MSc Thesis3

Analysis of the Hydro-Political Impacts of Dam Development in Transboundary River Basins A Case Study of the Harirud River Basin Mohsen Nagheeby MSc Thesis No. WM-WCM. 14.05 April 2014

Afghanistan

Iran

Turkmenistan

Designed by M. Nagheeby

Analysis of the Hydro-Political Impacts of Dam Development in Transboundary River Basins A Case Study of the Harirud River Basin

Master of Science Thesis by Mohsen Nagheeby

Supervisors Professor Pieter van der Zaag (UNESCO-IHE)

Mentors Ms. Zaki Shubber (UNESCO-IHE) Professor Eelco van Beek (UNESCO-IHE) Examination committee Professor Pieter van der Zaag (UNESCO-IHE) Ms. Zaki Shubber (UNESCO-IHE) Dr. Erik Mostert (TU Delft) This research is done for the partial fulfilment of requirements for the Master of Science degree at the UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, Delft, the Netherlands

Delft April 2014

©2014by Mohsen Nagheeby. All rights reserved. No part of this publication or the information contained herein may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the author. Although the author and UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education have made every effort to ensure that the information in this thesis was correct at press time, the author and UNESCO-IHE do not assume and hereby disclaim any liability to any party for any loss, damage, or disruption caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident, or any other cause.

Abstract Afghanistan as a main source of producing water in Central Asia is seeking to harness transboundary water resources by developing several hydro-infrastructure projects. However, this tendency may negatively affect the downstream neighboring countries that strongly depend on the same water. They fear that any reduction of the water flow by dam development in Afghanistan could have harmful socio-economic and geopolitical effects. The Harirud River Basin shared among Afghanistan, Iran and Turkmenistan is exemplified in above mentioned story. Growing population and economic development alongside the geopolitical complex have led the riparian states to unilaterally develop dams without trilateral cooperation and accordingly cause disputes among the riparian states, in which Afghanistan as upstream country is in one side, whereas Iran and Turkmenistan as downstream countries are together in another side. This dam development, as a particular way of "water resources control", is implemented through the political power relations among the states, influencing the hydropolitical relationships and transboundary water interactions. The objective of this study is therefore to analyze the hydropolitical dynamics of the Harirud River Basin focusing on the assessment of the impacts of dam development on the transboundary water interactions from social, economical and political point of view. The study first used Water Evaluation And Planning (WEAP) model to quantify the impacts of dam development on water flow regime and accordingly the socio-economic system of the basin. Secondly, the study focused on the political circumstances of the basin and region, searching for the underlying political reasons behind dam development. This was particularly followed by analysis of political history of power relations among riparian states and discourses within the strategies of dam development. A conceptual framework was developed here to link the water flow regime to hydropolitical regime of the Harirud River Basin. Based on the research, the findings indicated that there is an asymmetric as well as interdependence socio-economic and political system among three riparian states of Afghanistan, Iran and Turkmenistan in which water is playing a crucial role. In this regard, first, the results of the model illustrated that the construction of Salma Dam in Afghanistan reduces the average annual flow in downstream by around 50 percent in average under the different cases. This indeed dramatically impacts on the socio-economic and ecological conditions of the downstream, creating a strong fear for Iran and Turkmenistan and threatening their human security. Second, looking at the political history of Afghanistan, it was found that water is highly politicized particularly under the condition of the [New] Great Game. Therefore, water development projects like dams are influenced to support the geopolitical objectives specifically for external superpowers rather than economic development goals. This, itself, is also recognized by downstream countries particularly Iran as a threat to their national security. The study shows that the hydropolitical system in the Harirud River Basin is characterized by competitive unilateral strategies of dam development to control the water resources within a complex and asymmetric power relation among the downstream and upstream states. Influenced by geopolitical circumstances as well as growing economic demands, the research found that Iran and Turkmenistan are struggling together to consolidate control over the Harirud River and the status quo in their own favor, whereas Afghanistan is planning to resist the current status quo, enhancing its position in the power relation by controlling the waters. Thus, unilateral dam development is mostly used by the riparian states to impose the power, rule the geopolitical conditions and accordingly attempt to influence the transboundary water interactions of the basin. Key words: Hydropolitics, transboundary water interactions, dam development, the Harirud River Basin.

i

Acknowledgements !

‫ز‬

‫م او‬

Eleven years ago, when I was graduated in civil engineering, I was thinking that an engineer can solve all the problems with fantastic and creative solutions; "I can easily find a solution for waterenergy-food nexus by designing a dam for storing water, a hydropower plant for generating electricity, an irrigation network for producing food". Even more, "I can design a system for a dam operation, a system for controlling the water allocation and eventually a holistic plan for Integrated Water Resources Management". Although I had learned I must consider the socioeconomic and political conditions of my engineering solution, but consideration was with my engineer glasses. Working for some years on engineering projects, I found that something was missed among all these engineering thought. Once I was in a fieldwork in one transboundary river, I visited some poor boys with shiny eyes playing in muddy water remained in the riverdownstream of a dam which engineers built-, I became sure that I should change my glasses for looking at underestimated social and political part of these engineering solutions. This was the main reason that inspired me to study water conflict management. Now, when I look back at the whole ride, I found a worthy decision through a thrilling process of discoveries and challenges. I would like to express first my greatest gratitude to those shiny eyes that change my mind. Also, I never forget my best friend, Alireza Najafi, who was always thinking about cooperation for better world. He was always in my memory and heart, as inspiration, during my thesis and will be in my future. For his valuable notes, I am greatly thankful to my supervisor, Pieter van der Zaag, Professor of Integrated Water Resources Management, who always recommends us to promote awareness of the cooperation potential of water. I would also like to acknowledge my mentors Ms. Zaki Shubber and Professor Eelco van Beek for their ideas and guidance during the thesis period. I would like to express my gratitude to all the people who have helped and guided me throughout my thesis project with emails or meeting: Dr. Kai Weghrich, Dr. Ilyas Masih, Dr. Maria Rusca, Dr. Klaas Schwartz, Dr. Jochen Wenninger, Dr. Rhodante Ahlers, Mr. Masoom Hamdard, Ms. Abeer Nassar, Mr. Sayed Abdul Ghadir, Mr. Reza Roozbahani, Mr. Houshang Gholami and Mr. Jabbar Vatanfada. I should also acknowledge UNESCO-IHE and World Bank for providing me this opportunity. Thanks to all UNESCO-IHE staffs for their efforts and supports particularly Jeltsje Kemerink, the coordinator of Water Management program. My "gracias so much" is also to my friends and classmates particularly Akewaq Yadeta and Giorgio Faedo that I never forget this fantastic period of being with them. There are not enough words to thank my wife and our coming angel for their inspiring support. She was accompanying me through this period of extensive highs and lows. She has always encouraged me to pursue my goals, without her support I definitely would not be here. A big big thank you Mojdeh! Before leaving the acknowledgment, I should be greatly thankful to my lovely parents. I hope this study as a small step contributes to bringing all Afghans, Iranians and Turkmens together to provide a better life for all innocent shiny eyes in the region.

iii

Table of Contents Abstract

i

Acknowledgements

iii

List of Figures

vii

List of Tables

viii

Abbreviations

ix

1.

INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background 1.1.1. Harirud River Basin 1.2. Problem statement 1.3. Research objectives and questions 1.4. Structure of the thesis

11 11 12 14 16 17

2.

LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. Conflict-cooperation dichotomy 2.1.1. Criticizing the dichotomy of water conflict-cooperation 2.2. Power relations and hydro-hegemony 2.2.1. Criticizing the framework of hydro-hegemony 2.3. Geopolitics of dams as prevalent way of water resources control

18 18 19 20 21 21

3.

METHODOLOGY 3.1. Conceptual framework 3.1.1. The concept of power 3.1.2. Water resources control 3.1.3. Transboundary water interactions 3.1.4. Justification of the conceptual framework 3.2. Research methodology: an integrative approach 3.2.1. Document analysis 3.2.2. Statistical computations and modelling analysis 3.2.3. Discourse analysis 3.2.4. Discussion 3.2.4. Political history 3.3. Research strategy 3.4. The scope of the study and limitation 3.5. Sources of data

23 23 24 25 26 26 27 27 27 28 28 28 30 30 31

4.

CASE STUDY: HARIRUD RIVER BASIN 4.1. Introduction 4.2. General overview of the Harirud riparian states 4.2.1. Geo-political history 4.2.2. Economy, agriculture and food security 4.2.3. Overview of the water resources

32 32 33 33 37 39

v

4.3.

Harirud River Basin 4.3.1. Geography, hydrology and climate 4.3.2. Socio-economic system: an asymmetric and interdependence system struggling with rapid changes 4.3.3. Water resources system: the asymmetric system 4.3.4. Ecological Importance: oppressed everywhere 4.3.5. State administrative and institutional setting 4.3.6. Transboundary water cooperation: no multilateral cooperation yet Summary and conclusion: main facts and features

42 42

5.

DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 5.1. Water flow regime: water resources analysis 5.1.1. Introduction 5.1.2. River system and infrastructure in the Harirud River Basin 5.1.3. Water supply in the Harirud River Basin 5.1.4. Water demand in the Harirud River Basin 5.1.5. Assumptions and limitation 5.1.6. Different cases 5.1.7. Water balance analysis in the Harirud River Basin: results of the WEAP model 5.1.8. Summary and conclusion: main facts and features 5.2. Hydro-political regime: the analysis 5.2.1. Introduction 5.2.2. Dams and transboundary water resources control in the Harirud River Basin 5.2.3. What is behind the water? The Great Game!? 5.2.4. Hydro-political history of the Harirud River Basin 5.2.5. Key parties' discourses: positions and interests 5.2.6. Dam developments and asymmetric power relations in the Harirud River Basin 5.2.7. Summary and conclusion: main facts and features 5.3. Transboundary water interactions in the Harirud River Basin 5.3.1. Hydrosolidarity: the 'only way forward'

58 58 58 59 60 62 64 65 66 71 72 72 74 75 77 80 84 87 88 91

6.

CONCLUSION, LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 6.1. Recapitulation of the problem statement and research questions 6.2. Theoretical outputs and limitations of the study 6.3. Recommendation for further study

93 93 96 97

4.4.

References Appendices Appendix A Priorities for WEAP model Appendix B Validation of the WEAP model

45 47 54 55 55 56

98 104 104 105

vi

List of Figures Figure 1.1 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 4.1 Figure 4.2 Figure 4.3 Figure 4.4 Figure 4.5 Figure 4.6 Figure 4.7 Figure 4.8 Figure 4.9 Figure 4.10 Figure 4.11 Figure 4.12 Figure 4.13 Figure 4.14 Figure 4.15 Figure 4.16 Figure 4.17 Figure 4.18 Figure 5.1 Figure 5.2 Figure 5.3 Figure 5.4 Figure 5.5 Figure 5.6 Figure 5.7 Figure 5.8 Figure 5.9 Figure 5.10 Figure 5.11 Figure 5.12 Figure 5.13 Figure B.1

Harirud River Basin in Aral Sea Basin .............................................................................. 14 Conceptual Framework of the study ................................................................................. 24 Research strategies............................................................................................................. 30 Political Map of the Greater Khorasan and current political borders ........................... 33 Comparing some information of three riparian states .................................................... 34 Political map of Afghanistan ............................................................................................... 35 Political map of Iran ............................................................................................................. 36 Political map of Turkmenistan ............................................................................................ 37 Major hydrological basins and rivers in Afghanistan ...................................................... 40 Major hydrological basins in Iran ....................................................................................... 41 Major rivers in Turkmenistan .............................................................................................. 42 Geographical map of Harirud River .................................................................................. 43 Mean monthly precipitation (blue bars) and temperature (red line) in different locations of the Harirud River Basin.................................................................................. 45 Total population trend in three riparian states of the Harirud River Basin .................. 46 Snow coverage in Afghanistan's mountains at different periods of year ..................... 48 Snow water volume estimated from the snow coverage in the Harirud River ............ 48 Geographical location of the gauge stations in the Harirud River ................................ 49 Average discharge of the Harirud River at different gauge stations ............................ 50 The water resources availability in the Harirud River Basin .......................................... 51 Groundwater resources in the Harirud River Basin ........................................................ 52 The Badghyz area (left picture) and IBAs (right picture) located in the Harirud River Basin............................................................................................................................ 55 Schematic map of the Harirud River system and its infrastructure .............................. 60 Linear regression between Doosti, Tagaw Ghaza and Langar Gauge stations......... 61 Average monthly discharge data at Tagaw Ghaza and Doosti gauge stations from 1962-2013 .................................................................................................................... 61 Crop-water irrigation pattern during a year in the Harirud River Basin........................ 63 Minimum environmental water requirement..................................................................... 64 Schematic map of the Harirud River Basin in WEAP model ......................................... 66 Distribution of average inflow into Iran over the year (case 2: with Salma Dam, case 3: without Salma Dam) .............................................................................................. 67 Average percentage of satisfaction level during 43 years ............................................. 69 Average satisfaction level of environmental flow requirement in a year under different cases ...................................................................................................................... 69 The Doosti Dam's live storage in the case of (2) "with Salma Dam" and (3) "without Salma Dam"........................................................................................................... 70 Unilateral dam development in the Harirud River Basin ................................................ 75 Distribution of US and NATO members in Afghanistan ................................................. 83 Hydropolitical dynamics, dam development and transboundary water interactionsError! Bookmark no Comparing the discharge data at Doosti gauge station between observed and simulated data (MCM) ....................................................................................................... 105

vii

List of Tables Table 3.1 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 4.6 Table 4.7 Table 4.8 Table 4.9 Table 4.10 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 5.5 Table 5.6 Table 5.7 Table 5.8 Table A.1

Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 29 General information of three riparian states .................................................................... 34 General information of hydrological basins in Afghanistan ........................................... 39 General information of hydrological basins in Iran ......................................................... 41 General information of hydrological basins in Turkmenistan ........................................ 41 Basin of Harirud/Tejen River .............................................................................................. 43 General climatic data at different locations of the Harirud River Basin ....................... 44 Population in the Harirud River Basin ............................................................................... 46 Gauge stations in the Harirud River .................................................................................. 49 irrigable land areas in the Harirud River Basin................................................................ 52 General information of Salma and Doosti Dams............................................................. 54 Average annual discharge of the Harirud River at different gauge stations in different periods ................................................................................................................... 61 Consumptive use of water (crop-water demand) (m3 per ha) ....................................... 62 The minimum required flow to conserve ecosystem based on the Tennant (or Montana) method ................................................................................................................. 64 Cases' Condition .................................................................................................................. 65 Annual inflow into Iranian border under six cases .......................................................... 67 Average annual water balance (MCM) ............................................................................. 68 Score card of the WEAP analysis ..................................................................................... 90 Interests, discourses and positions ................................................................................... 91 Priorities for WEAP model ................................................................................................ 104

viii

Abbreviations ADB AFG ANDS CFC CIA CIDA DfID EWI FAO FDI GDP GRDC GTZ GWP HDI IDB IGRAC IRI IUCN IWRM JICA KfW MAF MCM MOA MOE MEW NOAA SIDA TRK UNECE UNEP UNESCO UNICEF USAID USGS WEAP WMO WWF

Asian Development Bank Afghanistan Afghanistan National Development Strategy Civil-Military Fusion Centre Central Intelligence Agency (USA) Canadian International Development Agency Department for International Development (UK) EastWest Institute Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Future Directions International Gross Domestic Product Global Runoff Data Centre Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (Germany) Global Water Partnership Human Development Index Inter-American Development Bank International Groundwater Resources Assessment Centre Islamic Repablic of Iran International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Integrated Water Resources Management Japan International Cooperation Agency Krediet fuer Wiederaufbau Mean Annual Flow Million Cubic Meter [Iranian] Ministry of Agriculture [Iranian] Ministry of Energy [Afghan] Ministry of Energy and Water National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Swedish International Development Agency Turkmenistan United Nations Economic Commission for Europe United Nations Environment Programme United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization United Nations Children's Fund United States Agency for International Development United States Geological Survey Water Evaluation And Planning World Meteorological Organization World Wildlife Fund

ix

Units 1 km3 = 1,000 hm3 = 1 billion m3 1 m3/s = 31.54 hm3/year = 0.033 km3/year 1 giga watt hour (GWh) = 1,000 MWhr = 1,000,000 KWhr = 1,000,000,000 Whr 1 km2 = 100 ha The symbol $ refers to U.S. dollars.

x

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION This chapter introduces a general background of the research and explains the main issues targeted by the study. It is followed by demonstrating the problem statement. Then, the research objectives and questions are discussed.

1.1. BACKGROUND Tensions between downstream water utilization and upstream water infrastructure are common in many international rivers for instance the Attaturk Dam on the Euphrates River, the Pa Mong Dam on the Mekong River, the Grand Renaissance Dam on the Nile and the Toktogul Dam on the Syr Darya River (Wegerich et al. 2007; Kraak 2012b). Given its water scarcity and geopolitical importance, the Middle East has been a vulnerable "hydropolitical security complex1" (Warner 2008). Smith (1995: 351) noted that "nowhere in the world has the potential for conflict over the resources as strong as in Central Asia". In this regard, construction of dams was interpreted as a political strategy in Central Asia by O'Hara (2000) (Wegerich et al. 2007). The issues of water resources allocation and water control infrastructure in upstream states of Central Asia are the main socio-political challenges in this region (Wegerich et al. 2007). In comparison with all states in Central Asia, Afghanistan has had exceptional geopolitical importance for a long time (Horsman 2005). Among several political and economic challenges, many reports warn that water scarcity and issues related to transboundary water resources could be critical challenges to political stability in Afghanistan and the region as located in Central Asia (Horsman 2005). In February 2011, the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee published a report entitled "Avoiding Water Wars: Water Scarcity and Central Asia’s Growing Importance for Stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan". The report warned the growing disputes over transboundary waters among Afghanistan and its neighbouring countries (CFC 2011). Similarly, it was noted by the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI) in 2008 that developing water infrastructures in Afghanistan over transboundary waters have been important driver of the disputes and insecurity in the region. This institute reveals that the geopolitical rivalries among USA, Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan and India along with competition over water resources in Central Asia are creating serious problems, in which political nature of transboundary rivers is becoming more complex in this region (NUPI 2008). In this regard, an article, published by the Christian Science Monitor in 30 July 2013 entitled "Why a dam in Afghanistan might set back peace" about the political economy of water 1

A hydropolitical security complex is "a set of states that are geographically part owners and technical users of a water body, and that consider that water body to be a major national security issue" (Schulz 1995, cited by Warner 2008: 277).

Analysis of the Hydro-Political Impacts of Dam Development in Transboundary River Basins

11

resources and allocation in the Harirud River basin located in western part of Afghanistan shared with Iran and Turkmenistan, states that the construction of Salma Dam2 on the Harirud River by Afghans (planed to be opened in 2014) will cut down the flow of the river to Iran and Turkmenistan by 73 percent. Such news has greatly raised concerns in downstream countries. Moreover, it has been said by one Afghan official that there is no plan to negotiate about "their own water" with downstream countries (Christian Science Monitor 30 July 2013). On the other hand, Iran and Turkmenistan have already constructed a common dam named Friendship (Doosti3) Dam in 2004 which resulted in complaints4 by Afghan officials (King and Sturtewagen 2010; UNECE 2011). Considering the asymmetric situation of the basin in terms of water availability, socio-economic and power relation, it seems that three riparian states of the Harirud River basin- Afghanistan in one side as upstream state, Iran and Turkmenistan together in another side as downstream states- are currently engaged in unilateral water resources control as much as possible by increasing their water withdrawal without any negotiation. Asymmetry, in this study, is not only the difference or inequality or unbalance, but rather means the lack of equality or equivalence between parts of aspects of something that are linked and dependent together. To conclude, the question is how these countries take measures to control water; why there has not been any official negotiation on the Harirud waters between upstream and downstream and what factors support riparian states to apply their policies in the basin. This research aims to study the hydropolitics5 of the Harirud River basin and analyze the policies and strategies of controlling the transboundary waters and their impacts on water conflict and cooperation among the riparian states. In a sense, it will explain how and why the riparian states in the Harirud River basin use dam development as prevalent form of hydraulic water resources control; and how it impacts on the hydropolitical relationships.

1.1.1. Harirud River Basin "I am coming from Afghanistan, a post conflict country; I think even not a post conflict, within a conflict and post conflict and between. As soon as we bring total peace to Afghanistan, our biggest problem would be water, because the water is scarce in our region. We are upstream country, we were not able to use the water; we are supposed to use...We have to generate job; we have to put programs, development programs; definitely this will affect the water in the area, in the volume of the water which will be flowing to the neighbouring countries....There is nothing more costly than war, the conflict, the loss of life; saving even one life cost billions...[but] look at how many billions of dollars we spend on war" (H.E. Enayatullah Nabiel, Ambassador of Afghanistan to the Netherlands at the international conference of water security and peace on November, 15, 2013 at The Hague). This shows a general view of the different aspects of this study. Afghanistan is a land-locked country that shares its main rivers with other neighbouring states; but, itself uses around one third of these transboundary waters originated from its lands (FDI 2011). While the history of international water disputes over these transboundary rivers comes back to more than 100 years ago, Afghanistan is typically ignored by other neighbouring states without any recognized claim to use water (Horsman 2005). Afghanistan has had many problems (long time war, insufficient financial support, political tensions and like that) to adequately manage and control the water resources (FDI 2011). Thus, 2

Salma Dam (is financially and technically constructed by India) will increase the irrigable lands from 35000 to 80000 ha and produce 42 MW of electricity. However, water flow will shrink by over 70 percent in downstream where the population's dependence on the Harirud waters is three times greater than on the upstream side (CFC 2013). 3 Doosti Dam is official name in Iran. The word "doosti" means friendship in Persian language. 4 It clearly seems that one of the reason that why Afghanistan concerns about the Friendship Dam is related to the concept of "historical water right" or "existing water right" probably claimed by Iran and Turkmenistan in the content of "International Water Law". 5 The term "hydropolitics" introduced by Waterbury (1979) is politics affected by the water resources. Hydropolitics is the study about the geopolitics and international relations around transboundary waters (Kraak 2012a).

The Harirud River Basin

12

one of the primary Afghan's national strategies has been to control and manage the water resources that are mainly shared with other states; these strategies, in turn, have caused political complains by downstream countries (FDI 2011). This is arguable by many scholars like Allan (2002), Swyngedouw (2009) and Zeitoun and Mirumachi (2008) that there is a meaningful relation between water and political power in hydropolitical context of transboundary waters so that Warner (2008: 276) noted "upstream use water to get more power6, downstream use power to get more water"; and this is manifested in many transboundary water basins like Nile and Jordan Rivers. Considering the geopolitical situation, complex political nature and current states' behaviour through competition over water resources, it seems that Warner's note may also be an issue in the Harirud River basin. In other word, the riparian states of the Harirud River basin (Afghanistan vs. IranTurkmenistan) are involved in strategies of water resources capture (and more obviously dam construction) through their political power relations and the dynamics of hydro-hegemony in the region. Among all transboundary rivers in Afghanistan, there are two rivers which are shared between Afghanistan and Iran: one is the Helmand River7 in southwest of Afghanistan and another one is the Harirud River in west of Afghanistan. These two rivers have been lifeblood to support civilizations in South and Central Asia (some scholars believe that these rivers may have flowed since 1500 BC8). The Harirud River is a transboundary river with 1124 Km long located in Central Asia and shared among Afghanistan, Iran and Turkmenistan (Figure 1.1). The river originates in the mountains of Hindukush in Ghor province in Afghanistan. Crossing the western part of Afghanistan through Herat province and after joining with its main tributary, the Kabgan River, it forms firstly the political Afghan-Iranian border and secondly the political border of Iran and Turkmenistan (the river is called Tejen River by Iran and Turkmenistan when it makes their common border). Finally, it ends in Turkmenistan desert (King and Sturtewagen 2010).

6

In social and political science, power is the ability to influence the behaviour of people and institutions (Lecture presented by Shyamika Jayasundara-Smits, UNESCO-IHE, 2013). Helmand River is the only river in Afghanistan that this country reached an agreement in 1973 with Iran about allocation of water (King and Sturtewagen 2010). Since at least the 1870s, Helmand River basin has been the source of long time disputes between Afghanistan and Iran when British used the river as part of the political border (USGS 2006). Helmand river is known as Hirmand River in Iranian side. 8 http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/helmand-river; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmand_River. 7


13

Figure 1.1

Harirud River Basin in Aral Sea Basin (Qadeer 2013)

1.2. PROBLEM STATEMENT Controlling, governing and harnessing water by riparian states in their own favour through their political power relations are usually common among all transboundary river basins (Allan 2002; Zeitoun and Warner 2006; Wolf 2007). This power (which includes material and non-material power described by Zeitoun and Warner 2006, or soft and hard power noted by Warner 2008) is not evenly distributed among the states and actors. Thus, this uneven power capacity and distribution among the actors create asymmetric power relations. The asymmetric distribution of power influence the water interactions and in particular the water allocation. The asymmetrical power greatly contributes to shaping the water flow regime among all riparian states and identifying who gets water and how much (Allan 2002; Zeitoun and Warner 2006). Even in some cases that there is cooperation based on multilateral agreements, the role of political power is considerable to influence the process of cooperation (e.g. Nile Basin and Jordan River Basin). Therefore, each riparian state struggles to achieve power and accordingly to control water resources for its own benefits9. In one sense, riparian states try to take measures to control water resources, and one of the main strategy as described later is "water resources capture" through technical and physical measures like dams (Zeitoun and Warner 2006). It will discuss in the literature review that it seems the majority of the studies around hydropolitics of transboundary river basins overlook the role of power relations and hydro-hegemony process within water resources control (or management10); indeed, power either is ignored in the studies of conflict-cooperation dichotomy or is not fully addressed in other researches. This has provided sets of challenges that have not 9

It should be considered that the control of water resources (like dams, canals and like that) as a material (hard) type of power, itself, increases power. Thus, there is a reciprocal relationship between power and controlling waters. 10 The term “water resources management” here is referred to the policies and activities to control and deliver water resources and is not understood as a widely accepted meaning.


14

been addressed, and that are frequently misunderstood. In addition, looking at the limitation of the hydropolitical studies on dam development and weaknesses of reflecting its impact on transboundary water interactions among riparian states, there has been a lack of holistic understanding of the link between water resources control (in particular, dam development) and transboundary water interactions in the literatures. From this point of view, I am looking at hydropolitics of the Harirud River Basin. The water resources have crucially contributed to the livelihood of the people in the Harirud River Basin. Although it is located in the arid region with its seasonal rivers, irrigation is an important factor for agricultural production that is the most source of the income particularly for the Afghan people in this basin (UNECE 2011). It is estimated that around 5 million people of Afghanistan, Iran and Turkmenistan depend directly or indirectly on irrigated agriculture in the Harirud River Basin (UNECE 2011). Thus, like many places, agriculture is the largest consumptive water user. This is not the only issue. Water is becoming critically important for energy production (UNECE 2011). Afghanistan has imported electricity from Iran and Turkmenistan; however, Afghans have planned to be independent from importing energy by construction of a hydropower plant on the Harirud River (CFC 2013). Besides, the water resources of the Harirud River are highly important to meet water drinking demand of downstream (UNECE 2011). Growing population and economic development along with the impacts of the climate change produce huge pressure on the water resources of the Harirud River (King and Sturtewagen 2010). Although dam development could be one engineering measure to deal with these challenges, lack of cooperation among Afghanistan, Iran and Turkmenistan imposes significant concerns for the future management of this river basin (King and Sturtewagen 2010; UNECE 2011). By changing the water flow regime, irrigation expansion in the Harirud River Basin provides spatial scale dispute of the water resources allocation among Afghanistan, Iran and Turkmenistan (UNECE 2011). Furthermore, in addition to low efficiency in agricultural sectors which are unilaterally being expanded by three riparian states particularly Afghanistan in recent years, hydropower generation in upstream will bring more pressure on the water resources disputes in terms of temporal scale i.e. the water will not be in the right place at right time (UNECE 2011). Since Afghanistan has struggled with war and civil conflict for long time, lack of monitoring data of the river is also mentioned as one of the problems in the Harirud River Basin specifically for building cooperation framework among the riparian states (King and Sturtewagen 2010) Considering above mentioned issues, Afghanistan has planned to develop hydro-infrastructures to harness the waters of which mostly flow to the neighbouring countries. Dam infrastructures help Afghanistan to enhance the economy and mitigate impacts of flooding, but they create disputes over water flow among the riparian states. These disputes and concern are recently reflected a lot in the discourse of the public media and even politicians particularly when it has been revealed that the Salma Dam on the Harirud River will be opened by Afghans in coming months. For instance, Tabnak News was published an article on October 28, 2013 titled "Afghans dries up Mashhad?". Mashhad is a major city in Iran that highly depends on the water resources of the Harirud River. Such news has made many concerns in downstream countries; In this regard, although Iran and Turkmenistan have tried to negotiate with Afghans about the Harirud River, there has not been response from Afghanistan to this request. In spite of large amount of socio-economic and political transactions among Afghanistan, Iran and Turkmenistan, transboundary waters still seems to be unsolved issue when Afghan official Mr. Ziaye, the deputy minister of Energy and Water in Kabul, says "Maybe they [Iran and Turkmenistan] need to talk with us, but we don’t see any need to talk with them, to negotiate about water. Right now, no." (Christian Science Monitor 30 July, 2013). Moreover, since 40 years ago, when the idea of the construction of Salma Dam was emerged, Afghans have always underlined that the dam would not negatively affect downstream countries, but Iran and Turkmenistan have been strongly doubtful about it. Thus, the major challenge in the Harirud River Basin is how the available water resources can be used with respect to the interests of all riparian states and the ecosystem and how all can benefit from dam development. All these issues create a complex hydropolitical situation; in which, the link between dam development in the Harirud River Basin as particular type of "water resources control" with


15

"transboundary water interactions" among Afghanistan, Iran and Turkmenistan has not been well understood and documented.

1.3. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND QUESTIONS Hydropolitics of Central Asia and Aral Sea basin has been studied by many scholars (Smith 1995, O'Hara 2000, Wegerich 2004 cited by Wegerich 2008; Dukhovny and Schutter 2011). However, there is no specific research on hydropolitics of the Harirud River basin. Avoiding the focus on dichotomy of "conflict" and "cooperation", the study aims to analyze the hydropolitics of this basin and consider the dynamics of political condition that shape water resources control and water distribution among its riparian states. It is expected that this study will enrich the literature on the hydropolitics of the Harirud River basin with examining the nexus between dam development and hydropolitical relations. The focus of the study is "water resources capture" strategies (in particular dam development) taken by riparian states and the impacts of these strategies on the transboundary water interactions. In this regard, the study will address how the riparian states control transboundary water resources and influence the transboundary water interactions. Why and how do riparian states unilaterally try to control water resources through dam development in the Harirud River basin? What are the impacts of dam development in terms of hydrological and political point of view? How do political relations involve construction of downstream Friendship and upstream Salma Dam and how do these dams influence transboundary water interactions among riparian states? Why has not been any agreement among Afghanistan as upstream country with Iran and Turkmenistan; while both downstream countries have reached an agreement to build a common dam (Friendship Dam). How could the fears of downstream countries of upstream dams be rationalized while Afghanistan has always pointed "no reason for concern"? In sum, this study aims to address the hydrological, historical, socio-economic and political issues to examine hydropolitical relations within dam development among riparian states on the Harirud River basin: To develop and apply a research methodology for linking transboundary water resources system with political system. To review and inventorise historical and current emerging issues of the hydropolitical dynamics of the Harirud River Basin. To identify and analyze the various impacts of dam development in the Harirud River Basin. To analyze and describe the hydropolitical relationships of the riparian states of the Harirud River Basin. Based on the problem statement, the literature review and conceptual framework (next chapters), following questions including one main research question and three sub-research questions are developed for this study to apply in the Harirud River basin. The first and second sub-questions are much related to the hydropart of the study; and the third question is referred to the -political part of the study: How does dam development as particular form of "hydraulic water resources control" shape or influence "transboundary water interactions" in the Harirud River Basin among Afghanistan, Iran and Turkmenistan? Sub-research questions: 1.

What degree of hydraulic control over the Harirud water resources has been exercised by each riparian state? (chapter 4 and section 5.1) 2. To what extent dam development in the Harirud River basin influence the socio-economic conditions? (section 5.1) - Technical data of [planned] dam development - Technical data of water resources system - Analyzing the socio-economic dependency to the water resources of the Harirud River basin


16

-

Impacts of dam development on and probable problems in terms of supply and demand for downstream utilization 3. To what extent the geopolitical circumstances influence dam development in the Harirud River Basin? (section 5.2) - Historical overview of dam development and reasons behind - Looking to the political circumstances of dam construction - Political history of the Harirud River Basin - Historical overview of cooperation or claims/concerns/disputes over dam development - Discourses, interests and positions of the riparian states for developing dams

1.4. STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS The study includes six chapters. 1-

2-

345-

6-

The first chapter was about the background information and knowledge on the main socio-economic and political issues which influence the water resources utilization of the Harirud River. The problem statement, research objectives and questions of the study were introduced in this chapter. The second chapter reviews the literatures regarding the objective and research question of the study. This chapter discusses main issues and concepts in the hydropolitical literature reviews. The conflictcooperation dichotomy and the role of power and hydro-hegemony in the transboundary water interactions are discussed. Chapter three presents a theoretical framework for the study. It provides the research methodology and conceptual framework in which the study aims to answer the research questions. The fourth chapter includes the background data of the Harirud River Basin. It presents the geographical, hydrological and socio-economic-political data of the basin. Chapter five provides analytical insights of the study. It presents two main parts of the study: first, it analyzes the impacts of dam development on the water flow regime; second, it discusses the impacts of dam development on the hydropolitical regime. Finally, it synthesizes two mentioned regimes to examine the transboundary water interactions. Finally, the last chapter presents the conclusion and recommendations of the study.


17

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW Based on the problem statements of the study, literature review here are done on some main concepts namely transboundary water conflict-cooperation dichotomy, power relation, transboundary water interactions, water resources control and dam development.

There have been different narratives to explain the hydropolitical relationships as complex relations between water policies and politics11. Among these, two views of "water wars" and "water peace" have been competitive reflections of the world views which are described by Warner (2012: 173) as "different lights on the same phenomenon". Here, I will review the general debates around the dichotomy of water war and water peace; then, I will present the discussions about the political power and hydro-hegemony. Finally, I will continue with explanation of riparian policies of water resources control, and in particular dam development, as one strategy to impact hydropolitical relationships.

2.1. CONFLICT-COOPERATION DICHOTOMY Involving multidisciplinary approaches, the complexity of hydropolitical studies results in different ideas and controversial believes about the relation of politics12 and water resources among the academics and politicians. One of the controversial debates is the conflict-cooperation dichotomy around transboundary waters in which two main groups focus either on war or on peace. First group, in particular, includes some scholars and politicians who believe that the scarcity of water in unstable political conditions leads to armed conflict and accordingly they support the idea of "water wars". They point out that water not only has been a reason of historic armed conflict, but also it will cause the battle in the 21st century as the third world war (Cooley 1984, Westing 1986, Starr 1991, Glieck et al. 1994, Remans 1995, World Press Review 1995, Homer-Dixon 1994: cited by Wolf 1998, 2007). Second group, in contrast, introduces the idea of "water for peace". Looking at historical conflict events and theoretical approaches, they believe that water and inherently its specific characteristics provide an appropriate potential for regional and international cooperation over shared water resources (Wolf 1998; Sadoff and Grey 2002; Sadoff and Grey 2005; Wolf 2007). Wolf (1998) noted that "war over water is neither strategically rational, hydrographically effective nor economically viable" (Wolf 1998: 261). Omari et al. (1997) noted that "as much as water may divide 11

Politics, in general, is defined by Lasswell (1950) as "who gets what, when, and how"; Politics means processes and relationships that engage with power and authority (Lecture presented by Maria Rusca, UNESCO-IHE, 2012). 12 See 11.


18

groups of people and pit countries against each other, water as the most basic human need appears to mobilize countries...toward common thinking and a common agenda" (Savenije and Zaag 2000: 12). The scholars of this idea argue that the potential conflict can be replaced by the cooperation potential13 over shared water resources and provides the political benefits and "win-win" outcomes (Wolf 1998; Sadoff and Grey 2002; Philips et al. 2006; Wolf 2007; Gerlak et al. 2009). In this regard, Wolf (1998; 2007) points out that in spite of the inherent disputes over international waters some "creative approaches14" can bring a positive-sum, integrative water allocation. Sadoff and Grey (2002) propose four types of cooperation benefits (environmental, direct economic, political and indirect economic) on international rivers. They consider the benefits of cooperation and costs of non-cooperation over international rivers. They argue that conflict is unlikely derived from international rivers; rather, international rivers facilitate peace and cooperation among states. Yoffe et al. (2003) provide indicators to analyze the intensity of potential risk in an international basin and identify the degree of conflict or cooperation. Grey and Sadoff (2007) argue that achieving basic "water security15" has always led to competition over water. As water becomes scarce in compare with demand in an international basin, it is a source of conflict; however, there have been other regional non-water drivers (e.g. roads, energy and like that) that facilitate water cooperation and sustain water security (Grey and Sadoff, 2007). Moreover, Savenije and Zaag (2000) presented a conceptual framework based on integrated water resources management to turn potential conflicts into constructive cooperation.

2.1.1. Criticizing the dichotomy of water conflict-cooperation Both above mentioned groups focus either on conflict or on cooperation as a result of transboundary water utilization; and they isolate conflict from cooperation. In contrast, some argue that conflict and cooperation are existing together (not separate) (Zeitoun and Warner 2006; Mirumachi and Allan 2007). Mirumachi and Allan (2007: 4) emphasized that "considering conflict and cooperation as opposing concepts misleadingly simplifies the complexity of interactions". Zeitoun and Warner (2006) argue that cooperation and conflict are the two sides of a same coin. They point out that considering conflict and cooperation separately on a single axis (like Yoffe et al.'s study16) leads to overlook the political aspects. For instance, in the case of Palestine and Israel or Ethiopia and Egypt, both riparians cooperate in data sharing even based on a treaty while the political tensions, which are somehow excluded from discussion, around transboundary water interactions are arising (Zeitoun and Mirumachi 2008; Cascão 2009a). Accordingly, Zeitoun and Warner (2006) recognize the co-existence of conflict and cooperation through a political process; and introduce the "transboundary water interaction17". Explicitly, they define transboundary water interaction as conflictcooperation co-exist within a political process in which power18 is the main determinant factor (Zeitoun and Mirumachi 2008). Following is describing the role of power in transboundary water interactions.

13

There is also one programme in UNESCO named PCCP referred the Potential Conflict to Cooperation Potential. "PCCP is an associated programme ... to facilitate multi-level and interdisciplinary dialogues in order to foster peace, cooperation and development related to the management of transboundary water resources" (source: www.unesco.org). 14 I emphasize on "creative" to argue that creativity does not always result in fair or "win-win" situation. It should be considered that the link between creativity and political power will sometimes produce the outcome of any international water relationships in favour of some ones (It will discuss later). 15 Defined by Grey and Sadoff (2007: 548), water security is "the availability of an acceptable quantity and quality of water for health, livelihoods, ecosystems and production, coupled with an acceptable level of water-related risks to people, environments and economies". 16 Yoffe et al. (2003) introduce the "Basin At Risk" (BAR) and identify the intensity of conflict and cooperation on a single axis from -7 to +7. 17 "Trans-boundary water interaction refers here to [political] relations of co-existing cooperation and conflicts among communities, groups or states over international or sub-national waters, with a focus here on inter-state interaction" (Zeitoun and Mirumachi 2008: 3) 18 In social and political science, power is the ability to influence the behaviour of people and institutions (Lecture presented by Shyamika Jayasundara-Smits, UNESCO-IHE, 2013). It will be discussed more in the section of conceptual framework.


19

2.2. POWER RELATIONS AND HYDRO-HEGEMONY In the conceptual framework introduced by Savenije and Zaag (2000), politics19 is recognized as one of the main important pillars (along with technical cooperation and institutions) to support and influence sharing international waters. In this regard, politics is responsible to provide states with an enable political condition to facilitate and support international cooperation (Savenije and Zaag 2000). In addition, some academics argue that not only politics influence water related processes but also any activity related to water resources influence politics (Swyngedouw 2009). Swyngedouw (1999; 2009) argues that any social and physical environmental activity (for example dam construction) may benefit some people, but it negatively affects social and physical conditions for others. Thus, these socio-environmental changes lead to a degree of political instability to the society (Swyngedouw 2009). He noted that "the mobilization of water (through dams, canals, pipes, and the like) for different uses in different places is a conflict-ridden process ... and shows how social power is distributed in a given society" (Swyngedouw 2009: 57). In this regard, he recognizes three factors as geographical conditions, technical choices and politico-legal arrangements; and argues that control over water is indeed the outcome of the combination of these three factors. In other words, any hydro-social configuration is resulted from hegemonic20 political, social and cultural conditions (Swyngedouw 2009). Thus, political power is recognized by some scholars as a main factor to influence the outcome of the transboundary water relations among riparian states (Waterbury 1979, Allan 2002 cited by Cascão 2009a) and it is manifested when Swyngedouw (2009: 58) noted "when two equal rights meet, power21 decides". However, the studies of hydropolitics have not yet completely considered the link between political power and transboundary water relations (Zeitoun and Warner 2006). Two reasons are explained for non-fully consideration of power in hydropolitical literatures. First, some academics point that the studies related to previously mentioned conflict-cooperation dichotomy have ignored the role of power and political dynamics involved in water-related issues (Zeitoun and Warner 2006; Zeitoun and Mirumachi 2008; Cascão 2009b; Warner 2012). It is argued that except of some studies majority of the conflict-cooperation researches underestimate the important role of power as a main factor to shape the hydropolitical relations among riparians (Zeitoun and Warner 2006; Zeitoun and Mirumachi 2008; Cascão 2009b; Warner 2012). In this regard, they point out that even if there is cooperation in a transboundary river basin among the riparians, it does not mean that there is equal beneficial win-win situation for all riparians; the cooperation process may be created in favour of strongest riparian (hegemon)22; and accordingly there is cooperation co-existing with conflict through political power relations (Zeitoun and Warner 2006; Zeitoun and Mirumachi 2008; Cascão 2009b; Warner 2012). Second, where some scholars consider power relations they only focus on economic and military power and ignore the other types of power23 (Allan 2002; Zeitoun and Warner 2006; Zeitoun and Mirumachi 2008; Warner 2012). Accordingly, it seems that there is still a gap of knowledge in hydropolitical literatures to comprehensively understand and consider the role of political power and dynamics of political nature in transboundary water interactions. In sum, it is argued that power is a determinant factor in hydropolitical relationships which has not been fully addressed in hydropolitical literatures. Moreover, it is pointed out that to gain and influence power and highly influence hydro-hegemony in the international river basins, controlling water resources is a critical measure and strategy (Zeitoun and Warner 2006; Molle et al. 2009). Accordingly, Zeitoun and Warner (2006) notes that control of water resources is a competition act among riparians specifically in 19 20 21 22

See 11. The concept of power and hegemony will be more explained later. See 18. For instance, it is mentioned by many scholars that even there is cooperation in Nile, Jordan and Euphrates Rivers among riparian states, the water utilization and allocation is much more in favour of Egypt, Israel and Turkey as hegemon respectively (Warner 2008, Cascão 2009a). 23 "Power is not simply about actors' visible, material capabilities (measured in economic or military terms for example); often more important are the less visible dimensions of power .... capacity to influence ideas, agendas, discourses, knowledge and institutions" (Cascão 2009b: 23).


20

where water is physically scarce24 to control political nature of the river basin. In the section 2.3, water resources control will be more discussed.

2.2.1. Criticizing the framework of hydro-hegemony Considering all above mentioned points about the hydro-hegemony framework introduced by Zeitoun and Warner (2006), it is argued that they only considered the political behaviours among the states, and they neglected the political processes within the state (Selby 2007 cited by Hanke 2013). In a sense, the hydrohegemony framework focuses on the international politics, but ignores the trans-national and the local politics25 (Selby 2007 cited by Hanke 2013; Warner 2012).

2.3. GEOPOLITICS OF DAMS AS PREVALENT WAY OF WATER RESOURCES CONTROL Zeitoun and Warner (2006) classified water resource control strategies as: 1- resource capture strategy, 2containment strategy and 3- integration strategy. Resource capture strategy as creating "facts on the ground" refers to technical and physical control of water resources through construction of hydraulic infrastructures (dams, dykes, reservoirs, irrigation networks and like that) (Zeitoun and Warner 2006). Containment strategy refers to the coercive measures (for instance it could be an agreement in favour of hegemon- the powerful state) taken by one riparian usually hegemon in order to prevent the other riparians from developing infrastructures (Zeitoun and Warner 2006). And finally, integration strategy refers to the incentives and benefits (for instance it could be an agreement with some sort of incentives provided by hegemon for others) provided by one of the states (usually hegemon) for the other states to encourage compliance with an agreement (Zeitoun and Warner 2006). In this study, I only focus on the resource capture strategy through dam development; however, the other strategies are also discussed. In January 1949, President Harry S. Truman "hit the jackpot of the world's political emotions" when he pointed out a "bold new program ... for the improvement ... of under-development areas" (Cullather 2002). Shifting from the colonial era to the post-colonial era, "development" and "modernization", as new concepts, became the heart of the new policies of global powers in "new independent states". Thus, this guided the leaders of the new independent countries to merge their own governmental policies into "modernity". Development was not simply the best; however, "there is only one-way traffic in time" as Jawaharlal Nehru of India mentioned (Cullather 2002). The "development" and "modernity" often appeared over dam projects, land reforms and planned cities (Cullather 2002). Therefore, as mentioned earlier, water resources development by the state was shaped as "an emergent and, at times, international, political strategy by the state for controlling space, water and people and an important part of everyday forms of state formation" to centralize the power (Molle et al. 2009: 328). In this regard, large scale water projects like dam development recognized "as a child of colonialism" to reshape and reform the colonized states (Cullather 2002; Molle et al. 2009). In the past centuries, dam development by the state has been an international and political strategy for controlling lands, waters and people (Molle et al. 2009). Dam development in river basins complicates the geography of the river (Kraak 2012b). As Swyngedouw (2008) realized that a dam has various aspects: local and global, social and natural characterized in a wide range of historical, cultural, and geographical processes. 24 25

In certain cases, achieving politically-non water related incentives might overcome control of waters. For more information about critics of hydro-hegemony framework, the following article is recommended: Selby, J. (2007). Beyond hydro-hegemony: gramsci, the national, and the trans-national; Third International Workshop on Hydro-Hegemony, London School of Economics.


21

Controlling a river through dams is materialized to governing a group of people related to water resources of that river. Therefore, controlling a river by dams is the rule of some people over others, forming a hegemonic power relation (Kraak 2012). This resulted in a completion among different stockholders of a river to drive the "hydraulic mission" of which they can rule the others. The hydraulic mission with this objective of "ruling society" became rationalized for dam development that was not necessarily economical and beneficial for the society (Molle et al. 2009; Kraak 2012). Indeed, dam development has been often used for political purposes. In one sense, the rationality of construction a dam has multi dimensions with different interest and various actors, but the main outcome is the construction and control of [political] power (Molle et al. 2009; Swyngedouw 2009; Kraak 2012). In sum, hydraulic infrastructure is recognized as the ideological rationale for economic development to impact on political power relations in the society (Swyngedouw 1999; Molle et al. 2009). According to Molle et al. (2009), whereas dam developments have largely contributed to actual welfare, they have negatively produced economic, social and environmental impacts. Noted by Molle et al. (2009) as "flows of water, flows of power", it shows that dam development is identified as one of the main feature of political power to govern river and society living in the river basin. It is also argued that dam construction is driven by the processes of politics rather than by beneficial cost-benefit analysis (Swyngedouw 1999; Molle et al. 2009). Accordingly, since dams themselves contribute a great deal to controlling and governing a river, geopolitics of transboundary rivers are affected by dam development. In transboundary water resources, dams are also used by riparians as a way to control waters and accordingly control hydropolitical relationships (Zeitoun and Warner 2006). Thus, dam development directly/indirectly influences the transboundary water interactions among riparian states. In this regard, the study of the link between control over water resources in particular dam constructions and its impact on the political nature of the transboundary river basin is crucial.


22

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY This chapter presents the methodologies and the conceptual framework used in this study. An integrated approach to link the quantitative and qualitative methods is explained. In addition the main sources of the data required for this study are introduced.

3.1. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Conceptual framework provides a particular lens or perspective for examining a topic or an issue. It brings a light to better understanding the different dimensions of the topic. Although every conceptual framework can have weaknesses, there is no wrong or right framework since every topic can be looked at from different perspectives (Armstrong, Mary Ann, Trent University, 2006). Since the aim of this research is studying the hydro-politics of the Harirud River basin and considering the role of dam development in transboundary water interaction, the conceptual framework is structured based on two main factors in the hydropolitical process: first, water resources system; and second, political system. Figure 3.1 shows the conceptual framework of this study. It shows two parallel regimes plus the interaction between them: Water flow regime: water flow regime refers to the physical conditions of the river such as systems of sandbars, bed levels, and hydrodynamics of the river flows and like that (Loucks and Beek 2005). Through this, I attempt to look at the impacts of dam development on the variation of water flow regime in downstream of the river. This, indeed, helps to analyze the socio-economic and ecological impacts of changes in water availability. Hydro-political regime: Hydro-political regime refers to the set of conditions including rules, cultural or social norms, etc. that regulates the operation of political institutions and their interactions with society regarding to water issues. Through this, I attempt to look at dam development in transboundary rivers from political point of view in order to realize the political interactions among the riparian states. Interactions: Between above mentioned regimes, transboundary water interaction is produced by inter-reaction of these two inter-related regimes. This shows that the above regimes are not separated and they should be seen together. Process: It should be also taken into account that both regimes and the interactions are working through a process. This process is dynamic and it is changed by the interaction among those regimes. The main concepts used in this study are: power relations, water resources control and transboundary water interaction. Hydropolitical relationships including these above concepts are the heart of the conceptual framework. It also shows the reciprocal relationship between dam construction as physical type of water Analysis of the Hydro-Political Impacts of Dam Development in Transboundary River Basins

23

resources control and power. Considering the aim of the study, this framework is selected to study hydropolitical interactions in the Harirud River basin; and to understand the role of controlling the Harirud water resources to shape and influence the transboundary water interactions among its riparian states. The following will describe the main concepts of the framework and why this framework addresses the problem statement and research questions of the study.

Figure 3.1

Conceptual Framework of the study

3.1.1. The concept of power Politics, in general, is defined as "who gets what, when, and how"; Politics means processes and relationships that engage with power and authority.26 In social and political science, power is generally defined as the ability to influence the behaviour of people and institutions27. As discussed in literature review (section 2.2), power plays important role to ultimately determine the outcome of competition over controlling the shared water resources among riparian states particularly when it is scarce; as Zeitoun and Warner (2006: 436) noted "power relations between riparian states are prime determinants of the degree of control over water resources that riparian attains". In this regard, they developed the framework of hydrohegemony to analyze the power relation among the riparian states and its impact on the control of water resources in three transboundary river basins: Nile, Jordan, Tigris-Euphrates. Among many different definitions of power, Zeitoun and Warner (2006) use the definition described by Lucks (2005; cited by Zeitoun and Warner 2006) as multi-dimensionality of power. Power is not only about the visible material capabilities of actors like economic or military capacity, but also more important about the less visible nonmaterial capabilities of actors to influence ideas, discourses, knowledge and institutions. Thus, power is understood as "emerging from social and political process rather than taken for granted in the form of accumulated material capabilities" (Cox 1981: 105, cited by Cascão 2009b). Accordingly, Zeitoun and Warner (2006) identify four dimensions of power influencing the competition for transboundary water resources: geography (riparian position), material power, bargaining power and ideational power. First and second ones are visible and third and forth are the less visible. In this regard, the upstream riparians are considered to have power position in terms of geography in comparison with downstream ones, though, the 26 27

Quoted by Harold Dwight Lasswell (source: lecture presented by Maria Rusca, UNESCO-IHE, 2012). Institutions are social arrangements that shape, regulate and reproduce human behaviour across time and space. Institutions are dynamic and emerge, evolve and disappear over time (Lecture presented by Jeltsje Kemerink and Klaas Schwartz, UNESCO-IHE, 2013). Source: lecture presented by Shyamika Jayasundara-Smits, UNESCO-IHE, 2013.


24

study by Zeitoun and Warner (2006) show that geography rarely plays a strong role of the asymmetric control of water (e.g. Ethiopia in Nile river basin). Material power refers to economic strength, military and technological development and access to external political and financial support (Zeitoun and Warner 2006; Zeitoun et al. 2013). Bargaining power refers to the degree of capacity to influence and control the rules, agenda, the terms of negotiation and agreement through providing incentives or producing sanctions. Bargaining power is also refer to ability of actors to play with time during negotiation and postponing the political decisions (Zeitoun and Warner 2006). Ideational power refers to the "power over ideas" (Lucks 2005: 28, cited by Cascão 2009b) which includes the ability of an actor to purposefully force ideas, knowledge and discourses. In this study, I only focus on two first types of power: geography and material powers; however, the other types are also tried to be touched. When an asymmetric power exists in a river basin among its riparian states, it could be expected that there will be an asymmetric control over shared water resources. This is aptly demonstrated by Zeitoun and Warner (2006: 346) as asymmetrical "power relations between riparians are prime determinants of the degree of control over water resources that each riparian attains". In the Harirud River Basin, I attempt to search the link between the power relation among Afghanistan, Iran and Turkmenistan with dam development to control and harness water resources. 3.1.1.1. The concept of hydro-hegemony Although hydro-hegemony is not figured in the conceptual framework, I explain it here in brief because it is linked to power relations and it will be mentioned later in the study. Hegemony is different from domination. "Hegemony can be considered as leadership buttressed by authority. In contrast, domination is defined as leadership buttressed by coercion". (Zeitoun and Warner 2006: 438). Hegemony is a relational process in which different types of power (material and non-material) are exercised. Simultaneously, hegemony is an outcome of material, bargaining and ideational power in combination (Zeitoun and Allan 2008). As Zeitoun and Warner (2006) point, "hegemony at the river level, achieved through water resources control strategies such as resource capture, integration and containment that are enabled by the exploitation of existing power asymmetries". Thus, once the asymmetric power relations (including material and non-material types) is in favour of on riparian state, it means that this riparian state could be considered as hydro-hegemon riparian, and accordingly, hydro-hegemon has a capacity to highly influence hydropolitical regime to control water flow regime and allocation more than other non-hydro-hegemon riparian states28 (Zeitoun and Warner 2006; Wegerich 2008; Zeitoun and Allan 2008; Zeitoun and Eid-Sabbagh 2013). However, since the power relations are not a static phenomenon over time, the hydro-hegemony could not be uncontested or permanent; and it might be changed through the power exercising by the actors (Cascão 2009a).

3.1.2. Water resources control Water resources control is referred to strategies and mechanisms to "attain, maintain and consolidate control over shared water resources" (Cascão 2009a). These strategies are defined by Zeitoun and Warner (2006) as 1- "Resource capture", 2- "Containment" and 3- "Integration". The resource capture strategy consists of technical and structural measures that provide ability of controlling the water resources in order to secure the water supply (Zeitoun and Warner 2006). It could be through the construction of hydraulic infrastructures like dams, reservoirs, irrigation networks, river transfers. According to Homer-Dixon (1999: 177), such hydraulic infrastructures to control the water resources allow the riparian states to "shift resource distribution in their favour". In addition, these 28

However, Cascão (2009a) introduces counter-hydro-hegemony that refers to the measures are taken by non-hegemon riparian states to resist hegemon.


25

development strategies make "facts on the ground" so that riparian state tries to "acquire rights [to the water] ahead of any neighbouring states doing the same" (Andersen et al. 2005: 59 cited by Cascão 2009a). In this regard, I will discuss that how the construction of Doosti Dam or Salma Dam by upstream and downstream countries of the Harirud River are used as a resource capture strategy to control and govern the transboundary water resources. Containment and integration strategies refer to the hydro-hegemonic riparian's engagement with its neighbouring countries. These strategies can take the form of either military action or bilateral-multilateral agreement in favour of the hegemon in order to prevent the other riparian states to develop the hydraulic infrastructures. These strategies could be seen in both Jordan and Nile Basin (Zeitoun and Warner 2006). In this study, I focus on "resource capture strategy" and in particular on dam development in the Harirud River Basin. These concepts of water resources control particularly the "water resources capture" strategy is extremely useful in analysis of the hydropolitical relationships of the Harirud River Basin. It helps to understand the underlying reasons of dam development in the river basin. Also, it allows realizing why three riparian states of the Harirud River particularly Afghanistan basin are insisting on unilateral dam development.

3.1.3. Transboundary water interactions "Trans-boundary water interaction refers here to relations of co-existing cooperation and conflicts among communities, groups or states over international or sub-national waters, with a focus here on inter-state interaction" (Zeitoun and Mirumachi 2008: 3). AS discussed in chapter two, Zeitoun and Warner (2006) recognize the co-existence of conflict and cooperation through a political process; and introduce the "transboundary water interaction". Explicitly, they define transboundary water interaction as conflictcooperation co-exist within a political process in which power is the main determinant factor (Zeitoun and Mirumachi 2008).

3.1.4. Justification of the conceptual framework Why this framework addresses the problem statement and research question Above conceptual framework supports the idea that explains power is a determinant factor that ultimately identifies the outcome of competition (and control) over transboundary water resources. The geopolitical nature of Central Asia and the dynamics of power relations in the Harirud River basin among Afghanistan, Iran and Turkmenistan (and much important, foreign powers'29 interest in this region) reveal that power relations contribute a great deal to shaping hydropolitical relations. Thus, using two parallel regimes that have complex interactions manifests the actual link between water resources and politics. This framework can show how Iran and Turkmenistan in one side and Afghanistan in another side use strategies to control transboundary waters in the Harirud River basin in order to influence hegemony of the basin and transboundary water interactions. However, this study only focuses on "water resources capture" strategy of the riparians to control water resources. It will be useful to analyze how and why Afghanistan, Iran and Turkmenistan develop dams to capture waters and what are the impacts of these developments on the hydropolitical relationships.

29

It is referred to historical competition between USSR and UK, and now between Russia and US, involvement of China, Iran, Pakistan, India and Turkey.


26

3.2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: AN INTEGRATIVE APPROACH The topics of this study and the conceptual framework have two different connected dimensions: technical and political. Since these two dimensions are linked together and has an interaction, the methodology should integrate the technical dimension (hydro-), such as how a dam impacts on the quantity of discharge flow in downstream, to political one (-political), such as how politicians mobilize their policies to build a dam or how a dam is considered in political context. Hydropolitical analysis of a transboundary river needs a multidisciplinary approach to look at the biophysical process and socio-political process together in which the natural and technical conditions (like dam, water supply, discharge flow, ecological degradation) are integrated with socio-political ones (like human security, national security, power relation, geopolitical condition). In fact, the integrative approach should be able to translate the quantitative data to qualitative ones. The conceptual framework of this study and the methods described below provide an integrative methodology for hydropolitical analysis. Since this study aims to critically consider the political nature of the Harirud River basin and indeed it needs to consider technical, social and economic aspects, different types of qualitative as well as quantitative approaches are selected to answer the research questions including: secondary document analysis, discussion (informal interview), discourse analysis, statistical-modelling analysis and political history. With these integrated approaches through the conceptual framework of the study, it is expected that the thesis can study the role of dam development in the hydropolitical dynamics of the Harirud River basin and respond to the research questions. Table 3.1 shows the research methodologies and data needed for the research questions of this study. Because of financial limitation there is no field study to get primary data.

3.2.1. Document analysis Since this is not possible to have a field study to get primary data, secondary sources are the only option for the analysis of the hydropolitical relations among riparian states within the historical context. Although there are limited numbers of studies related to hydropolitics of the Harirud River basin, there are sufficient numbers of articles, reports and documents related to issues linked to the study's aim.

3.2.2. Statistical computations and modelling analysis This method is mainly used to analyze the hydrological data of the Harirud River basin and the impacts of dam construction on water flow regime to calculate the water supply and demand. In this regard, a model of Water Evaluation And Planning (WEAP) is used to analyze water supply-demand budget of the basin. It is also helpful to analyze the socio-economic conditions of the river basin in which the link between the variability of the river flow regime and socio-economic system is investigated. To do this following strategy is explained in brief: Hydrological data are found from available information on the internet. To analyze the socio-economic development, water supply and demand for agriculture, domestic and ecological consumption are considered in a computational approach. Generally, a simple computational approach (through a model of WEAP) is used for considering water supply-demand balance. Assumptions are based on the current condition of the hydrological and development situation. The computation of water balance is used to analyze and evaluate different scenarios in the river basin, for instance different hydrological conditions, economic growth in the area and upstream dam development. It should be said that a holistic simulation of water resources system or an optimization model is not the case in this study.


27

3.2.3. Discourse analysis To analyze the power relation and transboundary water interactions among riparian states in the Harirud River basin, analyzing the press releases and public discourses from Afghan, Iranian and Turkmen newspapers and global media are essential. Since in the Harirud River basin, Iran and Turkmenistan are in downstream and by looking at their hydropolitical relations it seems that they have common interest and position and because the language of both Iran and Afghanistan is Farsi, the collection is focused only on English- and Farsi-language media. This does not mean the exclusion of Turkmenistan from study, and only Turkmen discourses are excluded.

3.2.4. Discussion Since there is not any field study and also difficulty of interview with Afghan and Turkmen officials because of security and financial issue, it is attempted to discuss with some academics (yet I cannot find some local academics) and do Skype with Iranian official (if it is possible).

3.2.4. Political history One of the main parts of the study includes the political conditions of the basin. Thus, it is necessary to analyze and examine the historical events of political relationships among the actors in the basin. Political history is the narrative and analysis of political events, ideas and movements. Here, political history focuses on decisions and relationships among the states. It focuses on the power relations and their impacts on the political system. In this study, the political history of the region is considered, then it focuses on the history of development particularly dam development with regard to political system.


28

-Political

Hydro-

Table 3.1

30 31

Methodology

How does dam development as particular form of hydraulic water resources control shape or influence transboundary water interactions in the Harirud River Basin among Afghanistan, Iran and Turkmenistan? Probable data Complementary Sub-Research questions Data Needed Main Methods sources Methods 1- Articles (peer1- Historical trend of hydraulic development 1- What degree of hydraulic control 2- Information related to hydraulic infrastructures 1- Document reviewed, over the Harirud water resources 3- National socio-economic development plans and analysis literatures and Discussion has been exercised by each riparian 2- Discourse analysis etc.) strategies state? 4- Water control plans 2- National policies and reports 1- Statistical 2- To what extent dam 1- Hydrological, hydraulic, geographic and climate (MOE30, MWE31) computations and development in the Harirud River information Discourse analysis modelling analysis 3- (Inter)National basin influence the socio-economic 2- National socio-economic development plans and Discussion reports (UN 2- Document conditions? strategies agencies like FAO analysis and UNESCO, US organization like 1- Historical political relations and conflict-cooperation USGS and USSR events 4- International Org. 2- Governance and authority system 1- Document 3- To what extent the geopolitical like EastWest, 3- Water control plans analysis circumstances influence dam IWMI, SIWI and 4- Regional political information and foreign policies 2- Discourse Discussion development in the Harirud River etc) 5- Social media analysis Basin? 5- Related thesis 6- Cross cutting issues (strategic infrastructures, trade 3- Political history 6- Newspapers, Press relations, refugees, opium trade, food security, climate and Media and change and environmental issues) Websites

Iranian Ministry of Energy Afghan Ministry of Water and Energy


29

3.3. RESEARCH STRATEGY TRATEGY Based on the methods described above and through the conceptual framework of this study the following strategy is adopted to build up the research in stages to analyze the data collection and answer the research questions. Figure 3.2 shows the different stages st using for this study. There are 6 stages adopted for this study. However there is circulated process, through which to examine the topic.

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 stage 4 Stage 5 Stage 6 Stage 7

• Literature review, problem statement and research questions • Development of conceptual framework • Data Collection (Secondary data, Press and Media) • Quantitative analysis (WEAP model) • Translated to qualitative data • Qualitative analysis • Integrative approach to answer the research questions

Figure 3.2

Research strategies

3.4. THE SCOPE COPE OF THE STUDY AND LIMITATION As mentioned earlier, the aim of the thesis is to study the hydropolitics of the Harirud River basin with focusing on dam developments. This study focuses on the challenges of water resource management and allocation in the Harirud River basin. basin. The study addresses the three riparians: Afghanistan, Iran and Turkmenistan which are respectively considered here as upstream and downstream (Iran-Turkmenistan) (Iran riparians. Followings are some limitation and potential problems emerged from the research researc objectives, methodologies and conceptual framework: Geographical borders: The study does not consider all tributaries in the basin.. The focus of the study is on the main Harirud River along with two main tributaries: Kabgan River and Karukh River in Afghanistan. However, the water discharge of most of tributaries is taken into account in the data of the streamflow gauge stations. Water Resources: The study does only consider the surface water resources. resources. Since the main sources of the water in the Harirud River Basin is surface flow of the river, and also the data of the groundwater is not available yet, the groundwater resources is not an issue in this study. Data availability: Because ecause of security issue and also some technical problems, scientific literature and data pertaining to the hydrological context of Afghanistan is quite limited. My effort to get recent discharge data in Afghanistan was not successful. However, since the discharge data is available in downstream gauge station and there are some some limited data available for upstream gauge stations, I could properly synthesize data for the whole basin. The data for analyzing socio-economic socio system is gathered from available documents mostly from international organizations (like FAO, USSR, USGS and like that).


30

Financial budget: Since there is budget limitation for the study, there is not any field study so that there is not primary data available. In this regard, interview with officials is not also in the study plan, but it is trying to interview with some international academics. Discourses limits: The discourses are considered in English and Farsi language and the ones in Turkmen language are excluded from the study. Limitation of the conceptual framework: As discussed before, the power is multi-dimensional issue related to political, economic, social and cultural context. Among four types of the power described above, this study is only focus on the geographical and material types of power. In addition, among all strategies of water resources control, only "water resources capture" which is much clear in the Harirud River Basin is considered. Accordingly, it could be expected that this limitation affects the analysis as well. Analysis scale: this study mainly focuses on inter-state relations hydropolitical relations among the actors of the basin. Therefore, the study does not assess the intra-state relations regarding the water resources development i.e. the policies and politics between the state's government and local people. Modelling limits: There are also some limitations regarding the WEAP model which is described in section 5.1.5. Iran-Turkmenistan relations: In this study, Iran and Turkmenistan are usually considered as one party through hydropolitical relationships as downstream countries. However, further studies are essential for looking at the relations between Iran and Turkmenistan.

3.5. SOURCES OF DATA The study is essentially based on information gathered from internet. The source of data includes a range of international, national and local information related to the objectives and research questions of the study. In addition to some peer-reviewed articles, the main following sources of data could be listed: Global Runoff Data Centre (GRDC). International Groundwater Resources Assessment Centre (IGRAC). UNECE. UNEP. FAO. UN Population. USAID. USGS. National organization like the ministries or other related organizations in Afghanistan and Iran. Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database. CIA: the world factbook. WWF. Amu Darya Basin Network. Media: like BBC, Christian Science Monitor, The Economist and etc., national and local media, and like that.


31

CHAPTER 4

CASE STUDY: HARIRUD RIVER BASIN This chapter aims to provide background information and data on the geopolitics and water resources of the Harirud River Basin. The main features and attributes of the region are reviewed first. Followed by a general description of all three riparian states, the principal characteristics of water flow regime and its distribution in the basin are described. Data related to climate, precipitation, snow fields, irrigated lands and main infrastructures are explained. Then, the socio-economic system and administrative setting are introduced.

4.1. INTRODUCTION The stress on the spatial and temporal scale of the water resources in different parts of the world is severely being increased due to population growth, environmental changes, poverty and uneven socio-economic development particularly in transboundary river basins covering approximately 50 percent of the land surface of the earth (UNEP 2009, Gleick et al. 2006). This matter is well reflected by Kofi Annan, showing prevailing public opinions, in a speech given on the World Water Day in 200132. Although there are some doubts about the intensity of water itself to create conflicts, it is demonstrated that the water scarcity, in terms of quantity or quality, likely increase or accelerate degradation of environmental and social institutions (Gleick et al. 2006). Particularly in transboundary water resources the situation could be more vulnerable because it is much overshadowed by politics (UNEP 2009). The Harirud River Basin, located in Central Asia, could be exemplified in this matter. The asymmetric availability of the water resources along with uneven socio-economic distribution and lack of institutional agreements across the riparian states could lead to cause vulnerabilities. This chapter aims to provide background and context on the main hydropolitical conditions of the Harirud River Basin to address the research question of this study: How does dam development as particular form of hydraulic water resources control shape or influence transboundary water interactions in the Harirud River Basin among Afghanistan, Iran and Turkmenistan? To do this, the asymmetries in the degree of current socio-economic development, important features of the hydrological system along with "hydraulic mission"33 exercised by three riparian states of the Harirud River Basin are described. The preliminary insights on the region are provided to build a basic ground of an understanding of the hydropolitical dynamics of the Harirud River Basin. 32 33

"Fierce competition for freshwater may well become a source of conflict and wars in the future", Kofi Annan, March 2001. By financial failure at the beginning of the 20th century, hydraulic bureaucracies of the states focused on this belief: "Not a single drop of water should reach to the sea without being put to work for the benefit of Man: the 'hydraulic mission' was born (Molle et al. 2009).


32

4.2. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE HARIRUD RIPARIAN STATES 4.2.1. Geo-political history Shared among three riparian states of Afghanistan, Iran and Turkmenistan, the Harirud River is still reminds of the historical rich culture of the Greater Khorasan34. It historically narrates the story of the people lived in the cities like Balkh and Herat (now in Afghanistan), Tus35, Nishapur and Serakhs (now in Iran), and Merv and Abiward (now in Turkmenistan). The historical relations of these cities are beautifully mentioned in the following poem from Lotfollah Nishapuri36: "The day before yesterday, a tulip amorously flowered in Merv Yesterday, a water lily budded in Balkh Today, a flower blooms in Nishapur Tomorrow, in Herat, an aromatic smell will come from jasmine"37 Figure 4.1 illustrates the Greater Khorasan as a province of Persia in 750 CE and the current political borders which divides the region among five countries: Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. However, beyond these political borders, a great number of historical and cultural common features could have still strong potential to connect the people of the region. In this regard, the Harirud River is not only a flow of water, but also could be considered as a flow of history, culture, language and religion of the currently divided people. Therefore, the Harirud River would have been historically a natural mediator to unite the various and separated cultures with many similarities either in the past united people or the current divided nations. Table 4.1 and Figure 4.2 show some general information of the three riparian states of the Harirud River Basin. As clearly illustrated, it shows a huge gap in terms of the magnitude of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Human Development Index (HDI) among three riparian states of Afghanistan, Iran and Turkmenistan. These kind of uneven conditions could be seen as a major characteristic of the region for instance in their socio-economic development, wealth, water (and other natural) resources, political stability and like that. Accordingly, these data provide analytical background to partially respond to the research question of the study to see how transboundary water interactions are affected by the geo-political and socio-economic conditions. The following is a general description of the geopolitical situation of Afghanistan, Iran and Turkmenistan in brief.

Figure 4.1

38

Political Map of the Greater Khorasan and current political borders

34

Greater Khorasan was a historical region in the northeast of Persia (Iran), first established as a political territory by the Sassanids in the 3rd century AD (Mujtahidzādah 1995). 35 Tus is an ancient city, recognized as the origin of the current city of Mashhad (the second largest city of Iran). 36 Lotfollah Nishapuri was one of the major Persian poets of the medieval period. 37 In original language (Persian): ‫و ر ـــ در آب ــــر ـــ ت‬ "‫ــ ن واھد ـــ ـت‬# ‫ھری د‬

‫دی‬...‫آ ش ا ـــ ــت‬ ‫ ردا‬...‫ــــــــــ ور د د‬

‫"در رو ــَـر ـــر‬ ‫( ا روز ُ ل از ک‬translated by Mohsen Nagheeby)


33

Capital City

General information of three riparian states (CIA 2011; FAO 2009, 2013) Population

Area (km2)

Population

Density (/km2)

active in agriculture (% of total

Afghanistan

Kabul

652,230

Iran

Tehran

1,648,195

Ashghabad

population)39

Turkmenistan

Country Name

Table 4.1

491,210

Access to improved

Renewable

drinking

Precipitation

water

water

(mm/yr)

resources40

(% of total

(MCM/yr)

Total

GDP41

Water Use

(million

(MCM/yr)

US$/yr)

HDI42 (

MSc Thesis3

MSc Thesis3

Suggest Documents

012014 - MSC FAQs.indd_New.indd - MSC Cruises

11082013 - MSC FAQs.indd_New.indd - MSC Cruises

MSC Mvision Materials Databanks - MSC Software

MSC Nastran 2007 R1.pdf - MSC Software

1304 MSC Terms & Conditions_new.indd - MSC Cruises

Msc virology

METALLIC AIRFRAME STRUCTURE WITH MSC ... - MSC Software

msc-zoology

MSc/M.A.

MSc Thesis

MSc Dissertation

MSC Cruises

MSc Biotechnology

MSC Application Brief - What is Tube Hydroforming? - MSC Software

Rapid Opto-Mechanical Design Using Pro/E, MSC ... - MSC Software

MSc in Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience (CCN) MSc ...

MSc. Maritza Castro García

MSC Software Solutions

CS4/MSc Parallel Architectures

msc in clinical dietetics

MSc Project Report - repeatingbeats

MSC Industrial Supply Co.

Serious Games MSc Curriculum

MSC.328(90) - IMO