Egyptian media coverage of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) has grown increasingly inconsistent and often diverges from the assessments of Egypt's own scientists and water experts, journalist and writer Zahid Zidan said in an interview with ENA Arabic.
Zidan told the Ethiopian state outlet that public debate over the dam has frequently been shaped by contradictory media narratives rather than scientific and technical analysis. He named three Egyptian experts he said have publicly taken positions at odds with mainstream Egyptian media framing of the dam as a threat. None of the three were quoted directly in the ENA interview; their positions were characterized secondhand by Zidan, and readers should weigh the account accordingly.
According to Zidan, Egyptian geologist Dr. Abbas Sharaqi has repeatedly argued that the GERD does not inherently harm Egypt. He also cited Egyptian scientist Dr. Sameh Armanious, whom he described as characterizing the project as a hydropower dam that returns water to the river system after electricity generation rather than diverting it permanently. Zidan further pointed to Egyptian space scientist Dr. Farouk El-Baz, saying El-Baz has indicated the dam could help protect the interests of Sudan and Egypt, as well as Ethiopia, through more regulated water management.
Zidan argued that hydrological conditions should be judged through scientific observation rather than political interpretation.
"Discussions about water abundance or scarcity cannot be based on scientific criteria before the end of the water season," Zidan said.
He said some Egyptian media outlets have, at different points, linked the GERD to opposite phenomena — first associating it with flooding and infrastructure damage, and later blaming it for declining water levels and drought — a pattern he said reveals inconsistencies in parts of the Egyptian media discourse.
"The technical nature of the project differs from the portrayal presented by some Egyptian media outlets," he said.
Zidan also cited Sudanese specialists Professor Saif al-Din Hamad and former Sudanese Minister of Irrigation and Water Resources Dr. Osman Al-Tom, saying their assessments have similarly emphasized evidence-based analysis over political narratives in discussions of the Nile.
Advertisement
He said the Abay, or Blue Nile, contributes about 86 percent of the Nile waters that flow to downstream countries — a figure he cited in what he called Ethiopia's sovereign right to develop the river for hydroelectric generation. That figure was presented by Zidan in the interview and is not independently attributed to a specific study or dataset in the ENA account.
Zidan said full assessment of annual water volumes takes months after the rainy season ends.
"The annual volume of water cannot be accurately assessed until March or April of next year," he said, adding that early judgments about water abundance or scarcity do not offer a complete hydrological picture.
He called for more balanced, scientifically grounded reporting on the GERD, urging media organizations to rely on technical studies and verified data rather than narratives he said could complicate regional discussions over Nile water management.
The GERD has been the subject of a decade-long dispute among Ethiopia, Egypt, and Sudan over the management of Nile waters. According to Zidan, some Egyptian officials and media outlets have claimed the dam threatens downstream countries, a framing he characterized as politically driven and inconsistent with the assessments of several Egyptian and Sudanese experts he cited. Egyptian government officials have historically maintained that the dam poses risks to the country's water security — a position not addressed directly in the ENA interview and not independently verified in this report.
It should be noted that Zidan's account, relayed through Ethiopian state media, presents a framing favorable to Ethiopia's position. The three Egyptian experts he cited were not interviewed independently by ENA or by The Abay Times, and their views are relayed here as characterized by Zidan alone. Readers should treat the piece as a report of one commentator's argument on a state broadcaster, not as a comprehensive or adjudicated account of the underlying scientific or diplomatic dispute.
