The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam

The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam Ethiopia (GERD), currently under construction on the Blue Nile River, will generate 6 GW and about 15000 GWh annually.  It is located 25 miles east of Sudan border in the BenishangulGumuz region. It will cost the Ethiopian government about $4.5 billion equivalent to 80 billion birrs. The government expects The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam to benefit its people by boosting their economic power after transforming it into a global power. On the other hand, Sudan expects its water reservoirs to increase and consequentially reduce the amount of alluvium, which diminishes the capability of Sudan water reservoirs.

The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) may act as a catalyst, in the next five years, to destabilize Egypt further by providing anti-governing party Egyptian politicians a means to incite future political coups. Shortages of water and food, water contamination, real or created, will be blamed on the GERD and the current political party. The interim government, during the coup, will threaten military actions against Ethiopia. The unstable political environment and threats of military action would prompt U.S. Lawmakers to threaten suspension of military aid to Egypt. The interim government would pressure the U.S. to continue military aid by possibly restricting the use of the Suez Canal to vessels supporting U.S. foreign operations. 

The U.S. would likely respond with threats of military intervention to secure the Suez Canal.  At the same time, the U.S. would pressure Ethiopia to restrict maximum filling of the GERD while possibly supplementing Ethiopia with further humanitarian aid.  The threatened intervention in Egypt would drive the global cost of oil up, as the Egyptian state appears unstable.  The U.S. economy would then be threatened by the rise in oil prices resulting in the continuance of military aid to Egypt.  The GERD would remain a political scapegoat for future uprising in Egypt.  The GERD would subsequently continue to destabilize the region and the U.S. Economy.  Further U.S. intervention may occur as the U.S. attempts to appease the Ethiopian and Egyptian Governments.

The main objective of developing the project is to supply the locals with electricity able to support their daily projects. Being the largest dam in Africa, the dam will also have the potential to generate more than enough electricity just for local consumption. It intends to export the surplus to neighboring countries such as Sudan, Djibouti, Uganda and Kenya. 

This is going to generate enough revenue to promote and sustain economic growth. For this to happen, the country and the beneficiaries will need to come up with massive transmission lines extending up to 500 miles to its destination. Although this is going to be quite expensive, the benefits to the exporter will be unrivalled. Tourism will also be a major part of generating revenue for the country. Everybody from around Africa and the world will travel to see the largest dam in Africa. By generating enough revenue and boosting the economy, the dam will help in eradication of poverty in the country. 

The World Bank describes Ethiopia as a country that is hostage to its hydrology. This is because it lacks enough water storage facilities. Yet the cost of its hydrological variability is a third of its annual GDP. According to the World Bank, increased investment in water infrastructure can make the country more water resilient and in turn promote long-term economic growth (World Bank, 2006). It gives hydropower production facilities, water storage facilities that supply enough water during the dry periods and irrigation systems as perfect examples to salvage the situation. Although the mega dam is primarily for hydroelectric benefit, it may not primarily serve the purpose but will help fulfill the goal partially. Although the World Bank realizes the benefits the project bestows to the country, it still refuses to fund the project. However, this has not stopped the progress of the project as the government is funding it through national bond and private donations. 

To upstream countries such as Sudan, the dam stands to benefit farmlands by enriching them during the winter and summer seasons. Essentially the dam is expected to increase the water reserves in Sudan and reduce alluvium. By reducing the amount of alluvium, the Ruseiris Reservoir will be able to hold more water. This will provide irrigation and enough water for hydroelectric generation in the country. To Ethiopia, where flooding constantly hits the country, the dam will reduce the problem significantly. 

This will protect the settlements and crops downstream from destruction by floods. Floods also displace people accruing cost to the government expenditure when settling the affected. It also displaces the livestock in farms sometimes killing them. In case the early warning systems fail, floods result into massive deaths and waterborne diseases such as diarrhea. The refugee camps are also overcrowded exposing all the affected to major communicable diseases. Women and children suffer most from these implications.

Although the project is beneficial in more than one way, the neighboring countries have threatened war if the anticipated effects occur. An article recently published in Think Africa Press magazine associated the mega dam with mega consequences. It has been compared to two US dams built along the Colorado River, Hoover Dam and Glen Canyon. Sources reveal that due to the changing climate, the dam is now almost half-full, and the once mighty river never reaches the sea. 

Although the dam will supply electricity as previously expected, the effect might not last long. With time, the dam is expected to shrink in electrical output after causing massive changes to the upstream. The idea of supplying extra electricity to the neighboring countries could also backfire, as there are major aspects that are not conclusive. Such factors include the high variability of the river and climate change. Experts term the strategy of overreliance on hydroelectric power on the part of the Ethiopian government as erroneous.  

The management of Nile River has been in dispute since long ago. In 1929, United Kingdom and Egypt acted on behalf of Sudan allocated the two countries minimum flows. It was agreed that upstream countries had to consult with Egypt before construction of a project that utilizes water. Egypt fears that the construction of the dam will reduce the fertility of sediments deposited in the agriculturally rich riverbanks. This is because the retention of silt by the dam will harbor major nutrients from being transported downstream. 

The sediment free water will also increase the rate of erosion, which will lead to deepening of the riverbed thus reducing the ground water recharge (McCartney & Girma, 2012). All these effects point to lack of water, food and income for the population of Egypt. Since agriculture is a major source of employment and revenue for the country, if these were the implications of construction of The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam a coup would be eminent. This will lead to scattering and migration of a lot of persons practicing agriculture. The dam will also result into an increase in pollution in the river, which will create a significant reduction of water supplied to the water and other processing and manufacturing industries. 

Apart from agriculture, the Nile River serves as a means of transport through transportation of tourists. Reduction of the river volume will make some of these endeavors difficult. This will in turn affect the tourism industry in Egypt. On top of all these fish farms will also be under threat. Fish depend on water for survival and lack of water will kill the fish business in the country. All these effects will affect the country in a period of three to six years depending on how long the Ethiopian government intends to fill the mega dam. Although all these concerns have been aired to the Ethiopian government, it has continuously played them down implying that the normal flow of water returns to the Sub-Saharan immediately after filling the GERD (Hattermann, 2011). 

Collapse of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam can result into catastrophic effects to Egypt and Sudan. These effects include drowning of major towns that have come up as a result commercial activity along the riverbanks. Other possible effects are failure of other dams along the Nile River and exposing millions of residents to dangers of relocation and possibility and death. The water-sharing ratio of Egypt will be greatly affected. This is because, during the filling of the GERD, the water ratios of the High Dam and the Aswan High Dam will reduce by immense margins. During dry seasons, the problem shall escalate as the water required for hydroelectricity will have to be shared by three major dams (McCartney & Girma, 2012). 

The Ethiopian government has promised to deal with all the anticipated effects after the dam construction and operation. Failure to deal with the consequences of dam construction, the Egyptian government plans a coup, which will result into inter country fight between Egypt and Ethiopia. The U.S. says that the Egyptian military intends to use the GERD as an excuse for military action. In case of such a scenario, the United States government will be forced to deploy army to curb the situation.

The intervention of the U.S. government consumes much needed resources affecting the U.S. economy. This is because there is a need to secure the Suez Canal. The U.S. has also to play and assist both the Ethiopians and Egyptians. As a major source of fuel for the U.S., the fuel consumption will also be affected greatly. With the recent coup in the country, the country is unstable and susceptible to war. The United States assumes that the Egyptian government can easily use this to attack the Ethiopians. They even claimed they would just bomb the dam in case it affected it population adversely. 

The interference of the American government in the war between Egypt and Ethiopia would spoil international trade between the three countries. One fifths of imports to Egypt come from the United States while Egypt exports an eighth of its total exports to United States. These statistics reveal that both countries benefit mutually from their international ties. The U.S. interfering with the Egypt matters would turn sour in terms of economic benefits the U.S. reaps from the resource rich Egypt. The country is also rich in oil and natural gas, where most of American companies have interest. Note that thirty percent of all foreign investments in Egypt come from United States. Its strategic position also benefits the United States since they can access the Middle East quite easily.   

In conclusion, the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam has been built to salvage and improve the economic situation of a third world country where more than 50% of its population leaves below the poverty level. With provision of employment, electricity provision reducing overreliance on other expensive fuel means and increase in government revenue the Ethiopian government is certain that its economy is on its way to growth and recovery. The citizens are also aware of the benefits expected from the project and are anticipating its beneficial results. The dam is also expected to assist countries like Sudan. However, to Egypt the project poses disadvantages. Its agricultural sector is bound for collapse if the water volume does not reach the desired level. War between the two countries is likely to erupt in case the Egypt demands are not met. By pulling the United States, government into the conflict the government will spend unexpected revenue in settling the conflict.

 They might argue that according to the treaty signed in the year 1929, they have 100% rights to the river. This place the Ethiopian government in an awkward situation, which calls for them to reach a compromise. However, there is no need to worry as the best brains in each country are carefully discussing how to the possible way forward towards coming to a common goal. The Egyptian agricultural ministry, the Ethiopian energy sector and other mediators are all involve in the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam controversy. In addition, the interdependence could lead to cohesion between the countries in the horn of Africa. For each of the stakeholders to reap full benefits of the Nile waters, collaboration is key. This way they will maximize social, political and economic benefits for all the stakeholders.    

References

Block, P. and K. Strzepek (2010), ‘Economic Analysis of Large-Scale Upstream River Basin Development on the Blue Nile in Ethiopia Considering Transient Conditions, Climate Variability, and Climate Change’, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 136(2), pp. 156-166

Girma, M.M. 2011. Potential impact of climate and land use change on the water resources of the upper Blue Nile basin. PhD thesis. Department of Earth Sciences, Freia University of Berlin.

Hattermann, F.K. (2011) Rethinking water storage in Su-Saharan Africa. Report on the generation of regional climate scenarios. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Potsdam, Germany.p.27

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).2000. Emissions Scenarios. Summary for Policy Makers. A special report of IPCC Working Group III. P.27

McCartney, M.P. and Girma, M.M. (2012) Evaluating the downstream implications of planned water resource development in the Ethiopian portion of the Blue Nile River. Water International 37(4)362-379.

Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). 2007. WEAP: Water Evaluation and Planning system – user guide. Stockholm Environment Institute, Boston, USA.

World Bank (2006), ‘Ethiopia – Managing Water Resources to Maximize Sustainable Growth’, World Bank, available online at http://water.worldbank.org/publications/ethiopia-managing-water-resources-maximize-sustainable-growth-water-resources-assistance

Yale University: Linked by Water: Egypt, Ethiopia, and Damming the Nile http://epi.yale.edu/community/blog/2013/08/16/linked-water-egypt-ethiopia-and-damming-nile