hydropolitics of the tigris - euphrates river basin with - ceris.be

78 Shiva goes on to say that “equitable use theory treats rivers as static resources to apportioned at will.” and this is an
error because the “distribution of benefits and losses to upstream and downstream regions or to riparian and nonriparian
states, changes over time, as does the implication for equitable sharing.”, p.80-81.
79 Kolars, p.1.
80 Shiva, m.81.
81 Brooks, D., Between the Great Rivers: Water in the Heart of the Middle East, in Water Management in Africa and
the Middle East, (IDRC, 1996),p.89.
82 Kibaroglu, A., Prospects for Cooperation in the Euphrates-Tigris Basin in Water Policy: Allocation and management
in practice, Howsam & Carter, eds. (E & FN SPON, London, 1996), p.37.
83 Postel, S. & Wolf, A., Dehydrating Conflict, (Foreign Policy, September/October), pp.2-9)
84 Kolars, p.4.
85 McQuarrie, p.107.
86 Kaya, I., The Euphrates-Tigris basin: An overview and opportunities for cooperation under international law, in
Aridlands Newsletter, Conflict Resolution and Trans-boundary Water Resources, No. 44, Fall/Winter 1998, p.7.
87 Shapland, p.164.
88 European Commission Directorate-General for Development, Towards sustainable water resources management:
Guidelines for water resources development co-operation, (European Commission, 1998).
89 European Union, Sectoral Development Policies, Water: water management in developing countries,
(http://europa.eu.int:scadplus/leg/en/lvb/r12514.htm, last updated 2002).
90 Bjorklund, G., Water Management in Developing Countries – Policy and Priorities for EU Development Cooperation,
(a Background Document for an EC Communication on Water and Development, Stockholm International Water
Institute, Stockholm, 2001), pp.14-15.
91 Ibid., p.21.
92 Ibid;, p.33.
93 Ugur, M., The European Union and Turkey: An Anchor/Credibility Dilemna, (Ashgate Publishing Ltd., Aldershot,
1999) p.2.
94 Ibid. Ugur states that Turkish policy-makers ignore that their lack of commitment on policy reform have contributed
to this result, rather they prefer to see this as an EU preference to keep Turkey (Muslim) out of the European Club.
The other side of this argument is the failure of the EU to recognise their failure to provide an adequate enough anchor
to encourage Turkish policy-makers to go farther. p.18.
95 Hall, D., & Danta, D., eds., Chapter 17, Turkey, in Europe Goes East: EU enlargement, diversity and uncertainty,
(The Stationary Office, London, 2000), p.263.
96 Eralp, A., Chapter 5, Turkey and the European Union, in The Future of Turkish Foreign Policy, Martin, L.G. &
Keridis, D., eds.(MIT Press, Cambridge & London, 2004), p.81.
97 Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Turkey – EU Relations: Post-Helsinki Phase, (2003).
98 Markandya, A., Turkey: Towards EU Accession, The Environmental Acquis, (paper for Ankara Conference, 10-11
May, 2003)
99 2003 Regular Report on Turkey’s Progress towards Accession, available on
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/report_2003/pdf/rr_tk_final.pdf
100 ibid. p.106.
101 The European Commission Directorate-General for Environment, The Water Framework Directive focuses on
Integrated River Basin Development, available on http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/water/waterframework/index_en.html
102 Aydin, S., Progress Report on Turkey - Problems and Prospects, (Commentary, Centre for European Policy
Studies, January 2004)
103 Eralp, A., p.79.
42