(1) The Government of Egypt wishes to acknowledge that the resolution of these problems would not be postponed to a later date, where it would be possible for the two Governments to agree on the status of the Sudan, but that, in the settlement of these provisions, it expressly reserves all freedom in all negotiations that may precede such an agreement. On July 10, 1924, Ramsay MacDonald, then Prime Minister, told the House of Commons: “The Egyptian farmer can be fully convinced that Sudan`s independence under the agreement we are prepared to conclude does not mean that he will enjoy a single pint of water less than if he had it and would work on it himself.” The letters exchanged on 7 May 1929 must be interpreted in the sense of this proclamation. They certainly record a net gain for Egypt. They do so on the basis of a neutral and impartial expert opinion that has not stated that Egypt, legally or effectively, in justice or custom, has an arrest warrant to claim all the “inappropriate” water that might be needed to give its 1,900,000 unreabited hectares of fertility as property. The problem of allocating nile water is not new. It is very complicated and has been in a chronic state of effervescence for several years. In a note dated January 10, 1920, the Council of Ministers of the Egyptian government approved the appointment of a commission to report on plans to control the Nile. The mandate was as follows: Over the years, particularly as the populations of other Nile basin countries have increased and these countries have developed the capacity to use Nile water more effectively for national development, disagreements have arisen over Egypt`s insistence that it acquired the water rights it acquired through the 1929 and 1959 agreements (collectively referred to as the agreements). on the water of the Nile).

and that no construction project on the Nile or any of its tributaries will be carried out without the prior authorization of 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 have never been parties. In fact, the new ruler of Tanganyika (now Tanzania, after unification with Zanzibar in 1964), Julius Nyerere, argued shortly after his independence from Britain in 1961 that the Nile water agreements exposed his country and other upstream riparian states to Egypt`s mercy, forcing them to submit their national development plans to Cairo`s control and surveillance, and that such an approach to public policy did not coincide with the country`s status as sovereign. an independent State would be compatible. Condition. All upstream riparian states have since come out in favour of a new, more inclusive legal framework for the management of the Nile basin. He believed that after the signing of the Camp David peace agreement with Israel in 1979, no problem other than water could bring Egypt back to war. The 2. In April 2011, then-Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi laid the foundation stone for the construction of the great Ethiopian Renaissance dam.

The dam is located on the Blue Nile in the Benishangul-Gumuz region of the country. Shortly after the announcement, Cairo authorities immediately launched a choice of words against what they saw as an attempt by Addis Ababa to disrupt Egypt`s water needs. Then-Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi angrily declared 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 projects on the Nile that would threaten their livelihoods. So it is clear that while the world as a whole will applaud the state spirit that assured the Egyptian Fellah that the Nile will remain its river in the first place and that this stream will be primarily intended to make its fields productive, the colony in no way sets a precedent for Colorado or other problems. Political considerations have forced Sudan to subordinate its interests to those of Egypt. The great legal problem that means so much to irrigation experts in the Western world has not been reconciled by the Nile Water Agreement. But Egypt`s difficulties have been overcome, at least for now. And it was this, not the creation of a global precedent, that was the task facing London and Cairo. Egypt remains the largest consumer of Nile water. According to Swain and Fadel, political instability and poverty in the other nine riparian states have limited their ability to progress towards the socio-economic development of the Nile.

[16] [17] According to Lemma, the biggest question facing Nile riparian states is: Will the Nile Basin Initiative help them overcome the unfair and unequal distribution of the Nile`s water resources? [18] It is observed that Muhammed Mahmoud Pasha speaks of Egypt`s “natural and historical rights in the waters of the Nile and its needs for agricultural expansion.” Lord Lloyd`s reply is given to the same note. He says, in part, that there are twenty-five agencies under seven ministries involved in maintaining water quality, but communication and data sharing between agencies is underdeveloped. [26] Water consumer associations, non-governmental associations of farmers that organize a process of irrigation of all agricultural land, maintain diesel pumps and deal with conflicts between farmers and water management. They have been around since 1988, but they lacked structure and the involvement of women, who are seen as contributors to the pollution of irrigation canals, as they wash clothes, dishes and animals in drains. [27] Since we recently celebrated Earth Day, it is important that we reflect on the importance of natural resources such as the Nile and understand why they are so important, especially for Africa and its long-term development. In fact, 160 million people depend on water from this important river for their livelihoods. Therefore, the conservation, conservation and use of the Nile`s waters and resources is an effective and sustainable goal shared by all. This framework was concluded between Egypt and Ethiopia, where 85% of Egypt`s water comes from. Both countries have pledged not to carry out water-related projects that harm each other`s interests and to consult on projects to reduce waste and increase water flow. To this day, Egypt maintains that the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1929 and its amended version, the 1959 Agreement, are still valid. The 1959 agreement, signed by Egypt and an independent Sudan, increased Egypt`s share to 55.5 billion cubic meters and Sudan`s to 18.5 billion.

Under these conditions, Egypt would receive 48 billion cubic meters of water per year and Sudan 4 billion cubic meters. Egypt would not need upstream state approval to carry out water supply projects on its own territories, but could veto projects on all tributaries of the Nile in upstream countries, including the 43,130-square-kilometer Lake Victoria. The world`s second largest freshwater lake is fed by direct rainfall and thousands of streams from Tanzania, Burundi, Uganda and Kenya, all located in Central and East Africa. .