1. Introduction
For millennia, society has been managing disputes [
1]. The political treatises of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Plato, and Ibn Khaldun deal largely with the problems of conflict resolution within and among societies. The concept of conflict covers all levels in different societies and situations. All people experience conflict every day in their lives. Conflict happens when two or more people/groups have incompatible goals/actions. In this respect, “water conflict” is a term used to describe conflicts in access to water sources among exploiting societies, groups, and people. In fact, the conflict is considered an inseparable reality in life. However, we resolve the conflict in most cases. However, how is it possible to resolve the conflict? Certainly, awareness of the causes and consequences of conflict helps this process [
2,
3], and it leads to create opportunities and provide interactions among people.
The origins and frequency of conflicting behavior in each system differ depending on the form of structure and patterns of social mobility and the allocation of scarce power and property, as well as the degree to which specific power and resources are distributed [
4]. Agricultural systems are no exception in this regard. In this system, there are also some elements and resources. Unequal access to resources, especially water, and the concentration of power in the hands of some stakeholders can lead to some conflicts [
2].
The rapid population growth and economic progress intensified the use of energy, and water is a basic commodity for human existence [
5]. Water is used for consumption, public health, industry, agriculture, and transportation. Serious water shortages can affect almost every aspect of life such as food and water security [
5]. Given the importance of water, it is not surprising that it is expected to be a commodity that people are particularly concerned about its conservation and even conflict [
6,
7].
It is widely accepted that access to and exploitation of water resources has always been a challenging issue, causing water conflicts, struggles, and even wars inside and between societies and countries [
3]. Water conflicts describe conflicts among groups, societies, or countries related to access to water [
8,
9]. Water disputes between two or more parties arise with competing claims about water resources and their allocation or use [
10,
11]. Here, the main question is who or what group or organization is in charge of controlling water use and plays a key role in creating, sustaining, and controlling water conflicts?
In Iran, the agricultural sector directly supports around 75% of the population’s food requirements, around 90% of the raw materials for related industries, 18% of GDP, 25% of the value of non-oil exports, and about 25% of the total jobs [
12]. More than 82% of Iran’s territory is located in arid and semi-arid regions, and more than 90% of the available water is used in agriculture, which leads to water shortages. Consequently, in such a case, a conflict over the use of limited water is inevitable among farmers [
7,
13,
14]. Of this amount, about 50% is obtained from surface water sources and the rest from groundwater [
13]. A large amount of water is wasted in the agricultural sector of Iran. The main reasons for this are mismanagement of water and rare use of advanced irrigation technologies [
15,
16]. One of the most important aspects of this phenomenon is related to water management [
17,
18]. Nowadays, a major challenge in water management is water conflict. Identification of the causes and consequences of agricultural water conflict can help manage water resources efficiently in this sector.
Iran’s exploitation of its water supplies faces numerous conflicts. For example, conflicts over the Helmand River between Iran and Afghanistan exist. In addition, there are numerous other water-use conflicts within the country, such as the breakdown of the water pipeline to Yazd by East Isfahan farmers in 2012 and violent conflicts in Boldaji in 2016 over water transfers to be used in a steel factory [
19]. However, many of these water contradictions are not apparent (open conflict), and many of them are hidden (latent conflict), and may suddenly erupt, like a volcano that has been quiet so far. However, no comprehensive research has been conducted to investigate the causes and consequences of water conflict in Iran’s agricultural sector. In this regard, researchers have analyzed the water conflicts from different perspectives. For example, Green [
20] and Bijani and Hayati [
2,
19] have analyzed this issue from the perspective of human ecology. Malekian et al. [
17] have examined it from the point of view of water security by analyzing the ontology and epistemology of the subject. Mohammadinezhad and Ahmadvand [
21] have studied water conflicts in agriculture from a good governance perspective and have concluded that to reduce water conflicts, a change of water management from governmentality to governance is needed. Other studies have also looked at water conflict as a marginal view alongside other water management challenges, especially in the agriculture sector [
7,
12,
13,
14].
Accordingly, it seems necessary to first identify the causes of water conflicts in agriculture and secondly to examine the consequences of these conflicts in different fields (social, economic, technical, institutional, and environmental). In the next step, measures to address and manage the causes and consequences of the water conflict in agriculture should be suggested and put into practice.
In this study, water conflict refers to focusing on local conflicts in the agriculture sector towards the use of fresh surface water, and the term ‘water conflict’ describes the struggles among water shareholders in the agricultural sector. The purpose of this research was to analyze the causes and consequences of water conflicts in the agricultural sector of Iran. To achieve this objective, the analysis was done using a mixed research method, by collecting the opinions of farmers (i.e., the major consumers of water in agriculture) and regional water experts (i.e., the governmental agents of water management) in the irrigation network of Doroodzan dam, located in the southwest of Iran.
The questions that this research seeks to answer are:
- -
What are the main causes of water conflict in the agriculture sector?
- -
What is the description of the types of water conflicts as perceived by respondents (farmers and water experts)?
- -
What are the priority and delay of water conflict causes?
- -
What are the consequences of water conflict in agriculture?
- -
How is the classification of the different causes and consequences of the water conflict?
2. Theoretical Background
Conflicts occur for a variety of reasons. Malthus, a leading economist, says that declining livelihoods are the main reasons for the conflict. According to him, the conflict is the result of the fact that the population is increasing in geometric progression, and the supply of food is decreasing with significant progress [
20,
21,
22]. Henrik Urdal has developed models to show that countries with a high population growth rate tend not to fall into conflicts as often as the regions with a low population increase rate [
23]. Therefore, one of the main reasons for water conflicts in watersheds around the world is the growth in the number of water stakeholders, which is due to urban, industrial, and agricultural development [
24].
According to Green, four factors can affect the water-conflict dynamic; population, type of organization, environment, and type of technology [
25]. In Iran, the direct impact of population growth on water resources management is the increasing need for drinking water in population centers (especially large cities). Indirect effects include increased demand for agricultural products, the expansion of irrigated land, the need for employment opportunities and higher incomes, and, ultimately, water conflicts, especially in agricultural sector [
13]. Today, in Iran, the Water Resources Management Organization (under the supervision of the Ministry of Energy) is responsible for organizing and managing water resources. So, the government owns and controls the water. However, the government does not have an efficient mechanism for organizing water consumption in the agriculture sector [
3,
19]. Furthermore, the increasing damage of environment is one of the consequences of the growth in agricultural water conflict in Iran. Water scarcity and droughts in recent years have accelerated this process. On the other hand, agricultural water conflicts have an impact on the environment. In fact, water scarcity and unequal rights to access, use, and decide on water can be a threat to the quality of life of stakeholders and an obstacle to human and environmental development. Such conflicts can obviously influence the environment [
2]. Technology interacts with population growth to bring about profound financial, organizational, and environmental improvements, all affecting natural resource rivalry [
26]. Technology has an important link to conflicts over water. It can cause and reduce/regulate water conflicts [
20]. In Iran’s agriculture sector, one of the most important factors that have caused water conflicts is the disregard for local and indigenous technologies such as underground canals (Ghanat) as well as the incompatibility of new technologies with irrigation and water management. In Iran, after the land reform in 1962, water management has shifted to the government, the trend of water conflict has increased, and droughts of the last decade have intensified. Unfortunately, these same traditional cases have also undergone a destructive process [
19].
According to Charles Darwin, the biological principles of ‘struggle for existence’ and ‘the survival of the fittest’ are the main causes of conflict [
27]. In Iran, the lives of farmers depend on agriculture, which in turn depends on water [
28]. Therefore, access to more water means a better chance of life, and this is not possible without conflict.
According to Marxist theory, power is the capacity to influence people’s living conditions. Power is an important feature of society’s structural relationships. The dominant power is overwhelmingly in the hands of those who own the means of production and manage it [
29]. The conflict between individuals with similar desires and different resources creates social systems. In addition, individuals and resources are affected by these systems and the ‘unequal distribution of power and resources in the ‘society’ [
21,
30].
Reviewing different definitions showed that “conflict” is a social situation in which two or more actors at one time want to get more access to a source or a number of sources [
21,
31]. In this context, the term “water conflict” is used to describe disputes between the exploiting communities, groups, and citizens in relation to water sources [
9]. In water conflict divisions, there are four types, these being international, national, regional, and local conflicts, each of which can occur at four levels: No conflict, surface conflict, latent conflict, and open conflict [
3]. What was considered in this study was the study of water conflict in the agricultural sector, at the regional and local levels. The water conflict, as defined by United Nations (2008) [
32], is the result of conflicts between the public and private water users. In other words, water-related conflicts occur between two or more regions or groups competing with each other to access and exploit water sources [
10,
11].
Haftendorn (2000) [
33] has listed the categories of water conflicts. For example, one state uses the river as a waterway in dispute by usage, but another state that shares the river may have environmental concerns about the effects on its territory. Practices such as constructing a dam or directing the river flow will contribute to an international conflict. Haftendorn (2000) [
33] also makes reference to two types of distributional conflict: Relative and absolute shortages. The situation is very acute in the absolute shortage of water when the overall water supply is very low, such as in the semi-arid regions of the world. In relative distributional conflicts, the problem is aggravated if the lower riparian cannot prevent the upper riparian from behaving detrimentally. Agricultural water conflict is about conflicts among water stakeholders over an access to water resources in the agricultural sector [
2]. In a study by Marcantonio et al. (2017) [
34], they investigated the relationship between household-level attributes, water resources, and farmers’ perceptions of conflict in Zambia. They developed a framework to explore this relationship as well as analyzing the impacts of farmers’ perceptions of natural resources conditions (i.e., water) toward violent conflicts. They concluded that although farmers do not think water scarcity is a direct source of conflict, the understanding of decreased rain in the future is significantly related to the perception that future conflicts including violent conflict may occur. In another similar study, Zou et al. (2018) [
35] attempted to understand the conflicting situation between wetland water use and agricultural water use in the Sanjiang Plain in China. Their main reason for choosing this case study was that in this area, water scarcity has become an extremely important limiting factor in wetland conservation and agricultural development, which will intensify the conflict between wetlands and agriculture for water resources. To mitigate this conflict, they suggested that adaptive wetland (e.g., precise water recharge, water transfer at stagger time, etc.) and agricultural techniques (e.g., soil water capacity increment, water saving irrigation and planting, rainfed agriculture) should be recommended to the relevant stakeholders.
According to the Homer-Dixon theory, conflicts concerning renewable natural resources have complex causes. In the 1990s, Homer-Dixon and his group carried out research on the relationship between resource scarcity and conflicts and developed their own models on the occurrence of conflicts over natural resources [
36]. In the Homer-Dixon theory, environmental scarcity is triggered by three types of variables (scarcities), which are important in understanding the context of environmental conflicts: (1) Shortage of supply, (2) shortage of demand, and (3) structural shortage (Ibid). Supply-induced scarcity is when natural resources are in decline due to pollution and degradation or when the resources are limited. It could be rivers drying out due to excessive water withdrawal for agriculture or due to the lowering of groundwater tables and so on. A shortage of demand exists when population growth and changes in development patterns (e.g., increased welfare) contribute to higher demand, and as a result, each individual has less access to the resources. Structural scarcity is when some—often rich—actors have greater access to natural resources than the less privileged. Structural scarcity exists when it is possible for some actors to prevent other members of society from getting further access to natural resources. This type of scarcity has often been inherited from former colonial structures.
The agricultural sector is in competition with municipal and urban water users, and local water resources are under growing pressure due to increased agricultural productivity [
37]. Freshwater demand in low- and middle-income countries is likely to increase with economic growth and include processes such as industrialization, energy production, health, and sanitation in arid regions, even without substantial population pressure. In a relevant study, Bohmelt et al. (2014) [
38] aimed to examine how the demand for and supply of water may lead to domestic water conflict. Their findings have shown that demand-side drivers, such as population pressure, agricultural production, and economic growth, are likely to have a greater effect on water conflict than supply-side factors. In another study, Hsiang et al. (2014) [
39] used macro-level meta-analysis to demonstrate a robust positive relationship between environmental change (temperature and precipitation variation) and violent conflict. O’Loughlin et al. (2014) [
40] assessed the same relationship through model specification and data selection and demonstrated a result that does not include a significant relationship between precipitation and conflict. Power and wealth may still be accumulated with the help of this colonial tenure and management arrangement remnants [
36]. Considering three main reasons given above, it seems that in the Iranian context, the first and third factors, namely water scarcity and structural problems in water management, are more effective in creating conflict between water stakeholders. It has been also acknowledged by previous researches [
2,
3].
The interaction of environmental scarcities in various patterns tends to change societies in developing countries. These changes, in turn, may increase the risk of environmental conflict and stress. Homer-Dixon has recognized five social effects related to resource scarcity: (1) Limited agricultural productivity, often in peripheral areas in terms of the environment; (2) limited economic productivity, mainly affecting people who are highly dependent on natural resources and are environmentally and economically marginalized; (3) the division of society, usually along existing ethnic divisions; (4) the disruption of institutions, especially the state; and finally, (5) the reduction in the number of affected people in search of better lives [
36]. The social effects mentioned above can act individually or combined with each other and result in further stress on society [
36].
Although there are many theoretical discussions about conflicts and their reasons and consequences, this discussion has not been much considered about water use and management, especially in the agricultural sector of Iran. Undoubtedly, identifying these reasons and consequences as the main goal of this research focusing on the agricultural sector of Iran is the novelty of this study and it can be a turning point in improving water resources management.
Uncertainties about water conflict in agricultural sector has many aspects. One of the most important aspects and maybe the most important one in this regard is “management”. Management can present and introduce environmental and conservation values to make efficient changes into water beneficiaries’ beliefs and norms. The previous studies did not focus on the balance of power towards water management. To fill this gap, using mix-method approach (qualitative and quantitative), this study attempts to answer the following questions: ‘does the type of water management cause water conflict?’ and ‘which type of management can lead to less water conflict?’
5. Discussion
According to our findings, there was no general difference between opinions of farmers and regional water experts toward agricultural water conflict and their opinions. In fact, they were unanimous about water conflict in agricultural sector and had a shared understanding in this area. The findings of this study also confirmed that there was a moderate to high level water conflict in Doroodzan dam irrigation network. Where most of the water battles are waged in court today, conflict is usually avoided as much as possible. Conflict can be avoided with cooperation and use of modern technologies. However, the conflict is a more serious challenge when it comes to more vulnerable communities. Areas with fewer resources and no access or legal processing facilities are more likely to find themselves in a violent conflict over water. Injustice would make desperate farmers more likely to take water by force. It will be up to decision makers to realize that it might be better not to cut water completely, but to negotiate and find an agreement with everyone. Daoudy (2009) [
46] focused on the prospect of negotiating theories for regions for which power, military, and economic resources are mostly used as a solution to overcome conflict. His study showed how Syria was effectively using the issue-linking tactics with Turkey, where support for the Kurdish rebels was a main factor in controlling the water allocation based on the agreement of 1987.
The results of current study showed that agricultural water conflict is growing strongly. The main reasons for this increasing conflict were “drought”, “water scarcity”, “lake of local management of water resources by farmers”, and “type of water management quality by the government”. Therefore, one can say at the present time, the main challenges of agricultural water conflict in Doroodzan dam irrigation network are related to climate changes and water management. The practical recommendation for regional water experts is to focus on these factors, especially in terms of improving water resource management in unfavorable climate conditions. Appropriate strategies to cope with drought and water scarcity are providing applied training for proper and optimal use of water, drought-resistant crops, and the use of modern technologies consuming water in sustainable manner. Focusing on water management, the best strategy in this regard is moving from government centrality to governance. This finding is in line with the study of Al Obaidy et al. (2013) [
47] as they also investigated the socio-economic challenges to water sustainability in Iraq. Their work indicated the need for a comprehensive national plan. Their results have shown that upstream country development projects have led to significant degradation of water quantity and quality. The country faces a major threat to desertification. They also emphasized the displacement of the population, which caused violent conflicts over water.
In fact, water resource management in Iran should move from government centrality to governance and the government should make efforts to attract farmers’ participation in this process. The farmers’ participation in water management and the government’s cooperation and support is an appropriate solution. In the current research, the experts believed that the most important reference for water resource management is local people and farmers. On this basis, the role of the government should be only supportive and regulatory. The main responsibility of water experts is gradually assigning farmers to manage their water resources by training them, increasing their motivation and participation in local communities, particularly in constituting and the establishment of effective water use associations. Focusing on the Iranian context, Bijani and Hayati (2016) [
48] concluded that the most important water conflict is between water stakeholders and the government, and that the best solution to this conflict is to move from government centrality to governance. It means there should be some programs toward stakeholders’ participation in water management.
In most parts of Iran, on one hand, the water level is low, and due to water scarcity, distribution of water among stakeholders is very complicated and difficult. On the other hand, some of the main causes of water conflict are out of human control. According to the findings, the causes of agricultural water conflict can be grouped into two categories—controllable and uncontrollable. The results of the qualitative and quantitative phases of the study showed that the main causes of water conflict are out of human control. These factors are related to natural events such as drought and water scarcity. Therefore, they are called uncontrollable factors. The most significant controllable factors are related to water resource management in the current situation. In addition, in this study, the consequences of agricultural water conflicts are classified into four groups: ‘socio-economic’, ‘agro-environmental’, ‘organizational’, and ‘technological’. Among them, socio-economic and agro-environmental backgrounds are more important. The reason is that water scarcity, societal inequalities in access to and decision-making on water, can be a threat to the quality of life of stakeholders and an obstacle to sustainable livelihood and environmental development. In this context, policymakers in water resources management should focus on changing water stakeholders’ environmental attitudes and behaviors, understanding their real needs, and using appropriate technologies. In the case of ecological views, if the dominant view of farmers is biospheric and altruistic, there will be less conflict in their use of water, and the more their views are selfish (egoistic), the greater their behavioral contradictions. This has been confirmed in the other studies (for example: [
2]). Therefore, these policies should move toward changing environmental views.
What has been overlooked in recent years by government management is the lack of involvement of farmers, the emphasis on advanced technological (not commensurate) issues, and the imbalance between agriculture and the environment. These findings are quite consistent with the findings of other researchers on the reasons for water conflict and the emphasis on stakeholder participation in water resources management (see [
2,
3,
14,
18,
19,
22]). However, the findings related to the consequences of water conflict, especially in Iran, were less considered and no similar study was found. Therefore, these findings can be verified and adapted in a variety of ways.
6. Conclusions
The findings of this study can be useful in conceptualizing and perceiving water resource management based on the mix-method approach perspective. As mentioned earlier, Iran’s villagers are dealing with significant water conflicts. Although the drought phenomenon during the last 10 years have increased the conflict in most regions of Iran, and thus less water availability for stakeholders, it must be noted that this is not a new problem in Iran’s civilization. What can create a balance between supply and demand of water and reduce the impact of uncontrollable factors is proper water resource management. In Iran, water management is being introduced by the government, and farmers, particularly those in the agricultural sector, lack the encouragement needed for optimal water management. Clearly, such a situation drives the individuals to act based on their personal preferences and maximum use of water. The same findings have also been discussed in similar studies [
2,
49]. To achieve proper management, there is an obvious need to find coordination between the purposes of water managers and farmers and induce participation, motivation, and cooperation among them. Current water management in Iran is not responsible for this interaction and balance. Rotation of governmentality to governance towards water management is a suitable approach for resolving water conflicts and reduces inappropriate social, economic, and environmental consequences. As mentioned earlier, in Iran, the government is responsible for water resources. In this way, water beneficiaries find themselves in the role of “owners” of water resources. Therefore, there will be more guarantees to protect of these resources. Centralized management, i.e., the government, has no ability to organize and direct stakeholders’ participation to use water resources efficiently. Reduction in water conflict and increase in cooperation depend on water users’ participation. As farmers think of themselves only as water users, they focus on accessing more water to produce more crops. In this regard, the mission of agricultural extension should be to provide the necessary knowledge and change attitudes toward such transmission.
In fact, proper management and cooperation of all farmers can reduce the effects of uncontrollable causes of water conflicts. It can be effective to organize, educate, and promote farmers to cultivate crops that are resistant to water scarcity stress during drought and to use technologies for better management of water in agriculture. This requires organization and coordination among related institutions and farmers. There is also a need for proper training for the proper use of water and the spread of a culture of saving water resources. The role of education as a tool to implement these changes is undeniable. In this regard, agricultural extension and education through practical training towards the use of water and related issues can play an important role in attracting farmers’ participation and in transforming conflicts to collaboration.
What was proposed in this study was simply to define the causes and implications of the water conflict. The next critical step is to find a way to stop conflicts over water and their negative consequences. In this regard, this study suggests that the future researches focus on the following subjects:
- -
Evaluating the impact of water conflicts among rural people and farmers;
- -
Assessing the relationship between human ecological and water conflicts in agriculture;
- -
Performing meta-analysis on water conflict in terms of scientific, social, economic, and environmental perspective; and
- -
Analyzing the relationship between water conflict and water management in terms of moral and ethical perspective.