage with Ethiopia’s water access advantage to balance the negotiating power. The conflict appears ripe for re-negotiation under the Nile Basin Initiative because of the states’ observed recent consensus on a number of issues. (Salah El-Din Amer et al) These gains should be used to fuel negotiations and transform the nature of regional cooperation between the states. '''Areas of Consensus''' # All three countries are willing and committed to cooperate over shared water resources through the Nile Basin Initiative process. # All three countries agree to develop joint and mutually beneficial projects, including those involving watershed management, Hydro-Electric Power and joint irrigation projects. # As a concrete sign of working together for the benefit of their shared resources the three countries of the Eastern Nile Basin have already established the ENSAP secretariat (the Eastern Nile Technical Regional Office, ENTRO) to oversee implementation. # The Nile Basin countries are in the process of discussing legal and institutional questions. This first occurred in the D3 project; more recently, it is a part of the NBI Negotiating Committee. # The Nile Basin Countries have agreed on a Shared Vision under the Shared Vision Program, a collaborative action, exchange of experience, and trust and capacity building project intended to build a strong foundation for regional cooperation.
Practitioner Academic Participant Observer
Analysis Synthesis Personal Insights Professional Insights
Keywords
Help others find your ASI by providing keywords or short phrases. Selecting the arrow or entering a few letters will show you keywords others have used to describe their contributions
Provide a summary of the type/purpose of updates you have made. This summary is displayed on the "History" tab for the page and is not part of the page as it is viewed:
This is a minor edit Watch this page
Cancel