The CFA was proposed for signature in 2010, with the goal of establishing fair water use and common accountability among Nile states, rejecting earlier historical treaties that favored downstream governments. It aims to promote regional socioeconomic development, peace, and security in accordance with international environmental norms, such as the Stockholm Declaration, which advocates for resource sovereignty with responsibilities to neighbors to prevent cross-border environmental harm (Mohammed Jungudo, 2018). Egypt and Sudan have declined to sign the CFA, even suspending full participation in NBI, whilst the other Nile countries of Ethiopia, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, and Kenya have approved the agreement (Knaepen & Byiers, 2017; Mohammed Jungudo, 2018). Articles 4, 5, and 14 of the framework have been the topic of disagreement. In fact, article 4 emphasizes the need to introduce the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization in the Nile basin; article 5 also requires member states not to cause significant harm to water sources; and article 14 addresses the new concept of water security, stating that a member state’s activities should not have a significant impact on the water security of other Nile Basin states (Knaepen & Byiers, 2017). If Egypt and Sudan sign the Cooperative Framework Agreement, they will improve collaboration by reinforcing existing arrangements and efforts under the Nile Basin Initiative. If they withdraw from Nile Basin operations and insist on rejecting the new agreement, sub-basin arrangements such as the Eastern Nile Subsidiary Action Programme (ENSAP) may, negatively, be impacted (Knaepen & Byiers, 2017).