Water security in the WANA Region: a weapon of mass destruction?

Jordan’s water availability ranks among the lowest in the world. This leads to a severe overuse of Jordan’s renewable and fossil groundwater, exacerbated by inefficient and uncontrolled use of scarce water resources. Demographic expansion, migratory influxes and economic growth have increased water demand. Can the countries of the region, who are involved in seemingly endless conflict, come together to solve the water problem?

The World Health Organization estimates that a person needs 1,000 cubic meters of water every year. Citizens in Jordan, Gaza and the West Bank currently have access to 100 cubic meters of water per year. Israelis have 300 cubic meters. To put these numbers in context, Sweden has 20,000 cubic meters of renewable water, per person, annually.

Over the last 50 years, the flow of the Jordan River has more than halved. River flows in Turkey, Syria and Iraq have depleted by 50 percent to 90 percent. The flow of the Euphrates and the Tigris Rivers that nourished the world’s most ancient civilizations in Mesopotamia has reduced by as much as a third. The quality of water in the Jordan River has also severely deteriorated. The Lower Jordan River now consists primarily of untreated sewage and agricultural return flows, groundwater seepage, as well as brackish water from springs diverted into the river away from the Lake Tiberias area.

Within two decades, it is anticipated that 45 million Iranians may be forced to look for habitat elsewhere. Ironically, the same figure applies to the Delta of the Nile, where 45 million people are threatened with the rise in water levels of the Mediterranean.

When you factor in the political, social and environmental trends in the WANA region, and then add water to the mix, you begin to understand why the stories about water tend to be pessimistic. Can the countries of the region, who are involved in seemingly endless conflict, come together to solve the water problem?

In 1953, US President Eisenhower appointed Eric Johnston as a special ambassador and tasked him with mediating a comprehensive plan for the regional development of the Jordan River system. Johnston worked with Jordan, Israel, Syria and Lebanon to develop a unified strategy, in what came to be known as the Johnston Plan.

The plan was based on principles aimed at reducing the potential for conflict by promoting cooperation and economic stability. However, “tit for tat” policies by Israel, and then Syria and Lebanon served to derail the original intent of the plan and it came unstuck in 1967.

The workings of the deal were also weakened by the fact that the agreements were made at a technical level. There were no deeper agreements that resulted in the states working together in areas such as water demand management, water use efficiency, climate change or drought adaptation, nor were there opportunities to share experiences and innovations in research, science and technologies

The Johnston Plan might not have delivered on all of its objectives. However, it provides an indication of what can be achieved through supra-national cooperation. For such cooperation to work in the WANA region, there are three critical activities that must occur.

First, countries need to go beyond the sharing of technical and scientific expertise. Countries must determine principles for cooperation along multiple avenues, be it goal setting for water use efficiency, climate change, or research and development. These activities can lay the groundwork for integrated water resource management (IWRM) at the basic level, and account for any future eventualities that could pose a risk.

The IWRM approach promotes more coordinated development and management of land, surface water and groundwater, river basins and adjacent coastal and marine environments, and upstream and downstream interests.  It is also concerned with reforming human systems to enable people to obtain sustainable and equitable benefits from those resources.

IWRM should be viewed as a process rather a one-time approach; a long term, iterative solution. As a process of change which seeks to shift water development and management systems from their currently unsustainable forms, IWRM has no fixed beginning or ending.

Second, the importance of groundwater must be acknowledged. Groundwater aquifers constitute over 54 percent of available water in Jordan, 60 percent of freshwater resources in Israel and make up 100 per cent of freshwater resources in the Palestinian territories.

Today, due to over-pumping at the aquifer on the Israel-Gaza border, there is a danger of encroachment of salt water from the Sea of Galillee.  Because of the exploitation of these water resources, some experts predict that the effects of aquifer salination will be irreversible after 2020.

Finally, we must turn our focus to the effects of migration on water supply. In recent years, millions of people in the WANA region have been internally displaced or have crossed into new countries due to violence or the effects of climate change.

Since 2011, Jordan has absorbed at least 600,000 Syrian refugees. While two-thirds of the Syrians live integrated within cities of Jordan, the Zaatari Refugee Camp has become one of the largest refugee camps in the world, hosting approximately 120,000 Syrians in 2013. It has also become Jordan’s fifth largest city.

The overall water usage of 600,000 refugees has been estimated at about 2.3% of the total water consumption in Jordan. Water demand increased by 16 percent in 2013, while Jordan’s water deficit is set to increase by 50 percent.  The influx of Syrian refugees is also placing pressure on the local sewage network, causing it to overflow frequently. Over 34 million cubic metres (MCM) of wastewater are generated annually by Syrian refugees in Jordan. 

We cannot push these people to the back of our minds as a mere temporary concern. Reports suggest the average protracted refugee is displaced from their home country for 17 years. Governments, in collaboration with aid organisations, should implement new programmes to reduce tensions between Syrians and the citizens of the host countries to prepare for the long-term impact of the refugee crisis. Renewing the bilateral water agreement is essential, but promoting larger regional cooperation is even more crucial.

In recent months, Islamic State (IS) has been fighting for control of Iraq’s water sources. The group briefly took control of the Mosul dam in August, but was repelled by a joint Iraqi and Kurdish counter-offensive backed by the United States. At the time, President Obama said : “If that dam was breached, it could have proven catastrophic, with floods that would have threatened the lives of thousands of civilians”. Indeed, the resulting scarcity of water could have also proven disastrous for the entire country.

In attempting to manipulate the flow of water in order to coerce and compel more of Iraq into submission, IS has grasped a fundamental truth that seems to have eluded the rest of us.  If water can give us life, then destroying the systems that deliver water to us can also take life away.

An absence of water is the biggest and most effective weapon of mass destruction for our region. We must recognise the value of water in delivering life and human security, and stop taking it for granted. We must collaborate on water. It will be the first of many steps that will move the WANA region, and regions across the world, from conflict to collaboration.