Course:CONS200/2023WT1/Ecological and International Issues Caused by the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam

The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam is located in Ethiopia on the Blue Nile, near the border of Sudan.

The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, commonly referred to as the GERD, is the largest hydropower dam in Africa. The large-scale project began construction in 2011. Following 11 years of construction, the dam began to generate power in 2022. Residing in Ethiopia, it is found a mere 10 kilometres (6 miles) from the Ethiopian-Sudanese border in the basin of the Blue Nile. Completion of the dam has been predicted to bring great societal benefits to the people of Ethiopia including aiding to tackle “poverty, hunger, and [in providing] affordable energy.” The GERD would also aid in growing Ethiopia’s economy by enabling the country to sell excess energy produced to nearby nations.

Despite its great expected benefits to the Ethiopian people, the dam has been embroiled in controversy since it was proposed. This controversy is a result of the harmful effects it would have on the environment and on neighbouring nations. In particular, the downstream nations of Sudan and Egypt consider the GERD a “threat” due to the negative impacts the dam would have on their access to water and the potential environmental impacts which include destruction of wildlife habitats, decreases in biodiversity, changes in local climate patterns, and harm to soil and water quality.

Throughout the years, the three primary parties to be impacted by the dam, Ethiopia, Egypt, and Sudan, have met for discussions and negotiations to resolve these long-standing conflicts of interest. Unfortunately, little has come from these discussions and no agreements have been made. A complex history between the three North-East African nations has made resolutions difficult to come by.

Background

Water shortages and limited infrastructure for basic needs heavily affect local populations health and stability in Ethiopia

The GERD is complex in nature due to historical context, water sovereignty, and the demands of transboundary governance. There is a legacy of conflict between Egypt and Ethiopia which can be traced before European colonialism which continued into the Western 'Scramble for Africa'. This continues to have an impact on the relationships between Ethiopia and Egypt, making governance of a shared resource like water incredibly complex. To look back, there were significant geographical boundary changes across the continent of Africa imposed by colonial governments throughout the era of colonisation in the mid-1900s. One example is the agreement signed in 1902 creating a boundary splitting Ethiopia, when Sudan was under British colonial rule. These imposed treaties and agreements depend on the context, but many were disregarded throughout fights for independence throughout the 1960s. Without unilateral control of colonial governments, boundaries and agreements over shared resources including the Nile basin have been renegotiated or insufficiently addressed. This also means each independent country has formed "different positions and invoked different doctrines […] regarding watercourses management and conflict by reference to the domestic and international law". The Nile Basin is particularly concerning for conflict as a "particular complex case of transboundary river, for [a] number of countries and lives of people involved, among which there is no multilateral agreement recognized and in effect". Negotiations continue between Sudan, Ethiopia, and Egypt, but the politically tense context has become a social issue due to famine and lack of water access.  This became prominent with the environmental impacts of the 1980s when "low rainfall contributed to an iconic global famine that dramatically affected Ethiopia in 1984-5 and an exceptional low flow on the Nile raised unprecedented concerns in Egypt in 1988". These conditions have changed overtime, with increased use of international aid and ongoing concern over generalised experiences of poverty. These social and environmental realities continue to increase in severity with "the effects of climate change and population growth", within Ethiopia and neighbouring countries. In this context the motives behind the creation of the dam are politically and socially compromised. The political context that the GERD exists in is a transboundary context of complex governance over water, but it is a project led by Ethiopia for the benefit of their own citizens. Especially considering that Ethiopia has been unable to use the waters from the Nile basin due to "lack of capacity and resources'', which the construction of the GERD is meant to address. Moreover, the GERD is meant to "generate 5150 megawatts of electricity from thirteen turbines and will have an enormous reservoir that can hold seventy-four billion cubic metres (bcm) of water". Therefore, the dam will provide energy to about 65 million Ethiopians, thereby encouraging energy developments and increased opportunities to address poverty. Ethiopia goes on to claim that these benefits will be felt by neighbouring nations including Egypt and Sudan with "more regular flow of water, better siltation prevention, a reduction in evaporation, and cheaper electricity". This is especially important to note because Sudan has been relatively supportive of the dam since 2012 while Egypt maintains that the dam poses a threat to their natural environment and water access.

Agriculture in Egypt heavily relies upon access to mineral rich water from the Nile Basin

Impacts on Water Access Outside of Ethiopia

Since the GERD was completed in July 2020, there have been ongoing conversations between Ethiopia and the nations affected sharing the Blue Nile, including Egypt and Sudan, particularly regarding water scarcity. As Ethiopia does not struggle with water scarcity as 94% of its territory has flowing freshwater rivers, and 50% of Sudan and 96% of Egypt are considered desert. With the GERD's inevitable impacts on the environment shared by other countries, there have been high tensions because the dam deprives Egypt and Sudan of their water. This water is particularly important because it is relied upon for their current agricultural systems. Sudan and Ethiopia have formed serious mitigation plans to protect their country’s land and systems, such as agriculture and flood prevention, but nothing has been signed and officially agreed upon. However, Ethiopia and Egypt have not come to a consensus on a shared mitigation plan that considers Egypt's water needs. Egypt is currently struggling with water salinity spreading over their agricultural lands, making them less efficient as the ocean water travels south into the irrigation systems, affecting crop output due to the new freshwater scarcity. These are severe problems for Egypt, and many studies have been taking place to help Egypt advocate for a say in GERD management to protect Egypt's riverside environments further.

President Donald J. Trump, with Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin, meeting with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Sudan Asma Mohamed Abdalla, left, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Egypt Sameh Shoukry, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Gedu Andargachew. In this meeting in 2019, President Trump showed his support for negotiations to continue among Ethiopia, Egypt, and Sudan to come to a collaborative agreement over the GERD.

While there is many tensions about the effects and negotiations after the building of the dam started, there is also international law concerns and procedural issues the dam neglected regarding water access, human rights, and the environment. United Nations and the World Bank consider this project a high-risk infrastructure regarding the unsettlement it could and has caused to Egypt and Sudan with human rights and access to water for an estimated 280 million people. The dam has the capacity to hold 88% of the Blue Nile's annual water flow, essentially putting immense power over the lives of millions in Ethiopia's national ethical responsibility. The dam project should have gone through an international law process of development before its approval. During this process, Ethiopia would have had to conduct Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs). Without an ESIA, the dam's harm and effect on the ecological and socioeconomic environment cannot fully be realized. It is, for this reason the majority of data and understandings of the dam's adverse effects are debated, and why there is trouble in creating transnational agreements with Egypt and Sudan as there is no scientifically backed up evidence to support the agreements and mitigations about the dam's management. In essence, the water distribution and the dam's effects is subjective in international policy, making the fight for water access in the affected countries difficult to negotiate or realize.

Environmental Concerns + The Path Forward

Flooding levels of the GERD after completion. The red indicates flood levels on July 10 2020, and the Yellow is the expansion of flooding on July 21 2020

While parties from Sudan, Egypt, and Ethiopia have discussed water security concerns, further action is necessary to address the broader environmental impacts of the GERD, particularly for countries downstream. Although hydrological impacts have been studied, there is an absence of broad environmental impacts, such as with an Environmental and Social Impacts Assessment (ESIA), which is a violation of international law when a project crosses international boundaries . Comparative assessment to other dams predicts that GERD will flood natural habitats, causing displacement of terrestrial species and a reduction in biodiversity and increasing eutrophication due to decaying plant matter . There is evidence from hydrological studies that in Sudan, the dam will cause reduced sediments that will increase water evaporation and water pollution rates that affect water quality, which in turn affects biodiversity . In Egypt, groundwater will deplete and will allow for intrusion of seawater, increasing the salinity of the soil . This empirical evidence needs to be presented to policymakers to enforce regulations on this project, minimize ecological impacts, and aid in negotiations between parties. Further political discussion and agreements is required to reach a compromise with the issue of the effects of the dam. Ethiopia claims that the dam supports their sustainable development goal by increasing water security with increased access . It can be argued that it hinders Sudan and Egypt’s sustainable development due to decreased irrigation for agriculture and environmental effects. Negotiation of international law among the UN with talks on sustainable development rights is necessary in order to facilitate compromise.

Conclusion

Over a decade filled with halts in construction and attempts at negotiations has done little to change the course of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam project. Given the intense backlash from neighbours Egypt and Sudan, it is easy to view Ethiopia's choice to continue and complete their contruction of the GERD as unnecessarily selfish and harmful. However, a deeper look into the intertwined histories of the three African countries has shown why negotiations remain unsuccesful. In particular, the colonial era left behind a legacy of unjust treaties written in favour of Egypt and Sudan, which excluded Ethiopia. These treaties in combination with colonial-era boundary issues, global famine in the 1980s and poverty concerns, laid the groundwork for Ethiopia's attempt to take control of the boundary crossing water source. In fact, the GERD was recently been called Ethiopia's response to "unjust treaties that prevented it from using the Nile waters fairly [in years past]."

With the GERD having been filled in 2023, peace along the Blue Nile is unlikely to come soon.

Although more time and research is needed to ascertain the exact environmental impacts the GERD may bring in the coming years, the projected effects it may have on soil and water in Egypt and Sudan may impact the two countries' agricultural spheres. As well, destruction of habitats and the displacement of local species due may bring a harmful decrease in both terrestrial and aquatic biodiveristy.

In Ethiopia's effort to respond to past injustices and current human rights struggles, the country may be creating more human rights injustices within it's oppositional neighbours. In addition to the potential water pollutants and soil deteriorator which may impact Egyptian and Sudanese agricultural industries, these two countries are lacking in other major freshwater sources that could meet the needs of their citizens. As well, the dam's developement was found to demonstrate "poor recognition of international law."

Overall, the Ethiopian government has prioritised its country’s desire for social and economic development over the potential destruction of its neighbours. Further discussions between impacted parties and relevant environmental experts are desperately needed. Unfortunately, any future talks may be too little too late as the filling of the dam’s reservoir was completed earlier this fall.