Networks of Cooperation and Regional Water Security

(Will not be pursuing the second module at this time)


Background
The Euphrates and Tigris rivers, flowing from Turkey through Syria and Iraq, have been a source of regional conflict dating back to ancient times. In more recent decades, numerous dams and irrigation projects have altered the natural flow of water. Perhaps most notable is the Southeastern Anatolia Project (aka GAP project), implemented by Turkey in the 1970s to construct 22 dams for hydropower and irrigation purposes. Although intended as a means for social and economic prosperity in the region, the displacement of hundreds of thousands of riparian communities and the inconsistent flow of water to neighboring countries has been a mounting source of contention. Access to water remains a volatile issue throughout the region-- exacerbated by droughts, floods, and broader political instability. 

While sub-national conflict persists in Iraq and Syria over water, and tensions remain high between countries, a series of agreements and treaties have been put in place over past few decades to try to mitigate conflict and manage water related crises across the region. As recently as 2009, all three countries pursued a Joint Trilateral Committee agreement surrounding the management of the Tigris-Eurphrates basin. This agreement is just one of more than 150 international water treaties signed in the past 50 years, and it underscores that the vital nature of water as a resource can provide strong incentive for cooperation. In fact, it is this international recognition of water as a source for cooperation rather than conflict that led the UN to designate 2013  as the International Year of Water Cooperation. 

Is there reason to believe a network of water cooperation is forming between Syria, Iraq and Turkey based on recent agreements such as that of the Joint Trilateral Committee? Could a network of cooperation on water issues help drive broader cooperation and agreement within an otherwise politically volatile region?

Research Question: what are the potential socio-political impacts of a network of cooperation on water between Iraq, Syria and Turkey?

A first step in approaching this question could be to set up a two mode dataset that looks at signatories and various agreements (e.g. MOUs, bilateral agreements,  or treaties) pertaining to water use over the past three decades in the region. This would illustrate  a cooperation network (to some degree) of actors connected by agreement. This could be combined with a second two-mode dataset looking at those key signatories and other types of regional agreements (e.g. on issues pertaining to oil) to show whether there is a correlation between positions of signatories on water issues and positions other regional issues. The latter dataset could also be dichotomized--for example to reflect pre-2009 and post-2009 agreements--to illustrate whether there was potentially any causal effect of the Joint Trilateral Committee agreement on broader regional relationships and formation of agreements. 

Another important aspect of gauging progress on regional water cooperation would be the shift in public opinion pertaining to water issues/security.  An interesting, longer-term study could also use social network analysis to look at whether impacted riparian residents perceive progress as a result of such political cooperation. Surveys could be conducted somewhat regularly moving forward to compare how people are talking about water issues and regional relations following the Joint Trilateral Committee agreement. Attribute data revealing access to water, resettlements,  instances of violence (at local, sub-national, or transboundary level), and perceived security could be analyzed to help reveal priorities among this important stakeholder group. Patterns or subgroups that might emerge in comparing this type of dataset over time could illustrate shared priorities among riparian communities and/or information gaps within the broader regional network that need to be addressed by policymakers and government officials if relationships are to be repaired within the region. The survey data could then be analyzed by centrality measures such as betweenness to determine influential/key actors that might be responsible for swaying public opinion and/or future negotiations. This would be useful for third party actors involved in peacekeeping missions or negotiations in the region, as they could have a better idea who in the network might be best positioned (based on their connections) to facilitate compromises within formal or informal negotiation settings, and/or who may serve as the main obstacles for a given initiative.