Edit Case Study: The Helmand River Basin Dispute

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Users, Administrators / Sysops, Volunteer Administrators, confirmed-user.
The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: confirmed-user, editors, Administrators / Sysops, Volunteer Administrators.

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Users, Administrators / Sysops, Volunteer Administrators, confirmed-user.
The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: confirmed-user, editors, Administrators / Sysops, Volunteer Administrators.

Case Description
Issues and Stakeholders
Key Questions
Background Articles
Historic, Economic and Political Framework
Analysis, Synthesis & Insights (ASI)
Summary
External Links
Case Review

Descriptive terms, facts, and summary for this case.

Each of these checkboxes or numerical values are designed to support semantic search. Please provide thoughtful answers that relate closely to your case and would assist others in searching for this case or common elements between cases. You can elaborate on these responses in other "free text" sections of your case. If you add comments to numerical fields in this page, they won't be recorded or displayed properly.

Water Use:	Indicate 3 – 5 uses of water most important to this case study:
	Agriculture or Irrigation Domestic/Urban Supply Fisheries - wild Fisheries - farmed Hydropower Generation Industry - consumptive use Industry - non-consumptive use Livestock Mining/Extraction support Other Ecological Services Recreation or Tourism
Land Use:	Indicate 2 – 5 land use terms most important to this case study:
	agricultural- cropland and pasture agricultural- confined livestock operations conservation lands industrial use mining operations forest land rangeland urban urban- high density religious/cultural sites
Climate:	Select any climate descriptors that may describe relevant climate types present in the case study region
	Moist tropical (Köppen A-type) Semi-arid/steppe (Köppen B-type) Arid/desert (Köppen B-type) Humid mid-latitude (Köppen C-type) Continental (Köppen D-type) Moist Monsoon Dry-summer Dry-winter cold-climate (permafrost, tundra, polar) temperate alpine

Case Population: Total population for this case -- this could be watershed population, a population of a geographic area, or a combination of these types of statistics -- How many people were/are affected? million

Total Area : Total area for this case -- this might be a sum of watersheds/aquifers recharge area/ or a simple geographic area km²

Map Location Choose a location to place a marker that will represent this case on a map. You can enter the coordinates directly, or click on the map, or enter an address and choose "Look up coordinates." The coordinates will be stored when you save this page.

Loading map form input...

This is the end of the Case Description section. Consider previewing or saving your changes and continue to other sections using the tabs above.

Issues are the concerns of groups of stakeholders within the context of the water basin and the case study. Some issues may be extremely significant, and some may be peripheral to your particular perspective or framework.

Each issue has a specific group of stakeholders. Stakeholders are organizations or powerful individuals who may have input into the process or may bear the results of management decisions in the water basin. The stakeholders for a given issue are those who have a primary concern in its outcome.

Issue:
Provide a short description of your issue: (eg: “ensuring adequate flows for specific ecosystem services”)

Description:

State level, regional and local governments are interested in maintaining the water supply to communities in the Sistan Delta and the lower and middle reaches of the Helmand Basin.  The general Afghan position is that more water is needed to maintain stability and encourage economic development within the country.  Afghanistan could perceive Iran’s actions against Afghani water projects as limiting their potential for growth and development.  The general Iranian position is that more water is required to meet the domestic and agricultural needs of the Sistan delta’s population.  In addition, they also need more water in order maintain the hamoun ecosystem.  Iran sees Afghan development as a threat to local livelihoods and agricultural production in the Sistan with the potential to impact the country at large. Most of the water consumed in the basin goes towards agriculture, the future construction of infrastructure in support of expanding irrigation and economic growth is both a risk and a benefit to users within the basin.

Natural/Societal/Political Domain Variables:

Water Quantity Water Quality Ecosystems Governance Assets Values and Norms	allocation, competitive use, climate influence/uncertainty
	quality for a given purpose, quality from the viewpoint of a stakeholder
	ecosystem services, biodiversity, ecological communities, environmental considerations
	institutions, entities, legal frameworks
	specific human or economic assets
	social value or cultural norm

Stakeholder Types:
Federated state/territorial/provincial government Sovereign state/national/federal government Local Government Supranational union Non-legislative governmental agency Development/humanitarian interest Environmental interest Industry/Corporate Interest Community or organized citizens Cultural Interest

Issue:
Provide a short description of your issue: (eg: “ensuring adequate flows for specific ecosystem services”)

Description:

Natural/Societal/Political Domain Variables:

Water Quantity Water Quality Ecosystems Governance Assets Values and Norms	allocation, competitive use, climate influence/uncertainty
	quality for a given purpose, quality from the viewpoint of a stakeholder
	ecosystem services, biodiversity, ecological communities, environmental considerations
	institutions, entities, legal frameworks
	specific human or economic assets
	social value or cultural norm

Stakeholder Types:
Federated state/territorial/provincial government Sovereign state/national/federal government Local Government Supranational union Non-legislative governmental agency Development/humanitarian interest Environmental interest Industry/Corporate Interest Community or organized citizens Cultural Interest

Issue:
Provide a short description of your issue: (eg: “ensuring adequate flows for specific ecosystem services”)

Description:

Natural/Societal/Political Domain Variables:

Water Quantity Water Quality Ecosystems Governance Assets Values and Norms	allocation, competitive use, climate influence/uncertainty
	quality for a given purpose, quality from the viewpoint of a stakeholder
	ecosystem services, biodiversity, ecological communities, environmental considerations
	institutions, entities, legal frameworks
	specific human or economic assets
	social value or cultural norm

Stakeholder Types:
Federated state/territorial/provincial government Sovereign state/national/federal government Local Government Supranational union Non-legislative governmental agency Development/humanitarian interest Environmental interest Industry/Corporate Interest Community or organized citizens Cultural Interest

The greatest value of any case study is the ability to identify transferable knowledge, particularly identifying the context and usefulness of this knowledge. Select a few questions from the question bank and provide a brief synopsis on the contributions this case study makes to providing more insight or answering this question.

Key Question:

Question Categories:

Question:

None What role(s) can hydropower play in a nation's energy strategy? What calculations and considerations should be investigated by countries looking to harness additional hydropower? Which potential outcomes should be investigated or identified? Where does the benefit “flow” from a hydropower project and how does that affect implementation and sustainability of the project? How do issues of equity and development impact the identification of stakeholders in cases involving hydropower or other revenue generating water infrastructure?

None What approaches are most beneficial for rapidly growing cities in the developing world to link water management to sustainable urban growth strategy? How can increasing urban water demand be balanced between the needs of the urban population and industry? How can costs for water quality projects be distributed between polluters and beneficiaries?

None What kinds of water treaties or agreements between countries can provide sufficient structure and stability to ensure enforceability but also be flexible and adaptable given future uncertainties? What mechanisms beyond simple allocation can be incorporated into transboundary water agreements to add value and facilitate resolution? What considerations can be given to incorporating collaborative adaptive management (CAM)? What efforts have the parties made to review and adjust a solution or decision over time in light of changing conditions? How can packages or options that link issues creatively or build on possible technology innovations be employed to create non-zero sum choices within negotiations that include water resources? How can mutual trust amongst riparians be nurtured? What actions erode that trust?

None What roles can desalination play in a country's national water policy and what energy ecological and water quality considerations ought to go into making such a decision? What types of benefit sharing models can be used to make desalination more economically feasible and beneficial in water-scarce regions?

None To what extent can international actors and movements from civil society influence water management? How and when is this beneficial/detrimental and how can these effects be supported/mitigated? How can government be dis/incentivized to offer an inclusive planning process? What effective mechanisms can downstream states/countries use to protect their water related interests/rights? How does asymmetry of power influence water negotiations and how can the negative effects be mitigated? How do national policies influence water use at the local level?

None How can consultation and cooperation among stakeholders and development partners be better facilitated/managed/fostered? What role can agricultural subsidies play in finding solutions to complex water management problems?

Description

Key Question:

Question Categories:

Question:

None What role(s) can hydropower play in a nation's energy strategy? What calculations and considerations should be investigated by countries looking to harness additional hydropower? Which potential outcomes should be investigated or identified? Where does the benefit “flow” from a hydropower project and how does that affect implementation and sustainability of the project? How do issues of equity and development impact the identification of stakeholders in cases involving hydropower or other revenue generating water infrastructure?

None What approaches are most beneficial for rapidly growing cities in the developing world to link water management to sustainable urban growth strategy? How can increasing urban water demand be balanced between the needs of the urban population and industry? How can costs for water quality projects be distributed between polluters and beneficiaries?

None What kinds of water treaties or agreements between countries can provide sufficient structure and stability to ensure enforceability but also be flexible and adaptable given future uncertainties? What mechanisms beyond simple allocation can be incorporated into transboundary water agreements to add value and facilitate resolution? What considerations can be given to incorporating collaborative adaptive management (CAM)? What efforts have the parties made to review and adjust a solution or decision over time in light of changing conditions? How can packages or options that link issues creatively or build on possible technology innovations be employed to create non-zero sum choices within negotiations that include water resources? How can mutual trust amongst riparians be nurtured? What actions erode that trust?

None What roles can desalination play in a country's national water policy and what energy ecological and water quality considerations ought to go into making such a decision? What types of benefit sharing models can be used to make desalination more economically feasible and beneficial in water-scarce regions?

None To what extent can international actors and movements from civil society influence water management? How and when is this beneficial/detrimental and how can these effects be supported/mitigated? How can government be dis/incentivized to offer an inclusive planning process? What effective mechanisms can downstream states/countries use to protect their water related interests/rights? How does asymmetry of power influence water negotiations and how can the negative effects be mitigated? How do national policies influence water use at the local level?

None How can consultation and cooperation among stakeholders and development partners be better facilitated/managed/fostered? What role can agricultural subsidies play in finding solutions to complex water management problems?

Description

Because multiple cases can require an understanding of the same basic facts about

water features such as a basin (watershed), minor rivers, lakes, groundwater resources, etc;
projects, such as built infrastructure or organizational initiatives (such as a commission); and
agreements and treaties

each case can be linked to new or existing articles containing background information on these topics. This way, individual natural features, projects and initiatives, or agreements do not need to be explained in great detail in the body of every case.

If an article exists, you can enter the title (e.g.: Ganges River, Mekong River Commission, Glen Canyon Dam, Indus Water Treaty), and it will be automatically linked to the case study. If the article does not exist, a new page will automatically be created for the feature. You will be able to see/edit that page by clicking the link when viewing your saved case study.

We suggest looking at the existing list of features, projects, and agreements to see if relevant sections already exist for your case.

Water Features, such as rivers, wetlands, or lakes:

Water Features

Riparian States/Countries:

Relevant Riparians

Water Infrastructure Projects or Organizational Initiatives:

Water Projects

Agreements or Treaties:

Agreement or Treaty

Image Upload - open the image upload page in a new tab:
Upload a File View all Files
You can find or upload a file and then return here.

To insert an image in your text, type: [[File:filename.jpg]]

=== The Helmand/Hirmand River Basin ===

The Helmand River Basin, as known as the Hirmand River in Iran, is a renewable resource highly valued by both states through which it flows.  The river originates in the northeast of Afghanistan within the Hindu Kush Mountains northwest of Kabul.  Majority of the discharge is from snow melt near the headwaters of the Helmand and its tributaries, as there is minimal precipitation in the lower reaches of the basin (Goes et al. 2015).  From its headwaters, the river trends in a southwesterly direction for about 1,200 kilometers draining into the Sistan Depression on the Afghan-Iranian border.  The Sistan Depression creates a series of terminal lakes within the endorheic basin.  Typically, there are four lakes – known locally as hamouns – which are fed by the Helmand and several smaller rivers to the north of the depression.  The true terminus of the river is the Gaud-e Zirreh, which is a saline lake in Afghanistan that receives flow from the hamouns during high flood years.  This flushes the salt out of the hamouns, enabling them to remain as freshwater, despite the high evaporation rates of the area (van Beek & Meijer 2006; Goes et al. 2015).  The four hamouns within Iran are highly variable in size, although they are generally shallow.  In flood years, the lakes can merge together covering an area up to approximately 3,200 square kilometers (Dehgan et al. 2014).  The wetlands created here are an important resource for both the people and wildlife who reside in the Sistan Depression region.  This area has been designated as a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar Convention (Ramsar Secretariat 2005).

Approximately 30% of Afghanistan’s area is within the Helmand River Basin; this area constitutes about 90% of the total area, leaving about 10% of the basin area within Iran.  A small portion on the southern edge of the basin lies within Pakistan; however, the dispute over the river’s waters is between Afghanistan and Iran.  Over 7 million people live within the basin, 6.5 million within Afghanistan, where Kandahar is the largest city, and 400,000 within the Sistan-Baluchestan Province of Iran (van Beek & Meijer 2006; Goes et al. 2015).  The Sistan inland delta resides within the administrative unit of Zabol Shahrestan in Iran.  The Helmand River crosses through several provinces in Afghanistan including Kandahar, Helmand, and Nimroz.  In general, livelihoods are based on agriculture in both countries where the surface water is used extensively.  Most irrigation is traditional with farmer managed small systems along the valley floor in the upper basin and along the main Helmand river channel.  There are six large scale irrigation projects within the basin, five within the middle section of the river and one in Iran. The productivity of the agriculture in the region is limited by the high seasonal variability of runoff, meaning that an increase in perennial irrigation storage is required for future agricultural growth (Goes et al. 2015).

Afghanistan has constructed two major dams on the Helmand, the Kajaki and Arghandab Dams, circa 1950s.  These dams control seasonal flooding and release water for use during the seasonally dry times.  In addition, Afghanistan has several barrages that are associated with the various large scale irrigation projects.  Iran has constructed four Chahnimeh reservoirs.  The reservoirs store water for the public water supply of the cities of Zabul and Zahedan as well as the surrounding rural villages (van Beek & Meijer 2006; Dehgan et al. 2014).  If there is additional water available in the reservoirs, then water is released for irrigation.  An additional function that is important to note is that the reservoirs regulate the flow of water to the hamouns during drought, which supports the fragile ecosystems and the livelihoods that depend on them (Dehgan et al. 2014).

=== History of the Water Dispute ===

In addition to the hydrological, demographic, and infrastructure overview described above the history of the relationship between Iran and Afghanistan is vital to fully understanding the conflict over the Helmand River. The dispute extends beyond the creation of the modern state of Afghanistan, when Iran controlled the entirety of the Sistan delta and a portion of the lower Helmand basin.  In the late 1800’s, Iran argued that a portion of the Afghani Sistan was rightfully Iranian territory, which lead to the involvement of the British in the border conflict.  At this point in time, the border dispute was the primary aspect of the conflict between Iran and Afghanistan; however, the sharing of the Helmand’s water is closely linked to the location of the international border.  Therefore, the sharing of the waters was included as part of the British arbitration of the border dispute.  In 1872, the Goldsmid Arbitral Award established the border as the Helmand River and allocated equal shares of the water to both counties, while restricting the construction of infrastructure that would interfere with the “requisite supply of water for irrigation on both banks of the Helmand”(Abidi 1977; Dehgan et al. 2014).  Drought and natural alteration of the river’s course, reignited the dispute, and in 1903-05 the McMahon commission again settled the border dispute and readdressed the shared waters in a similar manner to the 1872 award.  However, this commission’s award was rejected by both countries.

Following the Iranian coup-d’état in the 1920s, Iran and Afghanistan approached Turkey as a neutral power to assist in the border and water dispute.  During these negotiations, a resolution to the border dispute was agreed upon by both parties.  In reference to the water conflict, the resultant Treaty of 1938 embodied the Goldsmid Award, where the two countries agreed to share equally the lower waters of the Helmand and not to construct new infrastructure that would impact the water supply.  This treaty, however, while agreed to by Afghanistan, was never ratified (Abidi 1977).

In the 1940s, Afghanistan sought US technical and financial assistance in constructing dams and irrigation projects along the Helmand; Iran saw these projects in violation of the 1938 Treaty.  Both countries accepted US mediation of the conflict in 1947 (Abidi 1977).  The negotiations established a Neutral Technical Commission for the Helmand River Delta in 1950.  The commission’s report allocated 22 cubic meters per second to Iran during normal years, however both countries again rejected the report continuing the dispute over the waters (Dehgan et al. 2014).  Given the intermittent nature of drought in the basin, the conflict was seen as a low priority for many years as there was little incentive to settle the issue.

In 1971, unprecedented drought significantly impacted the amount of water that Iran received spurring bi-lateral negotiations.  In 1973, the two countries signed the Helmand River Water Treaty, which allocated water consistent with the 1950’s commission’s recommendation, but allowed for the reduction of water released to Iran in dry years proportionate to the climatic conditions (Abidi 1977).  This treaty was ratified in 1977; however, it has only been minimally implemented given the subsequent Iranian revolution, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, civil war in Afghanistan, US invasions of Afghanistan, Taliban control, and continued tensions in the region (Dehgan et al. 2014).

=== Helmand River Basin Water Conflict ===

Since the ratification and enforcement of the 1973 Helmand River Basin Treaty, the agreement has been touted by some scholars as a positive example of a water sharing agreement in a region with few successfully shared transboundary waters (Vick 2013).  However, despite the existence of the agreement, the dispute over the Helmand waters has persisted – if not escalated – given political, economic, and climatic factors impacting the use or potential use of the river.

Historically, the conflict has coincided with the international border dispute.  This aspect of the conflict has de-escalated with the focus shifting towards the dispute over the Helmand’s water.  The periodical nature of the attempts of resolution – 1872, 1905, 1938, 1950, and 1973 – of the water conflict has been spurred by reoccurring drought within the basin.  The current iteration of conflict is consistent with this trend, as a significant drought occurred from 1999 to 2009 (Houk 2011; Dehgan et al. 2014).  This drought increased the tensions between the two countries over the shared waters.  However, additional factors are also driving the conflict, beyond the climatic and hydrological variability that is normal in the basin.

With the withdrawal of US and foreign troops from Afghanistan, stabilization and reconstruction are the focus for the government of Afghanistan.  These efforts are focused on the development of agricultural projects and water projects that include withdrawal, diversion, and storage in the middle and lower reaches of the Helmand River (Dehgan et al. 2014).  The planned development projects in the lower and middle Helmand Basin trends with the projected population growth in the same region.  This will increase the demand for domestic water supply, including business and increased food production.

Iran is concerned that these efforts will reduce the water security in the Sistan delta, which is a volatile region within the state.  The Sistan and Baluchestan province is the most marginalized region in the country with a strong Sunni majority, counter to the state’s Shia majority.  The lower reaches of the Helmand Basin within both Iran and Afghanistan are characterized by sectarianism and tribalism; therefore, preserving the internal political stability in this area is important for the nation-states.  The states’ should therefore be concerned with preserving water security in this region given the potential destabilizing effect a loss of water security could have on internal politics. While the population in the Sistan delta is considerably smaller than the Afghani population within the basin, the Sistan region is nearly completely dependent on the Helmand River to meet its needs, as there is limited alternative sources of water.  Currently, Iran uses 80% of the downstream flow of the Helmand for agriculture, as the region is economically important as a “bread basket” of Central Asia.  These economic drivers for conflict over the waters is further compounded by climate change.  Predictions cite a decrease in precipitation and an increase in temperature, in addition to rapid glacial melt at the headwaters.  Importantly, the timing of water in the system is also predicated to change, which could be more impactful as a stressor for conflict than the decline of overall water quantity.

Political factors are also driving the conflict.  From 1999-2009, Taliban controlled Afghanistan cut off water completely to Iran, resulting in the hamoun lakes completely drying up, causing collapse of the ecosystem, increasing poverty and unemployment, and abandonment of 124 villages because of sandstorms (Houk, 2011).  Iran views this as a breach of the 1973 Treaty creating a further loss of trust between the two states.  Iran’s vulnerability will increase with Afghanistan’s planned construction of new water projects and agricultural development.  For example, Afghanistan has begun construction of the Khamal Khan Dam on the middle Helmand which would impact the flow to Iran.  Iran also views this as a violation of the 1973 Treaty.  Afghanistan also believes that Iran is violating the treaty by consuming more water than is allocated.  Furthermore, Afghanistan has accused Iran of pressuring Afghanistan to negotiate on the shared waters through reduction of oil sales to the country; they have also accused Iran of supporting the Taliban in the destruction and delayed construction of the Khamal Khan Dam and other water development projects (Houk 2011; Aman 2013).

This conflict is steeped in historical mistrust and intermittent political conflict that resulted in the previous attempts at resolving the conflict at the state to state level.  This most recent iteration of the dispute has escalated beyond conventional politics towards unstable politics.  Given that the desire for economic growth and stability in Afghanistan, climate change, and Iran’s perceived vulnerability, there is likelihood for the conflict to transition to a stage of low-level hostilities, as evidenced by Iran’s supposed support of sabotage.  In addition, in 2011 there was a skirmish between Afghan and Iranian border forces over the Iranian forces attempts to enter Afghanistan to release water into an irrigation canal (Goes et al. 2015).  The precedence of failed resolution of the conflict set by past negotiations and state to state interactions provides an incentive for alternative methods of dispute resolution.

For each case, multiple contributors will have the opportunity to add his/her own analysis/synthesis or insights into the specific case, and these nuanced, contextual additions will be presented together in the case to provide multiple viewpoints. Because of this, each contributor will need to both add and annotate their contributions to this section to highlight major points and also receive credit for the original thoughts.

ASIs already associated with this Study

There are no ASI articles linked to this case study.

ASIs on this study that you have already created

You have not added any ASI sections that are linked to this Case Study.

Please use this section to analyze interactions between issues and stakeholders, synthesize information presented, draw conclusions, highlight important lessons learned, or to provide insight into the knowledge/wisdom from this case can be transferred to other settings.

Add an ASI

Provide a focused summary to facilitate case organization/searches. The organization for summaries is meant to create short, information-dense documents. You should complete this section after preparing the rest of your case study.

We suggest the case summary is kept under 300 words and touches on the following topics: major issues addressed, important stakeholders, major points of analysis/synthesis/insights (especially if there are multiple contributors of insight to the case), opportunities for transferrable knowledge. This is not meant to be fully comprehensive, but simply provide enough information to a reader to indicate whether or not s/he is interested in reading further.

The Helmand River is shared between Iran and Afghanistan. This basin has been identified as one of the few basins in the region with an agreement governing the sharing of the river’s waters. However, despite a treaty between the two countries signed in 1973, there has been a continuation of conflict. The dispute over the Helmand River has persisted for nearly the last two centuries and includes several attempts at resolution. The tensions in the basin are liable to increase given population growth, climate change, instability in the region, and the need for economic growth. If the status quo is maintained, the dispute has the potential to escalate and be exacerbated, particularly if the region experiences continued drought. Issues within the dispute include, but are not limited to, lack of trust between the two countries, particularly over the interpretation and implementation of the 1973 Treaty, environmental and social impacts within the Sistan Delta, and push for economic development in the lower and middle Helmand Basin, particularly for water infrastructure to increase irrigated agriculture.

Topic Tags

Help others find this case study by providing topic tags -- either keywords or short phrases without any punctuation.

Each entry utilizes autocomplete to find similar words/phrases. You can also add a new tag keyword or phrase.
You can add as many as you'd like -- we suggest between 1 and 5.
You shouldn't add tags that are the same as article titles linked to cases or values that have been added by selecting check boxes elsewhere in this case -- those keywords have already been recorded!

Add Keywords or phrases (no special characters or punctuation)

References Please list all reference here. use (name date) parenthetical citations in relevant text areas. Abidi, A. H. H. (1977). Irano-Afghan Dispute over the Helmand Waters. International Studies, 16(3), 357–378. http://doi.org/10.1177/002088177701600304 Aman, F. (2013, January 7). Afghan Water Infrastructure Threatens Iran, Regional Stability - Al-Monitor: the Pulse of the Middle East. Al Monitor - The Pulse of the Middle East. Retrieved from http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/01/afghanwatershortageiranpakistan.html# Dehgan, A., Palmer-Moloney, L. J., & Mirzaee, M. (2014). Water security and scarcity: Potential destabilization in western Afghanistan and Iranian Sistan and Baluchestan due to transboundary water conflicts. In E. Weinthal, J. Troell, & M. Nakayama (Eds.), Water and post-conflict peacebuilding (p. http://environmentalpeacebuilding.org/assets/Documents/LibraryItem_000_Doc_937.pdf). London: Earthscan. Goes, B. J. M., Howarth, S. E., Wardlaw, R. B., Hancock, I. R., & Parajuli, U. N. (2015). Integrated water resources management in an insecure river basin: a case study of Helmand River Basin, Afghanistan. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 0(0), 1–23. http://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2015.1012661 Houk, A. (2011, March 22). Transboundary Water Sharing: Iran and Afghanistan. Retrieved October 27, 2015, from http://www.stimson.org/spotlight/transboundary-water-sharing-iran-and-afghanistan/ Ramsar Secretariat. (2005). Hamun-e-Saberi & Hamun-e-Helmand. Retrieved January 2, 2016, from https://rsis.ramsar.org/ris/42 van Beek, E., & Meijer, K. (2006). Integrated Water Resources Management for the Sistan Closed Inland Delta, Iran. Delft, Netherlands: Delft Hydraulics. Retrieved from http://www.undp.org/content/dam/iran/docs/News/2014/March%202014/Towards%20a%20solution%20for%20Iran’s%20dying%20wetlands/Hamoun%20Wetland/Hamoun%20Report.pdf Vick, M. (2013, January 19). Sharing Central Asia’s Waters: The Case of Afghanistan. Retrieved from http://www.internationalwaterlaw.org/blog/2013/01/19/sharing-central-asias-waters-the-case-of-afghanistan/

The contributing author, other editors, and admins can all provide public case review. Checking any of the boxes below will place a notice at the beginning of the case

To enhance the ability of a contributor to improve a case, please answer the yes/no questions below. For each "yes" (checked) answer, you should initiate a discussion on the case study discussion page to explain the improvements required.

The purpose of this review is to both encourage users to continually improve cases and also to alert readers that there are aspects of the case that could be improved. Any editor/contributor may remove an alert (by unchecking the related box) after the issue has been addressed.

Completeness

Are 1 or more sections empty?
does the case/page need more formatting or copyediting help?
Are 1 or more sections incomplete?
Does the case/page need additional or better references?
Does the case/page need more internal links (to AquaPedia Pages)?
Does this case/page need more external links (to relevant external sources)?

Content

Is content out of date? or, are there recent developments that should be addressed by the case?
Is there a dispute about the accuracy of the content?
Is there a need to represent additional points of view?

Provide a summary of the type/purpose of updates you have made. This summary is displayed on the "History" tab for the page and is not part of the page as it is viewed:

This is a minor edit Watch this page

Cancel