306 Scam"iy and Surfeit
To what extent these projects will meet the basic demands of upstream coun-
tries such as Ethiopia, particularly in the area of irrigated agriculture, is unde-
termined. The NBI has also helped to convene water resource experts, politi-
cians, and bureaucrats from the riparian countries to substantively consider
different options for cooperation, and to reconcile the different interests and
views of competing basin countries. Mutual trust and understanding of differ-
ing perspectives also seem to have improved among the negotiators involved
in the process.
The riparian countries are more open to raising public awareness on nego-
tiations and the issues that are under consideration by the different countries.
The benefits of cooperation are more widely espoused through the media and
by organising workshops that involve various stakeholders. This seems to
have generated greater confidence among the public that the current cooper-
ation is intended to enhance the welfare of the different basin peoples.
However, there are still some areas where little understanding has yet been
reached, particularly regarding legal principles and institutional mechanisms
that serve as the basis for future water allocation and management of Nile
waters. Egyptian and Sudanese positions regarding allocation of Nile water
are unchanged from earlier negotiations.
From a conflict prevention and management perspective, the role of the
World Bank and other multilateral and bilateral funding agencies such as the
UNDP and CIDA is useful in bringing together the competing basin countries.
The World Bank's experience in the Indus River dispute between Pakistan
and India seems to have influenced the approach to conflict prevention and
resolution in the context of the Nile. In both cases, the main instrument is
the provision of financial support for investing in water resources develop-
ment projects that encourages the competing sides to see tangible benefits on
the ground.
The World Bank was highly successful in resolving the conflict over water
in the Indus Basin case. This may also be possible in the Nile Basin. However,
there are certain differences in the Nile that may challenge cooperation among
the Nile Basin states. ~irst, the number of riparian states participating in nego-
tiations is greater in the Nile Basin. More diverse national interests, therefore,
are at stake. Second, the lower riparian states, particularly Egypt, have been
the major beneficiaries to date in the Nile Basin and may not want a significant
change in the present allocation of Nile waters, even should such change
reduce regional tensions. Ethiopia in this case may abandon consensus-build-
ing initiatives. However, Ethiopia may withdraw in any case if it feels that no
significant benefits are forthcoming from the initiative process.2z2
It is in no country's interest to pursue a unilateral policy of developing
water resources that will increase the possibility of competition and conflict
rather than seek ways of cooperation and consensus building. Previous con-
flict and political instability in Ethiopia has helped to postpone the issue of