توسعۀ آب‌محور ترکیه در حوضه آبریز فرامرزی ارس

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه مهندسی آبیاری و آبادانی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشکدگان کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه تهران، البرز، ایران.

2 گروه مهندسی و مدیریت آب، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران.

10.22059/jwim.2023.361889.1086

چکیده

بهره‌برداری از آب در حوضه‌های آبریز فرامرزی به‌طور مستقیم تحت تأثیر عوامل متعدد از جمله مناسبات سیاسی و امنیتی بین دولت­ها قرار دارد و می­تواند راهبردها و مناسبات سیاستی و امنیتی آن‌ها را نیز تحت تأثیر قرار دهد. این پژوهش به بررسی اقدامات ترکیه در حوضه آبریز فرامرزی ارس، به‌عنوان بخشی از ابرپروژه داپ می‌پردازد. برای تحلیل اطلاعات از روش توصیفی تحلیلیاستفاده شده است و تحلیلی از وضعیت هیدروپلتیکی ترکیه در حوضه آبریز ارس ارائه شده است. نتایج نشان می‌دهند که با توجه به مستندات موجود، با تکمیل ابرپروژه‌های سازه‌ای ترکیه در حوضه آبریز فرامرزی ارس، این کشور قادر خواهد بود حدود 83 درصد از پتانسیل آبی این حوضه آبریز فرامرزی در خاک خود را مهار و کنترل کند. این در حالی است که به‌دلیل تبعات جبران‌ناپذیر این طرح‌ها، ترکیه در صدد است تا با بهره­گیری از ابزار­ تحریف‌ گفتمان، از شکل‌گیری اعتراضات کشورهای پایین‌دست حوضه آبریز به اقدامات این کشور پیشگیری کند. 

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Turkey's water-oriented development in the Aras Transboundary River Basin

نویسندگان [English]

  • Saeed Nastarani Amoghin 1
  • Seyedeh Zahra Ghoreishi 1
  • Hojjat Mianabadi 2
  • Atefeh Parvaresh Rizi 1
1 Department of Irrigation & Reclamation Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, College of Agriculture & Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Alborz, Iran.
2 Department of Water Engineering and Management, Faculty of Agriculture, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

In transboundary river basins, the utilization of water is influenced by the political and security relations between the co-riparians, which can impact their political and security strategies. This article examines Turkey's actions in the Aras transboundary river basin, a part of the DAP mega-project. Furthermore, information regarding Turkey's hydropolitical situation in the Aras River basin was obtained through the analytical descriptive method. The findings indicate that Turkey will have control over approximately 83 percent of the potential of the Aras River basins within its territory upon the completion of its mega-projects in the Aras transboundary river basins. However, due to the irreversible consequences of these plans, Turkey is striving to prevent the emergence of protests among downstream countries through the use of sanctioned discourse.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • DAP Mega-Project
  • Hydraulics missions
  • Hydropolitics
  • Sanctioned Discourse

مراجع

  1. Ahmad, F. (1993). The making of modern Turkey. Routledge.
  2. Akgün, Ç., & Nas, S. S. (2021). Tuzluca barajı’ nın fayda maliyet analizi cost benefit analysis of Tuzluca Dam giriş. Ahi Evran Akademi (AEA), 2(1), 61-71 (In Turkey).
  3. Alhas, A. M. (2019). Turkey, Iraq to set up water resources center. Retrieved from https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/turkey-iraq-to-set-up-water-resources-center/1546367
  4. Allan, T. (2002). The Middle East water question: hydropolitics and the global economy. London/New York: I.B. Tauris Publishers.
  5. Altingoz, M., and Ali, S. H. (2019). Environmental cooperation in conflict zones: riparian infrastructure at the Armenian–Turkish border. The Journal of Environment and Development, 28, 309-335. https://doi.org/10.1177/1070496519859680
  6. Altingoz, M., Belinskij, A., Bréthaut, C., do Ó, A., Gevinian, S., Hearns, G., Keskinen, M., McCracken, M., Ni, V., & Solninen, N. (2018). Promoting development in shared river basins: case studies from international experience. Washington, DC: World Bank.
  7. Aubrey, G. (2014). Reducing Transboundary Degradation in the Kura-Aras River Basin. Retrieved from United Nations Development Programme And Global Environment Facility, Retrieved from https://www.gefieo.org/sites/default/files/documents/projects/tes/1375-terminal-evaluation.pdf
  8. Aslan, S. (2015). Nation-Building in Turkey and Morocco: Governing Kurdish and Berber Dissent. Cambridge University Press.
  9. Bakhtiyari, S., Tokaldany, E. A., & Fasihi Harandi, M. (2020). Hydraulic mission and its relation to Iran’s water resources development. Iran-Water Resources Research, 16(2), 214-229 (In Persian).
  10. Balali, M.-R., Korthals, J., & Keulartz, M. (2011). Reflexive land and water management in Iran: linking technology, governance, and culture, part1: land and water management paradigms. Water Research Agriculture, 24(2), 73-99. (In Persian).
  11. Bilgen, A. (2017). Demystifying the (post-)politics of Southeastern Anatolia Project (GAP). Doctoral dissertation, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn.
  12. Bosovski, L. (1966). “Hydro project”, “Aras” Hydroelectric Project, Preliminary Design, Volume I, Summary Report. Ussr: Ministry of Power and Electrification.
  13. Bourdeau, P. (2004). The man−nature relationship and environmental ethics. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 72(1-2), 9-15. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/S0265-931X(03)00180-2
  14. Chow, E. C., & Hendrix, L. E. (2010). Central Asia’s pipelines: Field of dreams and reality. In The National Bureau of Asian Research.
  15. Cizre, Ü. (2001). Turkey’s Kurdish problem: Borders, identity and hegemony. In B. O’Leary, I. S. Lustick, & T. Callaghy (Eds.), In Right-Sizing the State: The Politics of Moving Borders (pp. 222–252). Oxford: Oxford Unıversıty Press.
  16. Conker, A. (2018). Understanding Turkish water nationalism and its role in the historical hydraulic development of Turkey. The Journal of Nationalism and Ethnicity ISSN:, 46(5), 877-891. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2018.1473353
  17. Conker, A., & Hussein, H. (2019). Hydraulic mission at home, hydraulic mission abroad? Examining Turkey’s regional “Pax-Aquarum” and its limits. Sustainability 11(1), p. 228. Retrieved from https://doi: 10.3390/su11010228.
  18. Delibas, A. (2021). Ilısu Barajının Açılışına İran’dan Gelen Tepkiler (In Turkey). Retrieved from https://iramcenter.org/ilisu-barajinin-acilisina-irandan-gelen-tepkiler/
  19. Devlet Su İşleri. (2021). Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı bu ay 6 yer altı barajını dahatamamlayacak. Retrieved from https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/turkiye/tarim-ve-orman-bakanligi-bu-ay-6-yer-alti-barajini-daha-tamamlayacak/2100160
  20. Devlet Su İşleri. (2022a). Bölge Müdürlüğü - Kars (In Turkey). Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20080127223422/http://www.dsi.gov.tr/bolge/dsi24/kars.htm
  21. Devlet Su İşleri. (2022b). İşletmedeki Baraj ve Göletler (In Turkey). Retrieved from https://bolge24.dsi.gov.tr/Sayfa/Detay/958
  22. Devlet Su İşleri. (2022c). Kars İli İnşa Halindeki Göletler (In Turkey). Retrieved from https://bolge24.dsi.gov.tr/Sayfa/Detay/963
  23. Devlet Su İşleri. (2023a). Resmi Su Kaynakları İstatistikleri (In Turkey). Retrieved from https://dsi.gov.tr/Sayfa/Detay/1499
  24. Devlet Su İşleri. (2023b). Toprak Su Kaynakları (In Turkey). Retrieved from https://dsi.gov.tr/Sayfa/Detay/754
  25. (2022). Karakurt Barajı Nerede? (In Turkey). Retrieved from https://educasport.gen.tr/karakurt-barajı-nerede/
  26. Emlak Kulisi. (2018). Ünlendi Barajı son durum (In Turkey). Retrieved from https://emlakkulisi.com/guncel/unlendi-baraji-son-durum/1635276
  27. Enerji Atlası. (2022). Aras Nehri Üzerindeki Barajlar ve HES’ler (In Turkey). Retrieved from https://www.enerjiatlasi.com/akarsular/aras-nehri.html
  28. Environmental Justice Atlas. (2017). Tuzluca Dam, Turkey (In Turkey). Retrieved from https://ejatlas.org/conflict/tuzluca-dam-turkey
  29. Fasihi Harandi, M. (1395). Damming; engineering as oscar or golden raspberry (In Persian). Retrieved from https://www.magiran.com/article/3348612
  30. Gaste 24. (2021). Iğdır’da yeni baraj projesi devam ediyor (In Turkey). Retrieved from https://www.gaste24.com/gundem/igdir-da-yeni-baraj-projesi-devam-ediyor-h154508.html
  31. (2021). Yıldız: DSİ olarak ülkemizin 2023 hedefleri doğrultusunda çalışıyoruz (In Turkey). Retrieved from https://www.gazetebanka.com/gundem-haberleri/yildiz-dsi-olarak-ulkemizin-2023-hedefleri-dogrultusunda-calisiyoruz-11502
  32. (2022). Koçköy Göleti çalışmaları tamamlanmak üzere! (In Turkey). Retrieved from https://www.gazetekars.com/kockoy-goleti-calismalari-tamamlanmak-uzere-39187h.htm
  33. Ghalandarian, I., Taghvaei, A., & Kamyar, M. (2016). Comparative study of the relationship between human and the environment in sustainable development thought and Islamic thought. Journal of Researches in Islamic Architecture, 4(1), 62-76 (In Persian).
  34. Ghoreishi, S. Z., Mianabadi, H., & Hajiani, E. (2020). The dimensions of hydraulic mission in Turkey’s Hydropolitics. Water Resources Management, 16(1), 304-331 (In Persian).
  35. Ghoreishi, S. Z., Mianabadi, H., & Shafaee, S. M. (2019). The role of power in water diplomacy. Iran Water Resources Research, 15(2), 242-264 (In Persian).
  36. Guluzada, L. M. (2004). Kura river-Transboundary watercourse of Caucasus. Conference on Integrated Water Management of Transboundary Catchments: A Contribution from TRANSCAT. Venice, Italy, 24-26.
  37. Haber Türk. (2019). Karakurt Barajı’nda yıl sonunda su tutulmaya başlanacak (In Turkey). Retrieved from https://www.haberturk.com/kars-haberleri/70875460-karakurt-barajinda-yil-sonunda-su-tutulmaya-baslanacak
  38. (2013). Ünlendi Barajı Projesi Çalışmaları Sürüyor (In Turkey). Retrieved from https://www.haberler.com/yerel/unlendi-baraji-projesi-calismalari-suruyor-4637326-haberi/
  39. (2018). Ünlendi Barajı’nda Son Noktaya Gelindi (In Turkey). Retrieved from https://www.haberler.com/guncel/unlendi-baraji-nda-son-noktaya-gelindi-11417219-haberi/
  40. Hajihoseini, M., Morid, S., Emamgholizadeh, S., Amirahmadian, B., Mahjoobi, E., & Gholami, H. (2023). Conflict and cooperation in Aras International Rivers Basin: status, trend, and future. Sustainable Water Resources Management, 9(1), 1-13. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s40899-022-00799-7
  41. Harris, L. M. (2008). Modernizing the nation: Postcolonialism, postdevelopmentalism, and ambivalent spaces of difference in southeastern Turkey. Geoforum, 39(5), 1698-1708. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.03.002
  42. Hajer, M. A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. Clarendon Press.
  43. Hayes, S. P. (1950). The United States “Point Four” Program. The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 28(3), 263–272. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2307/3348136
  44. Hussein, H., Conker, A., Grandi, M., & Hussein, H. (2020). Small is beautiful but not trendy: Understanding the allure of big hydraulic works in the Euphrates- Tigris and Nile waterscapes. Mediterranean Politics 1–24. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/13629395.2020.1799167.
  45. International Database and Gallery of Structures. (2022a). Bayburt Dam. Retrieved from https://structurae.net/en/structures/bayburt-dam
  46. International Database and Gallery of Structures. (2022b). Demirdöven Dam. Retrieved from https://structurae.net/en/structures/demirdoven-dam
  47. Islam, S., & Susskind, L. (2018). Using complexity science and negotiation theory to resolve boundary-crossing water issues. Journal of Hydrology 562, 589-598
  48. Jägerskog, A. (2003). The power of the “sanctioned discourse” – a crucial factor in determining water policy. Water Science and Technology, 47(6), 161-166. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2003.0385
  49. (2018). Kağızman Barajı bölgeye hayat verecek (In Turkey). Retrieved from https://www.kagizmaninsesi.com/gundem/kagizman-baraji-bolgeye-hayat-verecek-h38.html
  50. Kahn, P. H. (1999). The human relationship with nature: development and culture. MIT Press.
  51. Karimi, B. (2012). Hydropolitics of Aras border river. Master's Dissertation, Mashhad Ferdowsi University, Iran.
  52. Kars Guncel. (2020). Kars Barajı Hizmete Açıldı (In Turkey). Retrieved from https://www.karsguncel.com/kars-baraji-hizmete-acildi_9727.html
  53. Kars Hakimiyet. (2018). DSİ heyeti Kağızman Barajı inşaatını inceledi (In Turkey). Retrieved from https: //www.karshakimiyet.com/dsi-heyeti-kagizman-baraji-insaatini-inceledi-697h.htm
  54. Kars Hakimiyet. (2019). Katranlı Barajı ve Sulaması Değerlendirme toplantısı yapıldı (In Turkey). Retrieved from https://www.karshakimiyet.com/katranli-baraji-ve-sulamasi-degerlendirme-toplantisi-yapildi-2720h.htm
  55. Kars Hakimiyet. (2020). Karakurt Barajı ve HES Tesisi’nin geçici kabulü yapıldı Kaynak: Karakurt Barajı ve HES Tesisi’nin geçici kabulü yapıldı (In Turkey). Retrieved from https://www.karshakimiyet.com/karakurt-baraji-ve-hes-tesisinin-gecici-kabulu-yapildi-8356h.htm
  56. Kars Manset. (2016). Kars Barajı 2016 Yılında Tamamlanacak! (In Turkey). Retrieved from https://www.karsmanset.com/haber/kars-baraji-2016-yilinda-tamamlanacak-32630.htm
  57. Disaster And Emergency Management Presidency. (2020). Kars İrap İl Afet Risk Azaltma Plani (In Turkey). Retrieved from https://kars.afad.gov.tr/kurumlar/kars.afad/IRAP/KARS-IRAP.pdf
  58. Karstan Havadis. (2018). Müdür Dündar: DSİ Kars’a 662 milyon TL yatırım yaptı (In Turkey). Retrieved from https://www.karstanhavadis.com/mudur-dundar-dsi-karsa-662-milyon-tl-yatirim-yapti-1h.htm
  59. Kafkas Haber Ajansi. (2022). Sarıkamış 7 Kasım Barajı (In Turkey). Retrieved from https://www.kha.com.tr/sarikamis-7-kasim-baraji_35386.html
  60. Kibaroglu, A., Kramer, A., & Scheumann, W. (2011). Turkey’s water policy: national frameworks and international cooperation.
  61. Klaphake, A., & Kramer, A. (2011). Kura-Aras River Basin: Burgeoning Transboundary Water Issues. In 2011, A. Kibaroglu, A. Kramer, and W. Scheumann (Eds.), Turkey’s Water Policy Framework (262-275). Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag Berlin.
  62. Kraak, E. (2012). Diverging discourses on the Syr Darya. Geography, Environment, Sustainability, 5(2), 36-50.
  63. Macekura, S. (2013). The Point Four Program and U.S. International Development Policy. Political Science Quarterly, 128(1), 127-160. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/polq.12000
  64. Maham, M. (2018). Point Four and Social Changes in Iran (Book Review: Reviewing Objectves and Performance Truman’s Point Four). Journal of Rural Research, 9(1), 148-158 (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22059/jrur.2018.224877.1045
  65. Mohammad Alipour, F., & Talebian, H. (2018). Shared water resources in Kura-Aras River Basin; the promoter of peace in South Caucasia. Central Eurasia Studies, 11(1), 231–246 (In Persian).
  66. Mccaffrey, S. (1996). The Harmon Doctrine one hundred years later: Buried, not praised. Natural Resources Journal, 36(3, Part 2), 549-590.
  67. Menga, F. (2015). Building a nation through a dam: The case of Rogun in Tajikistan. Nationalities Papers, 43(3), 479-494.
  68. Menga, F. (2016). Domestic and international dimensions of transboundary water politics, Water Alternative. 9(3), 704-723.
  69. Mianabadi, H. (2014). Political, security, and legal considerations in managing border rivers. International Relations Research , 3(9), 203-233. Retrieved from http://www.iisajournals.ir/article_41937.html
  70. Mianabadi, H., & Ghoreishi, S. Z. (2022). The explanation of Realism and Liberalism Paradigms in hydropolitical interactions. Geopolitics Quarterly, 18(65), 150-186 (In Persian).
  71. Michael, T. (2015). Tanap and the semiencirclement of Iran: progress and paradoxes in Turkey’s energy diplomacy. Turkish Policy Quarterly, 14(3), 55-65.
  72. Molle, F., Mollinga, P. P., & Wester, P. (2009). Hydraulic bureaucracies and the hydraulic mission: Flows of water, flows of power, Water Alternative. 2(3), 328-349.
  73. Mollinga, P. P. (2008). Water politics and development: Framing a political sociology of water resources management. Water Alternatives, 1(1), 7–23.
  74. Mousavi, S. M., Bahadurkhani, M., & Mousavi, S. M. (2013). The impact of the location of energy pipelines on the geopolitics of Central Asia and the Caucasus. Studies of Central Asia and the Caucasus, 18(80), 147-169 (In Persian).
  75. Nouri, M., Morid, S., Karimi, N., & Gholami, H. (2021). Spatial and temporal variation of temperature and precipitation trends of Aras Transboundary River Basin. Iran-Water Resources ResearchWater Resources Research, 17(3), 104-117 (In Persian).
  76. Orcal, N. (2020). Kara Deniz Doalgaz Kesfettik. Retrieved from https://www.aa.com.tr/fa/1949560
  77. Ozis, U., Harmancioglu, N. B., & Ozdemir, Y. (2020). Transboundary river basins. In Water Resources of Turkey (pp. 399–444). Retrieved from https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11729-0_12
  78. Patterson, K. (2008). Who owns transnational water? Retrieved from https://www.stimson.org/2008/who-owns-transnational-water/
  79. Pamuk, Ş. (2008). Economic change in twentieth-century Turkey: Is the glass more than half full? In R. Kasaba (Ed.), The Cambridge History of Turkey (pp. 266-300). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521620963.011
  80. Polat, M. H. (2004). Aras-Kura havzasinin hidropolitik ve stratejik degerlendirilmesi. Ankara: Hacettepe Universitesi Hidropolitik ve Stratejik Arast{\i}rma Merkezi (In Turkey).
  81. Rashidi, M., Zarghaami, M., & Pishbahar, E. (2020). Evaluation of panel regression models in estimating the relationship between water and countries’ agricultural added value in the Aras River Basin. Iran-Water Resources Research, 16(1), 17-28 (In Persian).
  82. Revenga, C., Murray, S., Abramovitz, J., & Hammond, A. (1998). Watersheds of the world: ecological value and vulnerability. World Resources Institute.
  83. Sajedi, A. (2009). Truman point four and the extension of its activity in Iran. Peyke Noor Journal, 7(2), 120-130 (In Persian).
  84. Salemi Ghamsari, M., Yazdani, S., Farhadi, M., & Momeni, F. (2020). Truman’s principle four and the possibility of development in Iran. Social Development & Welfare Planning, 12(43), 161-197 (In Persian). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.22054/QJSD.2020.53614.2014
  85. (2020). Susuz Barajı ve Sulama Projesi değerlendirme toplantısı yapıldı. Retrieved from https: https://www.sondakika.com/haber/haber-susuz-baraji-ve-sulama-projesi-degerlendirme-12983199/
  86. Somer, M. (2015). Return to Point Zero: Three Dilemmas of the Turkish and Kurdish Problem from Nation-State to State-Nation. İstanbul: Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları (In Turkey).
  87. Talebi Somehsaraee, M. (2022). A Century of Iran Water Governance. Kherade Sorkh (In Persian).
  88. Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi. (1990). 15 inci Birleşim 3.10.1990 Çarşamba (In Turkey). Retrieved from https://www5.tbmm.gov.tr/tutanaklar/TUTANAK/TBMM/d18/c049/tbmm18049015.pdf
  89. Enerji, T.C., &Kaynaklar Bakanlığı, T. (2023a). Elektrik (In Turkey). Retrieved from https://enerji.gov.tr/bilgi-merkezi-enerji-elektrik#:~:text=2022 yılı Aralık ayı sonu,i ise diğer kaynaklar şeklindedir.
  90. Enerji, T.C., & Kaynaklar Bakanlığı, T. (2023b). Enerjide Arama Etkinlikleri ve Belgeler (In Turkey). Retrieved from https://enerji.gov.tr/bilgi-merkezi-enerjide-arama-etkinlikleri-ve-belgeler
  91. Tigrek, S., & Kibaroglu, A. (2011). Strategic role of water resources for Turkey. In A. Kibaroglu, A. Kramer, and W. Scheumann (Eds.), Turkey’s water policy framework (pp. 27-42). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
  92. TRT Haber. (2018). Söylemez Barajı 4. en büyük depolamaya sahip baraj olacak. Retrieved from https://www.trthaber.com/haber/turkiye/soylemez-baraji-4-en-buyuk-depolamaya-sahip-baraj-olacak-363204.html
  93. Tufekci, Z. (2018). Turkish dam won’t impact Iraq’s water supply: Diplomat. Retrieved from https://www.aa.com.tr/en/todays-headlines/turkish-dam-won-t-impact-iraq-s-water-supply-diplomat/1167403
  94. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. (2007). First Assessment of Transboundary Rivers, Lakes and Groundwaters. Retrieved from https://unece.org/environment-policy/publications/first-assessment-transboundary-rivers-lakes-and-groundwaters
  95. Warner, J. (2004). Mind the GAP-Working with Buzan: the Illisu Dam as a Security Issue. SOAS Water Issues Study Group, School of Oriental and African Studies/King’s College-London., Occasional Paper 67.
  96. Wester, P. (2009). Capturing the waters: the hydraulic mission in the Lerma–Chapala Basin, Mexico (1876-1976). Water History, 1, 9-29. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s12685-009-0002-7
  97. Warner, J. (2008). The politics of flood insecurity: framing contested river management projects. Doctoral dissertation, Wageningen University.
  98. Williams, P.A. (2020). Turkish hydro-hegemony: The impact of dams. In: Water and Conflict in the Middle East. Oxford University Press, pp. 41-70. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/book/32037/chapter/267828214.
  99. Yadirgi, V. (2017). The Political Economy of the Kurds of Turkey, Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316848579
  100. Yegen, M. (2010). The Kurdish question in Turkey: Denial to recognition. In M. Casier and J. Jongerden (Eds.), Nationalisms and Politics in Turkey (pp. 67-84). London and New York: Routledge.
  101. Yildiz, D. (1999). Sinir Olusturan ve Sinirasan Su Kaynaklarimiz ve Kiyidas Ulkeler Arasinda Teknik Isbirligi Gereksinimi. Cevre ve Muhendis TMMOB Cevre Muhendisleri Odasi Yayini, 18, 28-35 (In Turkey).
  102. Yontar, B. (2009). Aras Havzasi’nda Yayili Kđrletđcđ Kaynaklarin Belđrlenmesđ Ve Yönetđm Önerđlerđ (In Turkey). Retrieved from https://docplayer.biz.tr/59038159-Aras-havzasi-nda-yayili-kdrletdcd-kaynaklarin-beldrlenmesd-ve-yonetdm-onerdlerd-yuksek-ldsans-tezd-burak-yontar-anabilim-dali-cevre-muhendisligi.html
  103. Yu, Winston, Rita E. Cestti, and J. Y. L. (2014). Toward integrated water resources management in Armenia. Washington, DC: World Bank.
  104. Zeitoun, M., & Warner, J. (2006). Hydro-hegemony: A framework for analysis of trans-boundary water conflicts. Water Policy, 8(5), 435-460. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2006.054
مدیریت آب و آبیاری
دوره 14، شماره 1
فروردین 1403
صفحه 1-26

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار