Explanation and Leveling of Ilsu Dam Stresses in Countries and Downstream (Iraq, Syria, and Iran)

جغرافیاوتوسعه ناحیه ای

Article 11, Volume 18, Issue 2 - Serial Number 35, March 2021, Pages 332-303   

Document Type: case study

DOI: 10.22067/jgrd.2021.50847.0

Authors

Reyhaneh Salehabadi¹; Afshin Mottaqi Dastanaei^{* 2}; Maryam Takrosta³

¹PhD in Political Geography, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

²Associate Professor, Department of Political Geography, Kharazmi University, Faculty of Geographical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

³MSc in Rural Geography, Kharazmi University, Faculty of Geographical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Common catchment areas are becoming increasingly important in the development of hydropolitic stresses in different areas. Based on widespread environmental change, we will see an ever-expanding array of dams for various exploitation by countries in different regions of the world in the next decade. The purpose of this study was to examine the Illslu Dam and the political, economic, socio-cultural and environmental impacts of Turkey's dam construction on the downstream Tigris (Iraq, Syria and Iran). Given that there are no regional treaties for the proper utilization of shared water resources in the Middle East region, such actions by Turkey as an upstream country can lead to environmental crises for downstream countries, exacerbate tensions, and even water wars in the region. The study used descriptive-analytical method. Super Decision software was used to study the impacts of dam on downstream countries of Tigris. Findings show that the incidence of political conflicts with a weight of 0.11026, the destruction of food security with a weight of 0.13774, population displacement with a weight of 0.09788, drying of Horalhvizeh-Horalazim wetland with a weight of 0.09843, infiltration of saline water into the Persian Gulf 0.09337 have the most impact The construction of dams and also these factors will have the greatest impact on increasing tensions between upstream and downstream countries in the short term. In order to solve the problems and difficulties arising from the construction of dams on trans-boundary rivers, we need to ratify and formulate regional treaties between the countries of the common areas.

Keywords

Illslu Dam; Hydropolitics; Downstream Countries; Super Decision

References

 

1. امیدی، م.، و طاهرخانی، پ. (1390). بررسی ژئوپلیتیک زیست ‌محیطی خلیج ‌فارس با تأکید بر ساخت جزایرمصنوعی. پنجمین کنگرۀ انجمن ژئوپلیتیک ایران، 3 و 4 خرداد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد رشت، ایران.
2. بیضایی، ز. (1397). بررسی حقوقی اثرات زیست محیطی ساخت سدهای بزرگ با تاکید بر سد ایلیسوی ترکیه. کنفرانس بین‌المللی مطالعات بین رشته ای در مدیریت و مهندسی، 14 اسفند، مؤسسۀ پژوهشی مدیریت مدبر، تهران، ایران.
3. حافظ‌نیا، م. (190). اصول و مفاهیم ژئوپلیتیک (چاپ دوم). مشهد: انتشارات پژوهشکدۀ امیرکبیر.
4. زرقانی، س. ه.، احمدی، ا، و مرادی، ع. (1396). تغییرات مورفولوژیک رودخانه­های مرزی و نقش آن در تنش­های هیدروپلیتیک. همایش دیپلماسی آب و فرصت­های هیدروپلیتیک غرب آسیا، 8 و 9 اسفند 139، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران.
5. قائم‌مقامی، س.(1396). بحران آب و آب‌­های جاری فرامرزی ترکیه و امنیت ملی و محیط زیست ایران. فصلنامۀ مطالعات منافع ملی، 2(7)، 117-97.
6. قوام، س. (1389). اصول سیاست خارجی و سیاست بین‌الملل (چاپ شانزدهم). تهران: سمت.
7. مویر، ر. (1379). درآمدی نو بر جغرافیای سیاسی (د. میرحیدر، و ر. صفوی، مترجمان). تهران: انتشارات سازمان جغرافیایی نیروهای مسلح.
8. نواری، ع. (1397). ساخت و راه‌اندازی سد ایلیسو در ترکیه و پدیدۀ ریزگردها در ایران: اولویت اصول مرتبط با حقوق بین‌الملل محیط‌زیست. مطالعات حقوقی، 10(14)، 219-261.
9. هاگت، پ. (1379). جغرافیا ترکیبی نو (جلد دوم). تهران: انتشارات سمت.

 

10. Abdul Hamid, H. (2013). A study on the concept of international river in international water law and its applications in Nile Basin agreements. African Perspectives, 11(39), 41-46.
11. Ahmad Qureshi, W. (2017). Equitable apportionment of shared transboundary river waters: A case study of modifications of the industry waters Treaty, San Diego. San Diego International Law Journal, 199, 200-240.
12. Ahunbay, Z., & Balkiz, O. (2009). Outstanding universal value of Hasankeyf and the Tigris valley. Ankara, Turkey: Doga Dernegi. Retrieved 2009, November 5, from http://m-h-s.org/ilisu/upload/PDF/2009/unesco-antrag.pdf
13. Assies, (2010). The limits of state reform and multiculturalism in Latin America: Contemporary illustration. In R. Boelens, D. Getches, & A. Guevara-Gil (Eds.), Out of the mainstream: Water Rights, Politics and Identity (pp. 27-56). London: Earthscan.
14. Barandat, J., & Kaplan, A. (1998). International water law: Regulations for cooperation and the discussion of the international water convention. In W. Scheumann, & M. Schiffler (Eds), Water in the Middle East: Potential for conflicts and prospects for cooperation (pp. 11-30). Berlin: Springer.
15. Birnie, P., & Boyle, A. (2002). International law and the environment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
16. Correia, F. N., & Silva, J. E. (1999). International framework for the management of transboundary water resources. Water International, 24(1), 86–94.
17. Degefu, D. M., He, W., Yuan, L., & Zhao, J. (2016). Water allocation in transboundary river basins under water scarcity: A cooperative bargaining approach. Water Resource Management, 30(1), 4451–4466.
18. Dilleen, O. (2019). Turkey’s dam-building could create new Middle East conflict. Retrieved from https://www.maritime-executive.com/editorials/turkey-s-dam-building-could-create-new-middle-east-conflict
19. General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works. (2009). Turkey water report, Ankara, Turkey. Retrieved 2009, September 29, from dsi.gov.tr/ english/ pdf_files/ TurkeyWaterReport.pdf
20. (2006). Independent review of the Environmental Impacts Assessment Report (EIAR) 2005 on the future Ilisu dam (Turkey). Kastanienbaum, Switzerland. Retrieved 2009, November 1 from http://m-h-s.org/ilisu/upload/PDF/Analysen/HydrolGutD8_20EAWAG_Ilisu_02.2006.pdf
21. Eberlein, C., Drillisch, H., Ayboga, E., & Wenidoppler, T. (2010). The Ilisu dam in Turkey and the role of export credit agencies and NGO networks. Water Alternatives, 3(2), 291-312
22. Epiney, C. A. (2000). Völkerrechtliche Aspekte des Staudammprojekts Ilisu (Türkei). Freiburg
23. (2002). Fırat Yumuşakkabuklu Kaplumbağası (Rafetus euphraticus) – Dünü. Bugünü ve Yarını.- T. C. Başbakanlık Güneydoğu Anadolu Projesi Bölge Kalkınma İdaresi Başkanlığı, (Hazırlayan: Doç.Dr. Ertan Taşkavak, Ege Üniversitesi Su Ürünleri Fakültesi).
24. Glassner, M. (1993). Political geography. New York: John Wiley.
25. Gleick, P.H., & Heberger, M., (2013). Water brief 4: Water conflict chronology. In P. H. Gleick, Cooley, & M. J. Cohen (Eds.), The world’s water, 2008–2009: The biennial report on freshwater resource (pp. 173–219) Washington, DC: Island Press.
26. Government of Iraq. (2002). Position paper indicating Iraq's position on the utilization of the Tigris river waters. Baghdad, Syrian.
27. Internal Displacement Monitoring Center (IDMC). (2017). Case study series: Dam displacement. Retrieved from https://www.internal-displacement.org/
28. International Law Association. (1967). The Helsinki rules on the uses of the water of international river. London: International Law Association.
29. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). (2004). 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Retrieved from http:// www. iucnredlist. org
30. Janabi, H. (2009). Oral communication at Ilisu Summit in Berlin. 28 May 2009.
31. Kiliç, D. T., & Eken, G. (2004). Türkiye Kuşları Kırmızı Listesi: Türkiye’nin Önemli Kuş Alanları. Güncellemesi. Doğa Derneği, Ankara.
32. Kurdish Human Rights Project. (2002). Downstream impacts of Turkish Dam construction on Syria and Iraq: Joint report of fact-finding mission to Syria and Iraq. Turkey: Kurdish Human Rights Project the Ilisu Dam Campaign the Corner House.
33. Madani K., & Lund J. R. (2012). California’s Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta conflict: From cooperation to chicken. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 138(1), 90–99.
34. McCaffrey, S. (2007). The law of international watercourses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35. S. (2010). The law of international watercourses (2^nd ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36. Memduh, K., & Murat Çavus, l. (2018). Effect of Normal and shear interaction stiffnesses on three-dimensional Viscoplastic Creep behaviour of a CFR Dam. Hindawi Advances in Civil Engineering, 2018, 1- 17.
37. Morvaridi, (2004). Resettlement, rights to development and the Ilisu Dam, Turkey. Development and Chang, 35(4), 719-741.
38. Qin, J., Fu, X., Peng, Sh., Xu, Y., Huang, J., & Huang, S. (2019). Asymmetric bargaining model for water resource allocation over transboundary rivers. International Journal of Environment Resources Public Health, 16(10), 17-33.
39. Rahaman, M. (2009). Principles of international water law: creating effective transboundary water resources management. International Journal of Sustainable Society, 1(3), 1-17.
40. Rogers, S., & Crow-Miller, B. (2017). The politics of water: A review of hydro political frameworks and their application in China. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 4(6), e1239.
41. Ronayne, M. (2005). The cultural and environmental impact of large dams in Southeast Turkey, Galway: National University of Ireland.
42. Salman, M. A. S. (2007). The Helsinki rules, the UN watercourses convention and the berlin rules: Perspectives on international water law. Water Resources Development, 23(1), 625–640.
43. Saracoglu, (2009). Exclusive recognition: The new dimensions of the question of ethnicity and nationalism in Turkey. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 32, 640-658.
44. Schroeder-Wildberg, E. (2002). The 1997 International Watercourses Convention – Background and Negotiations. Germany: Technical University of Berlin.
45. Soloman, E. (2018). Why water is a growing faultline between Turkey and Iraq. Hasankeyf.
46. De Stefanoa, L., Petersen-Perlman, J. D., Sproles, E. A., Eynar, J., & Wolf, A. T. (2017). Assessment of transboundary river basins for potential hydro-political tensions, Global Environmental Change, 45, 35–46
47. Celal, T. (2009). The Munzur valley and the problem of Dams, Tunceli Solidarity commission and Dersim Initiative, Istanbul 2009.
48. UN Watercourses Convention. (1997). Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses-1997 (New York, 1997). Retrieved from https://unece.org/environment-policy/water/un-watercourses-convention
49. Unver, O. (2000). The Southeastern Anatolia Project (GAP): An overview. In Water and development in Southeastern Anatolia: Essays on the Ilisu Dam and GAP, Proceedings of a seminar held at the Turkish Embassy in London.
50. Wang, D., & Hejazi, M. (2011). Quantifying the relative contribution of the climate and direct human impacts on mean annual streamflow in the contiguous United States. Water Resources Research, 47(10), doi: 10.1029/ 2010W R010283.
51. Warner, J. F., & Wester, J. (2014). Hoogesteger Struggling with scales: revisiting the boundaries of river basin management. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 1, 469-481.
52. Warner, J. (2004). Working with Buzan: The Ilisu Dam as a security issue. London: SOAS/King´s College London.
53. Wilson, R. (2012). Water-shortage crisis escalating in the Tigris-Euphrates Basin.  Future Directions International. Retrieved from http:// futuredirections. org. au/ wpcontent/ uploads/ 2012/ 08/ FDI_ Strategic_ Analysis_ Paper_-_28_August_2012(1).pdf.
54. Wolf T., Kerstin, S., & Marcia, F. (2003). Conflict and cooperation within international river basins: The importance of institutional capacity. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245767420
55. Worster D. (1985). Rivers of empire: Water, aridity and the growth of the American West. New York: Pantheon Books.