1959 Agreement Between Egypt Sudan

Lack of planning, corruption in government services, neglect of concerns and the payment of poor quality land to the poor, inadequate training of safe handling methods, and irrigation and plant management for men and women contribute to poor water quality. Money is an important factor in improving these areas, but if corruption is eliminated and inter-departmental communication improves, stricter rules and enforcement can be applied immediately. It is recommended that the number of water user associations be increased and a chain of communication be established between them and government authorities. The designation of field supervisors in designated areas for monitoring SEAs and training farmers on irrigation methods (such as drip irrigation, which can apply water to the root zone and reduce water consumption by 30 to 60 percent), ensure effective distribution of water during the harvesting cycle, assolement and soil management. Foreign service chiefs can also monitor water levels, check pump maintenance and report drainage structures. The agreement between Egypt and Sudan, which complemented the previous agreement, gave Egypt the right to 55.5 billion cubic meters of Nile water per year and Sudan 18.5 billion cubic meters per year. The results of the tripartite GERD commission – involving Egyptian, Sudanese, Ethiopian and international experts – could serve as a reference for the future dialogue between the major nations of the Nile basin. The Commission`s assessment – that GERD would not have a significant impact on Egypt or Sudan – was announced in May of this year in order to stifle criticism of the dam`s potential impact. Results review meetings between Ethiopia, Demsudan and Egypt were postponed several times until a recent meeting on 4 November showed that Egypt was seeking further studies on the impact of GERD and delaying the implementation of the report`s recommendations. Despite these obstacles, Ethiopia welcomed the possible participation of Sudan and Egypt in the project, which would pave the way for future cooperation in the management of the Nile. I say that the strength of the agreements made in modern times and Egypt`s threats to use military force are questionable for two reasons. First, the former colonies are now independent nations and should be part of the negotiations for a new agreement. Second, environmental conditions have changed: rainfall is becoming more frequent and droughts are getting longer.

The first agreement was reached between Great Britain as a colonial power in East Africa and Egypt. Cairo has been favoured over other riparian countries as an important agricultural asset. In addition, the Suez Canal, managed by Egypt, was essential to British imperial ambitions. The 2015 agreement between Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan – Sudan acting as a mediator – is a significant but predictable change in Cairo`s approach to the Nile – that these colonial agreements are not sustainable.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.