Introduction

The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) is a monumental project on the Nile, embodying Ethiopia’s ambitions to address its energy deficit and propel its economic resurgence. However, since its construction began in 2011, the GERD has been at the center of a complex geopolitical dispute involving Ethiopia, Egypt, and Sudan. While Ethiopia views the dam as a symbol of sovereignty and a critical infrastructure to bridge its energy gap, Egypt fears for its water security, as 90% of its freshwater supply relies on the Nile. The impasse is compounded by historical treaties that heavily favour downstream countries, divergent views on reservoir-filling timelines, and the broader regional instability exacerbated by competing alliances and climate change. This article discusses how the high- stakes conflict underscores the urgent need for a cooperative and sustainable solution to ensure equitable water resource management and avert potential regional conflict.

Navigating GERD’s Benefits Amidst Environmental and Geopolitical Risks

The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) represents a transformative yet contentious project with far-reaching implications for Ethiopia and its neighbors. GERD aims to double Ethiopia’s electricity generation, addressing the country’s acute energy deficit where 60% of the population lacks access to power. Surplus energy could significantly benefit neighboring nations like Sudan, South Sudan, Kenya, Djibouti, and Eritrea, bolstering their energy-deficit economies. Additionally, GERD promises regulated water flows for Sudan, reducing seasonal floods and ensuring consistent water supplies. Economically, the dam is a symbol of Ethiopia’s national pride, sovereignty, and development aspirations.

However, GERD presents notable environmental, technical, and geopolitical challenges. Its reservoir, with a capacity of 74 billion cubic meters, risks altering the Nile’s natural flow, potentially threatening downstream ecosystems and communities. Egypt, where 90% of the population relies on the Nile for freshwater, faces significant risks from reduced water availability, particularly during Ethiopia’s proposed rapid filling of the reservoir. This exacerbates existing tensions between Ethiopia and Egypt, heightening the potential for regional discord.

Environmental concerns are amplified by the absence of a comprehensive environmental impact assessment, leaving the Nile’s fragile ecosystem vulnerable to degradation amid climate change pressures. Unilateral control over a shared resource like the Nile fosters disputes among Nile Basin countries, undermining regional cooperation and raising fears of proxy conflicts. Additionally, Ethiopia’s underdeveloped electrical grid and lack of cross-border transmission infrastructure limit GERD’s capacity to deliver on its promises. Combined with political instability and economic challenges, these factors cast doubt on GERD’s potential as a reliable regional energy solution. Despite its promise of regional integration and development, GERD’s broader impact highlights a precarious balance between progress and the ecological, political, and social risks it poses.

The GERD Dispute – Why does Egypt dislike it ?

The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) epitomizes the complexities of transboundary water governance, particularly in regions grappling with climate change, population growth, and political sensitivities. Launched by Ethiopia in 2011 without consulting Egypt or Sudan, GERD has reignited a long-standing dispute over Nile water rights, dating back to the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1929 and the 1959 Egypt-Sudan Agreement. These agreements excluded Ethiopia, despite its contribution of 80% of the Nile’s flow, amplifying tensions over water distribution.

Egypt, heavily reliant on the Blue Nile for water security, demands extended reservoir-filling timelines to avoid exacerbating its water scarcity. Conversely, Ethiopia insists on rapid filling to meet its energy needs, showcasing the competing priorities between national sovereignty and regional cooperation. Mediation efforts, including the 2015 Declaration of Principles aimed at fostering cooperation, have stalled, as Ethiopia resists conducting environmental and social impact assessments (ESIAs) required under international law.

Tensions escalated in 2020 when Ethiopia began unilaterally filling the GERD reservoir, prompting Egypt to seek United Nations intervention. Mediatory attempts by the U.S., the World Bank, and the African Union (AU) have thus far failed, with Ethiopia prioritizing sovereignty and refusing concessions. The potential for military conflict remains high, with the U.S. President Donald Trump warning Sudan of the risk of an Egyptian airstrike on GERD, which could cause catastrophic flooding in Sudanese borderlands.

Adding to the tensions, another dam in the downcourse of Blue Nile, the Roseires dam in Sudan causing worries to Egypt whose 90% of the population depends on the water from the Nile.

Sudan’s Mediatory Role

Sudan occupies a critical geographical and political position in this conflict. While it faces direct risks from flooding and cross-border military confrontations, Sudan could also benefit from GERD through reduced seasonal flooding and access to cheaper electricity. These dual stakes position Sudan as a credible mediator. Sudan’s impartial approach, concerned with water flow and dam operations but refraining from fully aligning with Egypt or Ethiopia, enhances its legitimacy in brokering negotiations. Sudan’s role as a mediator aligns with its broader goals of enhancing regional and international standing and resolving contentious border issues such as the Halayeb Triangle and Fashaga areas. By preventing military confrontations and restarting dialogue, Sudan could secure regional goodwill, avert disasters like the 2020 Blue Nile flood, and improve relations with its neighbors. Successful mediation would yield mutual benefits. Sudan would emerge as a stabilizing force in the Horn of Africa. Ethiopia could mitigate external tensions amidst its internal conflicts and resource strains, and Egypt could address its pressing water security concerns. Sudan’s initiative might pave the way for broader agreements on GERD operations, Nile water-sharing frameworks, and regional stability, laying the foundation for a permanent resolution to the Nile River conflict.

Regional collaboration and adherence to equitable water-sharing principles are essential to preventing escalation and fostering mutual development, demonstrating how shared challenges can drive cooperation in politically sensitive regions.