Cooperative Framework Agreement (Cfa)
Here are some of the general conditions for the use of Nile waters: in May 2010, five upstream states signed an agreement to seek more water from the Nile, a step that was firmly rejected by Egypt and Sudan.  The Framework Cooperation Agreement (CFA) negotiated for years under the NBI was to be signed for a period of one year.  Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania signed the agreement; Ethiopia ratified it in 2013.  The DRC should also be signed, while Egypt and Sudan are not supposed to. An Egyptian government spokesman said in May 2010 that “Egypt will not accede to an agreement or sign any agreement on its share.”  This agreement between Egypt and Sudan, which complemented the previous agreement, gave Egypt the right to 55.5 billion cubic metres of Nile water per year and Sudan 18.5 billion cubic meters per year. A common decision to allow more time for a common agreement. The two countries have been mired in controversial negotiations for years and have yet to reach a comprehensive water-sharing agreement. The institutional framework of ICE consists of three important institutions: The heads of state and government of Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan signed a cooperation agreement on the Great Renaissance Dam in 2015 to ease tensions. The agreement is expected to pave the way for continued diplomatic cooperation. Fundamental principles of the agreement include prioritizing downstream countries for electricity generated by electricity generated by the dam, a dispute resolution mechanism and compensation for damages. Egypt wants an alternative to the agreement that now allows other countries in the Nile basin to carry out projects along the river without its prior approval. This agreement was signed between Egypt and Great Britain, which represented Uganda, Kenya, Tanganjika (now Tanzania) and Sudan. The document gave Cairo the right to veto higher projects on the Nile that would affect its share of water.
The signing of the agreement was already scheduled at a ministerial meeting in 2007, but was delayed at Egypt`s request.  The upstream countries then decided at another ministerial meeting in Kinshasa in May 2009 to sign the agreement without all countries signing at the same time. However, the signing was delayed and, at the next ministerial meeting held in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, in April 2010, it was again asked to postpone the signature. The water safety article (Article 14 ter) raised particular objections from Egypt and Sudan. The article states that Member States will cooperate to “ensure that the water security of another country in the Nile basin is not significantly affected.” Egypt and Sudan want the article “Water security and the current uses and rights of other countries in the Nile basin” without qualification to be “significant”.  Egypt`s former Minister of Water Resources and Irrigation, Mahmoud Abu-Zeid, sees the framework agreement as a positive start: “All have approved more than 95 per cent of the articles.”  An article on the protection and conservation of the basin and its ecosystem – such as the Sudd in Sudan – and an article requiring “prior consent” before the construction of new dams had also been unanimous in previous negotiations.  Representatives of the upstream countries said they were “tired of first obtaining Egypt`s permission before using Nile-river water for any development project such as irrigation,” as required by a first-time contract between Egypt and Great Britain in 1929.  The agreement does not contain fixed amounts of water for each riparian country.