Sudan’s Floods Rekindle the Grand Renaissance Dam Debate

Osman Mirghani

The floods that have swept across large swaths of Sudan over the past few days have prompted the irrigation authorities to raise red alerts in six Sudanese states. Such events are not typical at this late point in the autumn season, and although the rising waters have begun to recede, the floods swiftly brought the debate over Ethiopia’s Grand Renaissance Dam back to the forefront.

The floods severely damaged agricultural and residential areas that had barely begun to recover from the destruction and displacement left by war. Alarmingly, 750 million cubic meters of water were discharged per day- an extremely high figure that raises questions about the dam’s impact, undermining claims that it would reduce the risk of flooding and ensure the steady flow of water year-round.

Kifle Ahoro, the director of the Renaissance Dam project, has blamed what he claimed to be exceptionally heavy rain, forcing the officials overseeing the dam to take precautionary measures. He acknowledged that massive amounts of water had been recorded across the White Nile basin as well as the Blue Nile. Moreover, the White Nile is fed by tributaries from Ethiopia that run through the Sobat River in South Sudan, which has also been hit by floods.

For years, the dam had been broadly and extensively debated, with reports that it had structural leaks and that the installation of the turbines intended for power generation had been delayed. While 13 turbines had originally been planned, several reports claimed that only six had been installed and that not all of them had been functioning. This has left vast amounts of water stored in the reservoir untapped for electricity production as planned. As a result, the excess rainfall could not be absorbed by a reservoir because it had already filled to capacity, leaving the water to flow downstream in massive volumes, which caused the flooding in Sudan.

Nevertheless, the Ethiopian government continues to maintain that the dam has helped reduce flooding in Sudan, insisting that without it, the outcome would have been worse. Ethiopia’s Minister of Water and Energy even declared, the day before yesterday, that this “experience” proves that the dam plays a role in mitigating natural disasters by regulating water flow and preventing sudden surges into the Nile. The tragedy, however, is that there were floods, and Sudan suffered the brunt of the consequences, not Ethiopia, which controls the water flow through the dam.

I find it astonishing that some refuse to acknowledge any of the risks posed by the dam, arguing that Sudan has more to gain from its construction than Ethiopia. What must be understood is that Ethiopia did not build the dam to help Sudan or further its interests but to reinforce its own developmental and political agenda. If Sudan benefits at all, its gains pale in comparison to the existential catastrophe that this “water bomb” only 15 kilometers from its border could unleash.

Sudan’s problem is that endless debate has led to little planning or action. The Renaissance Dam exists now. Years ago, however, it should have compelled urgent measures and contingency planning once it became clear that negotiations were faltering. Sudan is the most vulnerable country concerned. It will be affected by the dam both in times of flood and drought, the quality of its soil will also diminish because up to 80 percent of the silt could be lost. Egypt, for its part, will be directly impacted by drought, but it has relatively little to worry about with regard to floods, as the High Dam and the projects and canals it has long planned allow it to absorb excess water.

For Ethiopia, the dam is a vast national project that brings developmental benefits. However, it also gives the country regional leverage, as the dam can be used to shape other parties’ behavior, particularly during drought years, turning this developmental project to generate electricity into a frightening geopolitical tool.

Sudan’s latest floods underscore the urgent need for a binding legal agreement that defines the rules for operating the dam, instills safety guarantees, and safeguards the shared interests of Sudan, Egypt, and Ethiopia. Addis Ababa’s obstinacy, however, has derailed all international mediation efforts. It has dragged its feet on undermining the 2015 Declaration of Principles signed in Khartoum, which was supposed to lay the foundations for cooperation, information-sharing, and harm prevention.

As climate change accelerates, drought cycles intensify, and rainfall patterns shift, the challenges of water flow management will only grow more complicated, making cooperation among Nile Basin countries an existential need. Indeed, the Grand Renaissance Dam is not just a hydroelectric project; it will shape the lives of millions along the Nile.
The question today is this: Will the dam be a chance for cooperation? Or will it turn into a source of chronic conflict that could lead to water wars and unleash existential disasters, particularly for Sudan?