Strategic Analysis of (Ethnic-Religious) Stakeholders of Tigris and Euphrates Water Projects

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant Professor of Sociology, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

2 Assistant Professor of Political Geography, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Extended abstract  
Introduction
The scarcity of renewable freshwater resources and reserves is one of the major threats and sustainable challenges facing the world in the 21st century. Ensuring the availability of sufficient fresh water to maintain the health and well-being of people and the ecosystems in which they live, and to meet the world's food demand, which is expected to double by 2050, is one of the world's most important challenges. Among the 286 internationally shared watersheds, the Tigris and Euphrates basin can be included in the list of the tensest transboundary watersheds in the world, along with the Nile basin. The issue of exploitation and sharing water resources in the Tigris and Euphrates basin as the largest transboundary basin in West Asia, is very important, and this region is politically tense, with shortages coupled with increasing demand and intense competition for access and more exploitation of water. Many studies have been done in this area using national and national perspectives, but what is needed is the analysis and stratification of transnational hydro-political actors and activists, i.e., local communities. These communities in the Tigris and Euphrates basin can be divided into a more general category of religious and linguistic groups. It is therefore necessary to examine these groups from the view point of the advantages and disadvantages of water projects.
The theoretical orientation of the current research is derived from the ecological reality of the region. From this point of view, the natural geography of the basin, in interaction with human communities, has led to the formation of ethnic, religious groups and a particular social structure, which are usually in competition, conflict and rarely interact with each other. The scarce source of water has fueled or influenced these confrontations and conflicts. From an analytical point of view, the current research is based on the social reading of "conflicting identities" organized around the "scarce water source". The "unit of analysis" of the present study is the entire basin and the sub-basins identified. The "units of observation" are ethnic and religious groups. In this study, Turkey is seen as the hydro-hegemon and the designer and implementer of the Gap Project in the upstream depending on the severity of the impact and the type of impact of Turkey's water development plans. Therefore, the main focus of this research is an attempt to understand the perception of the Stakeholders of the water projects in the Tigris and Euphrates basin from an ethnic and religious point of view.
Methodology
The present study examines the social impact of the implementation of the GAP project on downstream countries. Using the descriptive and analytic method and the available sources, this article tries to identify the losers and the benefits of the ethno-religious winners of the Tigris and Euphrates basin water projects. After collecting the necessary data, the Stakeholders are ranked using the Simple Weighting Method (SAW).
Finding
The developments of the Gap project since its launch until today can be considered in six stages:

Gap is a water and land resource development project
GAP is a multi-sector and integrated project (1984-1989)
Gap in purgatory (1989-1993)
GAP is a sustainable human development project (1994-2001)
Gap is a market-based project (2002-2011)
New Gap.

The social conflicts caused by water development projects in the sample societies can be categorized into two upstream basins, namely Turkey, and two downstream basins, namely Syria and Iraq. In the case of the upper reaches of the basin, i.e. Turkey, the analysis of macro-conflicts shows the deep-rooted conflict and resistance of the ethnic group, centered on the Kurds, against the national group.
 The fact is that both groups have a different analysis of the social impact of the project. In the case of the local group, there is more concern about integrating the ethnic group, removing the obstacles to the social and economic development of the region and confronting the destructive movements of the militants, although this is usually not openly expressed. As far as the ethnic group is concerned, it should be acknowledged that this project has its own positive and negative consequences, disrupting the traditional social fabric, changing the way of life, the demographic composition of employment and education. Not many studies have been carried out on how the project has developed in Turkey over the last four decades, especially from a social point of view.
With regard to the bottom of the basin, i.e. Iraq and Syria, the weakness of the government and its fragility in Iraq and Syria, the reduction of social capital between the groups, the water problems in these two countries, the remoteness of sustainable solutions to resolve water conflicts within the country, the conflict over the issue of water between communities are among important factors. In the local and upstream and downstream provinces, the historical experience of conflict and collective memory, and the transformation of the water issue into an element of ethnic consciousness centered on the Kurds due to their superior hydro-political position will continue.
Conclusions
According to the calculations, the Stakeholders at the lower levels are more affected by several national levels. The area mentioned is the Turkish government, and perhaps the benefit of Alevi descendants is partly due to the strengthening of Turkey’s upstream location. But in the case of Iraq, the situation of the Sunni Kurds is better than that of the Sunni and Shiite Arabs, and finally it can be said that the Shiite Arabs are affected by the interaction of different conditions compared to the ethno-religious groups with a more dangerous situation than the water development plans mentioned above: Risks caused by drought in the lower reaches of the basin, the weak increase in migration from rural areas affected by climate change and the decline in the quality and quantity of water to the outskirts of cities, the population density in informal settlements in Basra province, and the deprivation of special water and sanitation networks and vulnerability.

Keywords

Main Subjects


  1. References

    1. Akşit, B; Mutlu, K; Nalbantoğlu, H.Ü; Akçay, A.A; Şen, M (1996). Population Movements in Southeastern Anatolia: Some Findings of an Empirical Research in 1993 1. New Perspectives on Turkey, 14, 53-74.
    2. Al-Abbasi, R.D.M (2019). The Iraqi-Syrian dispute over the Euphrates River Waters and Saudi Mediation 1975. Regional Studies, Vol. 13, No. 42, pp. 9-50. [In Arabic]
    3. Al-Abbasi, R.D.M (2012). The Southeastern Anatolia Project and its Impact on the Eradication of Historical Monuments in Turkey. Adab Al-Farahidi. Vol. 13. [In Arabic]
    4. Al-Abbasi, R.D.M (2018). The Impact of Establishing the Ilisu and Jazara Projects on Iraq. Regional Vision Journal, Center for Regional Studies, University of Mosul, Issue (1), Year (1). [In Arabic]
    5. Al-Badri, B.H (2010). The Impact of Water Scarcity on Irrigated Agriculture in Iraq, Journal of the College of Administration and Economics, Issue (80), Iraq. [In Arabic]
    6. Al-Badri, B.H; Rashid, A.A.R (2011), Measuring the Impact of Water losses in Irrigated Agriculture on Water Scarcity in Iraq for the 2009 Agricultural Season, Journal of the College of Administration and Economics, Issue 87, Iraq. [In Arabic]
    7. Altinbilek, D; Tortajada, C (2012). The Atatürk Dam in the Context of the Southeastern Anatolia (GAP) Project. In Impacts of Large Dams: A global assessment (pp. 171-199). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
    8. Ashley, R (1980). The Political Economy of War and Peace. London: Francis Pinter.
    9. Asia, United Nations. Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia and Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (2013). Inventory of shared water resources in Western Asia. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia.
    10. Bilgen, A (2018a). A Project of Destruction, peace, or Techno-science? Untangling the Relationship between the Southeastern Anatolia Project (GAP) and the Kurdish Question in Turkey. Middle Eastern Studies, 54(1), 94-113.
    11. Bilgen, A (2018b). The Southeastern Anatolia Project (GAP) Revisited: The Evolution of GAP over Forty Years. New Perspectives on Turkey, 58, 125-154.
    12. Bilgen, A (2019). The Southeastern Anatolia Project (GAP) in Turkey: an Alternative Perspective on the Major Rationales of GAP. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 21(5), 532-552.
    13. Caselli, F; Coleman, W.J (2013). On the Theory of Ethnic Conflict. Journal of the European Economic Association, 11(suppl_1), 161-192.
    14. Central Statistical Organization (2011). General Census of Buildings and Establishments and Enumeration of Housing and Households 2010. Series of Numbering and Enumeration Results Reports Report No. (1). Buildings, Housing and Households Report - National Level. Republic of Iraq, Ministry of Planning, Central Statistical Organization. [In Arabic]
    15. Central Statistical Organization (2016). Semi-Annual Continuous Social and Economic Survey 2014. Republic of Iraq, Ministry of Planning, Central Statistical Organization. [In Arabic]
    16. Conde, G (2016). Water and Counter-hegemony: Kurdish Struggle in the Tigris and Euphrates in Turkey. Revista de Paz y Conflictos, 9(2), 43-58.
    17. Daoudy, M (2020a). Water Weaponization in the Syrian Conflict: Strategies of Domination and Cooperation. International Affairs, 96(5), 1347-1366.
    18. Dawood, A.K (2023). The Iraqi-Syrian-Turkish Conflict over the Waters of the Tigris and Euphrates: A Geopolitical Reading. Arab Policies, Issue 62, Volume 11: 40-65. [In Arabic]
    19. Dincer, B; Ozaslan, M; Kavasoğlu, T (2003). Socio-Economic Development Index Ranking of the Provinces-2003. State Planning Organization, Ankara.
    20. Dougherty, J; Pfaltzgraff, R (1981). Contending Theories of International Relations. Longman Higher Education.
    21. Duaij, M.A (2016). The Demand for Water in Economic Activities in Iraq. Journal of the College of Education 2 (Fourth): 431-445. [In Arabic]
    22. Elmas, G (2004). Women, Urbanization and Regional Development in Southeast Anatolia: a Case Study for Turkey. Turkish Studies, 5(3), 1-24.
    23. Falkenmark, M; Molden, D (2008). Wake up to the Realities of River Basin Closure. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 24 (201–215).
    24. Famiglietti, J.S (2014). The Global Groundwater Crisis. Nat. Clim. Change 4 (945–948).
    25. Gallaher, C; and et al (2009). Key Concepts in Political Geography. London and California: Sage Publication Ltd
    26. Gökçe, B; Kasapoğlu, A; Kaya, N.Ç; Güler, Z (2010). Bölgesel Kalkınmanın Can Suyu GAP: Karşılaştırmalı Sosyal ve Ekonomik Yapı Araştırması. GAP BKİ ve Sosyoloji Derneği Yayını, Ankara, 419s.
    27. Hafeznia, M.R; Taheri, A; Farajzadeh Asl, M; Karaminezhad, H (2017). The Effects of Political Factors on Intensification of Dust Storms in the Euphrates–Tigris River Basin. Human Geography Research, 49(4), 857-868. doi: 10.22059/jhgr.2016.58810. [In Persian]
    28. Haggett, P (1983). Geography: Modern Syntheses. New York: Publisher: Harpercollins College Div.
    29. Haggett, P (2001). Geography: A Global Synthesis. Publisher: Prentice Hall.
    30. Holsti, K.J (1991). Peace and War: Armed Conflicts and International Order1648-1989. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    31. Homer-Dixon, T; Boutwell, J.H; Rathjens, G.W (1993). Environmental Change and Violent Conflict. Scientific American. 268(2).
    32. HRW (Human Rights Watch) (2019). Basra Is Thirsty: Iraq’s Failure to Manage the Water Crisis.
    33. Jongerden, J (2010). Dams and Politics in Turkey: Utilizing Water, Developing Conflict. Middle East Policy, 17(1), 137-143.
    34. Katea Hassoun, A.R (2012). “International Responsibility for the Harmful Use of the Euphrates River by Turkey”. Al-Kufa Journal of Legal and Political Sciences, 2012, Volume 1, Issue 13, Pages 220-232. [In Arabic]
    35. Katea Hassoun, A.R (2012). “International Responsibility for the Harmful Use of the Euphrates River by Turkey”. Al-Kufa Journal of Legal and Political Sciences, 2012, Volume 1, Issue 13, Pages 220-232. [In Arabic]
    36. Kemp, J; Harkavy, R (2016). Strategic Geography of the Middle East (Volume 1), translated by Seyyed Mehdi Hosseini Matin, Tehran: Strategic Studies Research Institute Publications. [In Persian]
    37. Kool, D; Laura, B; Torossian, B (2020). Interprovincial Water Challenges in Iraq: Initial Analysis of an Urgent and Under-researched Crisis, Water, Peace and Security.
    38. Lahn, G; Shamout, N (2015). The Euphrates in Crisis: Channels of Cooperation for a Threatened River.
    39. Lake, D.A; Rothchild, D (1996). Policy Paper 20: Ethnic Fears and Global Engagement: The International Spread and Management of Ethnic Conflict.
    40. Liu, J; Yang, H; Gosling, S.N; Kummu, M; Flörke, M; Pfister, S; Hanasaki, N; Wada, Y; Zhang, X; Zheng, C; Alcamo, J (2017). Water Scarcity Assessments in the past, Present and Future. Earth's Future, 5(6), 545-559.
    41. Mair, P (1997). Sociology of War and Army, Translated by Mohammad Sadegh Mahdavi and Alireza Azghandi, Tehran, Qoms Publishing. [In Persian]
    42. Map "River and Groundwater Basins of the World 1: 50 000 000", Published in 2012 for the 6th World Water Forum, Marseille, France
    43. METU DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY (1994): Population Movements in the Southeastern Anatolia Project (Executive Summary). GAP Regional Development Administration. Ankara
    44. Mokhtari Hashi, H; Ghaderi Hajat, M (2008). Hydro politics in the Middle East in 2025 Case Study: The Basins of Tigris, Euphrates, Jordan & Nile Rivers. Geopolitics Quarterly, 4(11), 36-74. [In Persian]
    45. Morid, S; Delavar, M; Zaghian, M.R; Shokri Kochch, V; Fallah, M (2020). Studies on the Interaction of Climate Change Phenomena and Human Activities on the Conditions of the Zab River Basin and its Catchments Hydrologically Related Ministry of Energy-Iran Water and Power Resources Development Company, Water Engineering Research Institute of Tarbiat Modares University. [In Persian]
    46. Morvaridi, B (2004). Resettlement, Rights to Development and the Ilisu Dam, Turkey. Development and Change, 35(4), 719-741.
    47. Mutlu, S (1996). The Southeastern Anatolia Project (GAP) of Turkey: its Context, Objectives and Prospects. ORIENT-HAMBURG-, 37, 59-86.
    48. Nazli, C; North, R (1975). Nations in Conflict: National Growth and International Violence. Sanfrancisco. Califi Freeman
    49. Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) (2022). Insufficient and Unfair: Water Scarcity and Displacement in Iraq. [In Arabic]
    50. Öktem, K (2002). When Dams Are Built on Shaky Grounds: Policy Choice and Social Performance of Hydro-Project Based Development in Turkey. Erdkunde, 310-325.
    51. Özer, A (1998). Modernleşme ve Güneydoğu. İmge Kitabevi.
    52. Pacific Institute. (2023). Water Conflict Chronology. Retrieved from https://pacinst.org/water-conflict-chronology.
    53. Prescott, J.V (1987). Political Frontiers & Boundaries. London: Routledge, 93
    54. Richardson, L.F (1960). Statistics of Deadly Quarrels. Boxwood Press, Pittsburgh Pa.; Quadrangle Books, Chicago Cago, IllScience 30 December 1960: Vol. 132 no.3444 pp. 1931-1932. DOI: 10.1126/ 132.3444.1931-a.
    55. Ronayne, M (2005). The Cultural and Environmental Impact of Large Dams in Southeast Turkey. National University of Ireland, Galway and Kurdish Human Rights Project.
    56. Saab, N.W (2018). More than Infrastructures: Water Challenges in Iraq.
    57. Smakhtin, V (2008). Basin Closure and Environmental Flow Requirements. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 24 (227–233).
    58. Syrian Commission for Family Affairs (2011). Stagnation of demographic transition towards population balance in Syria The problem of slowing down the fertility rate, Damascus. [In Arabic]
    59. Turgut, H. (Ed.). (2000). GAP ve Demirel. ABC.
    60. Türkiye Nüfusu (2023). Retrieved from https://www.nufusu.com
    61. Veilleux, J; Dinar, S (2019). A Global Analysis of Water-Related Terrorism, 1970–2016. Terrorism and Political Violence, 1-26.
    62. Von Lossow, T.V (2016). Water as Weapon: IS on the Euphrates and Tigris: The Systematic Instrumentalisation of Water Entails Conflicting IS SWP Comments, https://www.swp- berlin.org/fileadmin/ contents/products/comments/2016C03_lsw.pdf
    63. Warner, J (2011). Flood planning: The Politics of Water Security. Bloomsbury Publishing.