The river that four countries fight over — and why the fight is getting worse

The Blue Nile begins in the Ethiopian highlands and delivers more than eighty percent of the water Egypt uses to keep 110 million people alive. Egypt depends on the Nile for ninety-eight percent of its renewable freshwater. The treaty that governs how this water is divided was signed in 1959 by Egypt and Sudan.

Ethiopia — the country that provides most of the water — was not a party to it.

That single fact contains the entire dispute. One country generates the flow. Another country holds the legal claim to it. The country generating the flow never consented to the arrangement, because nobody asked. For six decades this didn’t matter much, because Ethiopia lacked the capital and engineering capacity to do anything about it. In 2011, Ethiopia broke ground on the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. Fourteen years later, on September 9, 2025, the dam was inaugurated — without a binding agreement between the countries it most affects.

The dam

The GERD is not a modest project. It is Africa’s largest hydroelectric dam: 145 meters high, a reservoir capacity of roughly 74 billion cubic meters, an installed generating capacity of 5,150 megawatts. Ethiopia funded it largely through domestic bonds and diaspora contributions — approximately $5 billion raised without the international development finance system that usually underwrites African infrastructure of this scale. The dam became a national symbol before it became a power station.

The rationale is plain. When construction began in 2011, fewer than one in four Ethiopians had access to electricity — World Bank data shows roughly 23 percent. By 2025, the figure had climbed to approximately 54 percent, still leaving nearly half of 136 million people without reliable power. For Addis Ababa, GERD is not a provocation directed at Cairo. It is the largest development project undertaken on the continent, serving a population that cannot reasonably be told to remain in the dark because a treaty it never signed allocated the river to someone else.

Egypt sees it differently. Egyptian officials have described any reduction in the Nile’s flow as existential — not a policy problem, a survival one. Egypt’s 55.5 billion cubic meter annual allocation under the 1959 agreement is, in Cairo’s framing, already a minimum. Per capita water availability has fallen to approximately 500 cubic meters per year, less than half the UN’s scarcity threshold. There is no backup. When the Nile delivers less, Egypt has nowhere else to turn.

Sudan is downstream of GERD but benefits from the dam — regulated flows reduce the catastrophic Blue Nile floods that historically destroyed Sudanese farmland, and Khartoum has a power-purchase arrangement with Addis Ababa. Sudan’s position has shifted with its governments, which have themselves shifted with coups and civil conflict. The ambivalence is structural: a country that both floods and thirsts, depending on the season, has genuinely competing interests, and its negotiating posture has reflected that accurately.

Sudan's structural position

Ethiopia and Sudan signed an electricity-sharing agreement giving Khartoum access to GERD-generated power at preferential rates. During the 2019–2021 transitional period, Sudan's government shifted toward upstream alignment, breaking from its traditional alliance with Egypt. The 2021 military coup and subsequent civil conflict then removed Sudan as a coherent negotiating partner entirely — leaving trilateral talks without one of their three principals. Sudan's position is not fence-sitting. It is the consequence of being a country whose interests genuinely point in opposite directions depending on which part of the hydrological cycle you're asking about.

In October 2025, the dispute entered a new register. Surging Nile waters inundated farmland in parts of Egypt and Sudan. Egypt’s Ministry of Water Resources accused Ethiopia of “chaotic and reckless” dam management and unilateral water releases. Ethiopia denied the characterisation. No independent technical assessment has determined what caused the surge. The dam is operational, it changes the river’s behaviour, and no agreement governs how.

Six of thirteen turbines were generating power by April 2025. The dam was inaugurated at full capacity in September. It exists. The agreement does not.

The paper river

The treaty Egypt defends as the legal bedrock of its water rights is a document that allocated the entire Nile.

The 1959 Agreement for the Full Utilization of the Nile Waters, signed between Egypt and Sudan, divided 84 billion cubic meters of the river’s average annual flow measured at Aswan. Egypt received 55.5 billion cubic meters. Sudan received 18.5 billion. Approximately ten billion was set aside for evaporation and seepage losses. The remainder — which is to say zero — was allocated to the nine other countries in the Nile basin. The agreement divided the whole river between two of its eleven riparian states and left nothing for the rest.

Ethiopia, which contributes more than eighty percent of the Nile’s water through the Blue Nile and the Atbara, received no allocation. It was not consulted. It was not present.

The 1959 agreement did not invent this exclusion. It inherited it from the 1929 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty, signed between Britain and Egypt on behalf of Sudan and several East African territories — none of which were independent at the time. That treaty gave Egypt the effective right to veto upstream water projects. Ethiopia was never a British territory. It was never represented in 1929. It has never accepted the treaty as binding.

The 1929 colonial scaffolding

The 1929 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty was negotiated between imperial Britain and Egypt, with Britain signing on behalf of Sudan, Uganda, Tanganyika, and Kenya — none sovereign states at the time. Its most consequential provision gave Egypt a veto over upstream construction that might affect Nile waters. Ethiopia was never a British territory and was never party to any agreement with London regarding its own rivers. Its position has always been that a treaty between a colonial power and a downstream state cannot bind a sovereign country excluded from the negotiation. Egypt cites the 1929 framework as establishing historical rights that survive decolonisation.

The Sudanese government that signed the 1959 agreement was a military regime that had seized power less than twelve months earlier. Sudanese negotiators initially sought allocation based on equitable use — a principle that would have entitled upstream states to a share — but dropped this position during talks. The agreement was concluded within a year.

Ethiopia’s legal position is not radical. It is standard treaty law: a sovereign state cannot be bound by an agreement to which it was never a party. Ethiopia is not claiming a right to violate an existing treaty. It is saying no treaty exists that binds it. Egypt’s counter-position — that rights established through millennia of documented dependency create obligations regardless of the treaty’s provenance — is also legally coherent. Both arguments have weight. Neither can defeat the other, because no institution exists with authority to choose between them.

The rulebook without rules

The obvious question — what does international law actually say about this? — has an answer that is both extensive and useless.

The 1997 UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses took seventeen years to enter into force — adopted in 1997, it required 35 ratifications and didn’t achieve them until 2014. The Convention establishes three principles: equitable and reasonable use, no significant harm to other riparian states, and a duty to cooperate. All three apply simultaneously. They also contradict each other. Ethiopia’s dam qualifies as equitable use under the upstream reading. Egypt’s claim of significant harm qualifies under the downstream reading. The Convention provides no mechanism for deciding which principle wins when they collide. It prescribes negotiation. If that fails, it prescribes more negotiation.

The countries that most need this convention are the ones that refused it. China voted against it in 1997. India abstained. Egypt abstained — because the equitable-use principle would mean acknowledging that Ethiopia has a legitimate claim to what Egypt considers its survival allocation. The Convention covers the countries that need it least.

And then there is the fourth country.

In July 2024, South Sudan — the Nile basin’s youngest state, independent only since 2011 — ratified the Cooperative Framework Agreement, a decade-old alternative treaty negotiated by the upstream Nile states after Egypt and Sudan refused to renegotiate the 1959 arrangement. South Sudan’s ratification was the sixth, the minimum required for entry into force. On October 13, 2024, the CFA became binding international law for six of the basin’s eleven riparian states: Burundi, Ethiopia, Rwanda, South Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda.

A single ratification by a country that has no dam on the Blue Nile, that is not a principal in the GERD dispute, that few observers were watching — changed the legal architecture of the entire basin. The upstream states now operate under a framework with formal legal standing. Egypt and Sudan continue operating under the 1959 agreement that the majority of the basin no longer recognises. Two parallel legal orders governing the same river. Neither accepted by all parties. Neither capable of compelling compliance from the other.

What the CFA provides that Egypt rejected

The CFA replaces Egypt's effective upstream veto with a system of prior notification and collective decision-making. Under the CFA, no single state holds a veto. Projects require consultation and a determination of "significant harm" — a standard that places the burden on the objecting state, not the building state. For Egypt, the inversion is fundamental: from a system where upstream states needed Egyptian permission to one where Egypt must demonstrate harm to block development. The CFA doesn't modify the 1959 framework. It replaces it.

The deeper reality is simpler. International water law has no compulsory dispute resolution with enforcement. Courts require consent. Arbitration panels require consent. No state consents to jurisdiction on a question it considers existential. This is not a gap that better lawyers can fill. It is how international law works when the stakes are high enough.

The impossible arithmetic

Even if you set the legal deadlock aside — even if you imagine all parties negotiating tomorrow in perfect good faith — the numbers make a mutually satisfying agreement close to impossible to construct on paper.

When the 1959 agreement was signed, Egypt’s population was approximately 26 million. Sudan’s was roughly 11 million. Thirty-seven million people sharing 74 billion cubic meters. Today, Egypt alone exceeds 110 million. Sudan’s population has similarly multiplied. The allocation has not moved. The same cubic meters, four times the mouths.

Egypt’s per capita water availability — already at 500 cubic meters, already below the scarcity threshold — will continue to fall as population grows even if the Nile’s total flow remains constant. But total flow will not remain constant. A 2025 study in Nature’s Communications Earth & Environment projected an 85 percent increase in 100-year peak flood events under high-emission scenarios, with far more extreme year-to-year variation. More heat means more evaporation from GERD’s reservoir and from irrigated land downstream. More variability means less reliability. A fixed allocation framework cannot survive a river that no longer behaves predictably from year to year.

GERD’s reservoir capacity — 74 billion cubic meters — equals the entire combined allocation to Egypt and Sudan under the 1959 agreement. The reservoir can hold, in other words, all the usable water the treaty divided. Even filling over multiple years, it necessarily reduces downstream flow during filling periods. No creative diplomacy changes this. The water that fills the reservoir is the water that would have reached Egypt. The question is only how fast.

Ethiopia cannot be told to stop. Its population exceeds 136 million. Electricity access sits around 54 percent. The development case for the dam is unanswerable.

Egypt cannot absorb the reduction. It has no alternative freshwater source of meaningful scale. The case against the reduction is equally unanswerable.

Both imperatives exist simultaneously. They cannot both be fully satisfied by the same river.

The basin’s combined population is projected to double by mid-century. By 2040, more than 80 million people in the basin could face water scarcity as demographic growth, climate variation, and upstream development converge. Every year without an agreement, the agreement gets harder to construct — less slack in the system to absorb compromise.

Cooperation cannot create water that doesn’t exist.

Climate uncertainty compounds the problem

Under moderate warming (SSP2-4.5), Nile peak discharges increase by 63 percent. Under high warming (SSP5-8.5), by 85 percent. But the critical variable isn't total precipitation — it's reliability. Higher temperatures increase evaporation from reservoirs and farmland, so more rain can produce less usable water. Any long-term allocation agreement would need to be built on projections ranging from modest flow increase to severe reliability decrease — a range so wide the parties cannot agree on what volume they are dividing, let alone how.

The preview

The Nile is the first clearly legible instance of a structural failure that is arriving at every major transboundary river system where upstream states are developing faster than downstream states can adapt. It is not an outlier. It is the leading edge.

On the Mekong, China has built twelve mainstream dams on the upper river — known as the Lancang within Chinese borders — while declining full membership in the Mekong River Commission. MRC modelling projects sediment reaching the Mekong Delta will decline by 67 to 97 percent if all planned dams are completed. Fisheries sustaining roughly 60 million people downstream face biomass declines of 40 to 80 percent by 2040. No binding framework governs China’s upstream operations. A powerful state building what it needs, outside any framework downstream states can enforce.

The Indus tells a different story — not absence of governance but its slow-motion collapse. The 1960 treaty survived three India-Pakistan wars and earned its reputation as the most durable water agreement in history. By 2025, it was structurally brittle. Himalayan glaciers contribute 60 to 70 percent of summer flow, and ICIMOD data showed melt accelerating roughly 65 percent between 2001–2010 and 2011–2020. The basin’s population grew from 80 million to over 300 million. Pakistan’s per capita water availability dropped from over 5,000 cubic meters in the 1950s to roughly 900 — below the scarcity line. Dam-design disputes already required international arbitration in 2007 and 2010–2013. India formally requested a treaty review in August 2024, citing demographic shifts and environmental changes. Eight months before any political crisis. Then in April 2025, following the Pahalgam attack, India suspended the treaty entirely. The political trigger exposed the brittleness. It didn’t create it.

And on the Amu Darya, the failure has already run to completion once. The Aral Sea lost roughly 90 percent of its volume by the late 2000s, killed by Soviet-era irrigation withdrawals. Now Afghanistan’s Qosh Tepa Canal will divert approximately 10 cubic kilometers per year from the Amu Darya when operational in 2028 — roughly a third of remaining flow. Afghanistan is not party to any water agreement with Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan. They have no legal mechanism to stop it. The same failure beginning again, with a new actor, and nothing standing in the way.

The structural conditions are the same everywhere: upstream infrastructure controlled by states whose development needs outweigh downstream objections; legal frameworks that are inadequate, suspended, or absent; demographic and climate pressure increasing demand while reducing supply; and no international institution with the capacity to impose a resolution. The timeline varies. The pattern does not.

The Nile is not a cautionary tale. It is an operating manual for a failure nobody has built the fix for.

The river

The Blue Nile drops more than a thousand meters between Lake Tana in Ethiopia’s highlands and the Sudanese border. The gorge it cuts through the basalt plateau is one of the deepest in Africa. The water that emerges carries the sediment that built Egyptian agriculture over five thousand years. That hasn’t changed.

What has changed is this: the volume that reaches Egypt is now partly a function of operational decisions made at a dam in Benishangul-Gumuz, Ethiopia. Not rainfall alone. Not the seasonal rhythm that pharaohs tracked and farmers depended on. Human decisions, made by one sovereign state, governing the survival resource of another sovereign state, under no binding agreement.

River physics has outrun the legal instruments built to manage it. Those instruments were designed for stable climate, small populations, and undeveloped upstream countries. The climate is destabilising. The populations have quadrupled. The upstream countries are building. Every condition that made the old framework functional is gone, and none are coming back.

Whether a deal is eventually reached on the Nile — it might be — is not the question the evidence points toward. The question is whether any institution is being built, anywhere on earth, with the actual capacity to govern transboundary rivers under the conditions now arriving simultaneously on every continent. The Nile has been asking this question since 2011. So far, the answer is silence.

Avis de non-responsabilité de Gen AI

Certains contenus de cette page ont été générés et/ou édités à l'aide d'une IA générative.

Les médias

Tito Zzzz – Pexels

Principales sources et références

Webuild Group, “Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) Inaugurated,” press release, September 9, 2025. https://www.webuildgroup.com/en/media/press-releases/grand-ethopian-renaissance-dam-gerd-inaugurated/

Fana Media Corporation, “GERD 98.66% Complete, Six Units Operational, Review Shows,” April 12, 2025. https://www.fanamc.com/english/gerd-98-66-complete-six-units-operational-review-shows/

World Bank, “Access to Electricity (% of Population) — Ethiopia,” World Development Indicators, accessed May 2026. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.ACCS.ZS?locations=ET

Egypt Today, “Egypt’s Per Capita Water Falls Below Half of UN’s Water Scarcity Threshold: Minister,” 2025. https://www.egypttoday.com/Article/1/144977/Egypt-s-per-capita-water-falls-below-half-of-UN

Egypt State Information Service, “Egypt Faces Water Scarcity Challenges, Relies on Nile for 98% of Water Resources — Min.,” 2025. https://sis.gov.eg/en/media-center/news/egypt-faces-water-scarcity-challenges-relies-on-nile-for-98-of-water-resources-min/

“The Long Shadow of the 1959 Nile Waters Agreement,” Water Policy, Vol. 26, No. 9, IWA Publishing, 2024. https://iwaponline.com/wp/article/26/9/859/104258/The-long-shadow-of-the-1959-Nile-Waters-Agreement

United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 453, “Agreement Between the Republic of the Sudan and the United Arab Republic for the Full Utilization of the Nile Waters,” 1959. https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20453/volume-453-I-6519-English.pdf

Nile Basin Initiative, “Cooperative Framework Agreement,” official announcement of entry into force, October 13, 2024. https://nilebasin.org/about-us/cooperative-framework-agreement

EJIL: Talk!, “Entry into Force of the Nile Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement: Challenges and Prospects,” 2024. https://www.ejiltalk.org/entry-into-force-of-the-nile-basin-cooperative-framework-agreement-challenges-and-prospects/

International Water Law Project, “Status of the Watercourses Convention,” accessed May 2026. https://www.internationalwaterlaw.org/documents/intldocs/watercourse_status.html

“Nile Basin Flow Regimes Under 21st Century Climate Variability,” Communications Earth & Environment, Nature, 2025. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02813-0

Coffel, E. D. et al., “Future Hot and Dry Years Worsen Nile Basin Water Scarcity Despite Projected Precipitation Increases,” Earth’s Future, Vol. 7, No. 8, 2019. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019EF001247

CASCADES Research Programme, “The Nile Basin: Climate Change, Water and Future Cooperation,” 2025. https://www.cascades.eu/publication/the-nile-basin-climate-change-water-and-future-cooperation/

Fanack Water, “Surging Nile Waters Rekindle the GERD Dispute Between Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia,” October 2025. https://water.fanack.com/gerd-dispute-nile-flood-2025/

Foreign Policy Research Institute, “The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam: A Regional Destabilizer or a New Model for African Development?,” September 2025. https://www.fpri.org/article/2025/09/the-grand-ethiopian-renaissance-dam-a-regional-destabilizer-or-a-new-model-for-african-development/

International Crisis Group, “Dammed in the Mekong: Averting an Environmental Catastrophe,” Report No. 343, October 2024. https://www.crisisgroup.org/rpt/asia/south-east-asia/cambodia-thailand-china/343-dammed-mekong-averting-environmental-catastrophe

Mekong River Commission, “Macro-Economic Assessment Report: The Council Study,” December 2017. https://www.mrcmekong.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/macroeconomic-assessment-report-of-the-MRC-Council-Study.pdf

Phan Xuan Dung, “Vietnam’s Response to Controversial Mekong Projects in China, Laos, and Cambodia,” ISEAS Perspective No. 2025/29, March 2025. https://www.iseas.edu.sg/articles-commentaries/iseas-perspective/2025-29-vietnams-response-to-controversial-mekong-projects-in-china-laos-and-cambodia-by-phan-xuan-dung/

ICIMOD, “Water, Ice, Society, and Ecosystems in the Hindu Kush Himalaya (HI-WISE),” 2023. https://www.icimod.org/press-release/landmark-report-on-impacts-of-disappearing-snow-and-ice-in-the-hindu-kush-himalaya-current-emissions-path-threatens-two-billion-people-and-is-accelerating-species-extinction/

Al Jazeera, “Is the Indus Waters Treaty the Latest India-Pakistan Flashpoint?,” September 22, 2024. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/9/22/is-the-indus-waters-treaty-the-latest-india-pakistan-flashpoint

Clingendael Institute, “Indus Water Treaty 2025: A Pause of Cooperation, Not an End,” 2025. https://www.clingendael.org/publication/indus-water-treaty-2025-pause-cooperation-not-end

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “Afghanistan’s Qosh Tepa Canal Could Trigger a Central Asian Water Crisis,” September 2025. https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2025/09/afghanistan-water-supply-central-asia

The Conversation, “Colonial-Era Treaties Are to Blame for the Unresolved Dispute over Ethiopia’s Dam,” 2020. https://theconversation.com/colonial-era-treaties-are-to-blame-for-the-unresolved-dispute-over-ethiopias-dam-133538