Notification and consultation of projects in Transboundary Water Resources: confidence building rather than legal obligation in the context of GERD

Abstract

Tension and confrontation between riparian states over planned measures are likely to occur in the absence of an inclusive legal framework governing the utilization, management, and conservation of transboundary watercourses. The construction of the Great Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), 2011, has reignited the tension on the use and share of the riparian countries over the Nile River. Egypt and Sudan have demanded notification of the project, the provision of all available information, and the time for the responses (to these questions) before Ethiopia continues with the construction of the GERD. However, Ethiopia has rejected the request for prior notification as a precondition for commencing the GERD project. As a result, Ethiopia and its downstream neighbours, particularly Egypt, have entered into various forms of consultations and negotiations due to concerns over the impact of the GERD. This article examines whether Ethiopia is under an international obligation not to implement the GERD without notifying and consulting Egypt and Sudan and whether the ongoing consultations and negotiations emanate from a legal obligation or mere confidence-building measures. The author argues that Ethiopia has no obligation (under international treaty obligations and customary international law on transboundary waters) to provide notification of planned measures such as GERD and engage in consultations.

The impoverishment of political discourse and legal rights in transboundary Teesta water management

“…SADC (1995) protocol on shared watercourse systems, the 2000 Revised SADC Protocol, the 1972 Stockholm Declaration on Human Environment, the Mekong Agreement (1995), the Sava River Basin Agreement (2002), the 1996 Mahakali River Treaty, the UNECE (1992) Water Convention, the 1992 Almaty Agreement, the UN (1997) Watercourses Convention, the Indus Waters Treaty (1960), the Agreement on the Nile River Basin Cooperative Framework (2010), the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity, the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, The Treaty concerning the Rio de la Plata (1973), and the Arbitral Tribunal in the Lake Lanoux case in 1957 provided for the same obligation (Chelkeba, 2017; Lake Lanoux Arbitration, 1957; Margaret, 2006; Rahman, 2006).…”

“…This principle was first applied in the Nile watercourse where the lower downstream riparian states-Egypt and Sudan constructed the Blue Nile River by the upper riparian state-Ethiopia. More cases can be found, for instance, Drava River, where the upper riparian state (Austria) consulted on plans for construction in the river basin area with lower riparian states (Yugoslavia) (Agreement on the Nile River Basin Cooperative Framework, 2010; Chelkeba, 2017).…”

“…The abovementioned principles have been embodied in many other international watercourses charters, declarations, treaties, conventions, rules, protocols, and agreements. For instance, the Helsinki Rules (1966) on the Use of Waters of International Rivers forbid the implementation of any planned measures on an international river without prior notification and consultation of the parties involved, and the same principle was also echoed by the 2004 Berlin Rules on Water Resources (Chelkeba, 2017).…”