DEVELOPMENT-MIDDLE EAST: Water Wars Possible, Solutions Too

By IPS Correspondents Reprint | | Print |

Analysis - Kim Ghattas

BEIRUT, Aug 5 1999 (IPS) - Water seems to be regarded as a good reason for another war in the Middle East (West Asia), the place where food production started some 10,000 years ago. But some now suggest that conflict can be avoided by just turning away from the region’s main ancestral activity – agriculture.

The area now occupied by parts of Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, Syria, Palestine, Jordan and Iraq was previously covered by forests and the world’s richest variety of wild animals and vegetables suitable for domestication.

The peoples of the Fertile Crescent “domesticated far more productive or valuable species…a much wider range of types of crops, developed intensified food production and dense human populations and as a result entered the modern world with more advanced technology, more complex political organisation, and more epidemic diseases with which to infect other peoples,” says Jared Diamond in his best-selling essay ‘Guns, Germs and Steel.’

But in giving birth to food production and organised social structures, they also destroyed their environment, turning the Fertile Crescent into one of the world’s driest regions.

According to a 1996 World Bank report, annual per capita availability of water in the region has fallen from 3,000 cubic metres (CM) in 1960 to 1,250 CM in the 1990s and is expected to fall by another 50 percent in the next 30 years.

Notwithstanding, “I don’t believe there will be a war for water in the Middle East for simple reasons: there isn’t enough water to fight for and the quality of water doesn’t make it worth either,” says John Waterbury, president of the American University in Beirut and co-author of the book ‘Core and Periphery- A Comprehensive Approach to Middle Eastern Water.’

Economic and military might play a role too. Poor and arid countries such as Jordan or the Palestinian territories, no matter how desperate, cannot afford to launch a war against powerful neighbours, who, in turn, use their control of water sources into bargaining weapons.

Around 90 percent of the water from the West Bank is consumed by Israel, yet the Israeli government demands Palestinians to cut back on their consumption and cuts agreed supplies to Jordan.

Although worried about dwindling water resources, Omar Touqan, a water resource expert with the United Nations in Beirut, does not believe in the possibility of armed conflicts to resolve disputes for access the vital liquid.

“Even in the Jahiliyya (the Arab dark ages) we didn’t fight for water (and) there’s no reason to do so now. Unless a country actually has another political aim, water will not be the sole reason for a war,” said Touqan.

“This year, the amount of rainfall in the region has dropped by 30 to 60 percent, but water is very scarce also because of its bad quality,” he added. An estimated 60 percent of available water is wasted through pollution and pipe leakages.

Analysts say that, although no major war should be expected, there will be the occasional rising tension, such as the flare up in Turkish-Syrian relations last September, which almost led to open conflict.

One result was the expulsion from Syria of Abdullah Ocalan, leader of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK).

Since 1989, Turkey has been working on a 32 billion-dollar project project known as Southeastern Anatolian Project (GAP) consisting of 22 dams and 19 power plants, which worries Syria and Iraq, where water flows from the Tigris and Euphrates will decrease substantially.

Syrian political gestures – such as the expulsion of Ocalan – and the possible lifting of international sanctions against oil- rich Iraq seem to have prompted Turkey to reconsider its project.

Israel recently advised Jordan that its water quota would be reduced from the 55 million cubic metres a year agreed upon in the 1994 peace treaty, to 28 million because of this year’s drought. Syria quickly stepped in to offer its own water to Jordan, marking an improvement in bilateral relations and thus worrying Israel.

“The water section of the peace deal between Israel and Jordan was badly thought, since it didn’t take in consideration times of drought. Israel played tough with Jordan which did well in turning to Syria,” Waterbury said.

Also causing worries in the region is the cosy relationship between Israel and Turkey, in which water is thought to be a major factor.

A water-rich country, in 1987 Turkey offered to pump 3,500 cubic metres a-day to Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, the Palestinian territories and the Gulf through the ‘Peace Pipeline.’ But fears of a water-access enforced hegemony by Turkey prevented Arabs from even acknowledging the offer.

Holding on to political and strategical thinking also stands in the way of other possible solutions. Egypt, for example, has offered to supply water to the Gaza strip, but the Palestinians refused, fearing that it may be taken as a de-facto recognition of jurisdiction over water resources taken by force by Israel in 1967.

While political and military tension remains high, some people are focusing on solutions that can only work in a climate of cooperation.

Common investments in improved water pipe networks, desalination plants and better preservation of water quality would already help a lot, analysts say. Others have proposed a pricing policy. But shifting away from agriculture, which takes up around 70 percent of the available water, is probably the most controversial proposal.

“Raising the price of water is not the solution, the rich will continue to waste it just as much,” said Touqan.

“We shouldn’t be taking water away from the poor by making it more expensive. We should rather take it away from agriculture. There will be a de-facto shift away from agriculture anyway, the question is therefore not whether but when,” Waterbury agreed.

“Why should countries stay in a non-profitable sector such as agriculture, when even Israel has stopped exporting large quantities of citrus fruits to Europe and flowers may soon follow?” he asked.

Waterbury believes that high-tech developments, modelled on the Silicon Valley in California (United States) are just as possible in Israel as in Lebanon, but critics say this model leads to food- dependance.

Desalinisation will probably be the most common resorted-to solution for countries which can afford it. Desalinated sea water presently costs between 1.6 and 2.8 dollars per cubic metre while recycled water costs between 0.30 to 0.60 dollars per CM.

“No one will impose cooperation between the region’s countries, not the US nor any other. But entities like the World Bank may offer funding to projects to those countries which have managed to come to an agreement,” Waterbury says. More so, probably, if water is handled – as the UN Education, Science and Culture Organisation (Unesco) has demanded – as a basic human right.