Can Peace Secure Water Cooperation in the South Caucasus?

The AnewZ Opinion section provides a platform for independent voices to share expert perspectives on global and regional issues. The views expressed are solely those of the authors and do not represent the official position of AnewZ

The South Caucasus region faces a critical paradox: abundant water resources flow through its mountains and valleys, yet water insecurity threatens the prosperity of Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia. After three decades of conflict over Azerbaijan’s Karabakh region, a fundamental question emerges: Can peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia truly secure lasting water cooperation in the South Caucasus? This question is not merely academic: it strikes at the heart of the region’s future, determining whether water will continue to fuel tensions or become a foundation for shared prosperity.

The hydrology of the South Caucasus underscores a hard truth: interdependence is inescapable. Georgia controls 62% of regional water resources, Armenia 28%, and Azerbaijan around 10%. The Kura and Araz rivers, lifelines of the region, cross multiple borders before reaching the Caspian Sea. This transboundary nature means that upstream decisions in one country directly affect downstream communities in another. Yet, during the conflict years, this natural interdependence became a liability rather than an opportunity, as water was often instrumentalized for political leverage instead of being managed as a shared regional asset.

The Sarsang reservoir vividly illustrates this misuse. Built in 1976 with a capacity of 560 million cubic meters and designed to irrigate 100,000 hectares across six Azerbaijani regions, the reservoir was for years operated in ways that harmed downstream communities. During the years of occupation, water flows were often halted in summer when demand peaked, and large releases in winter when irrigation was unnecessary caused flooding. In 2016, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) adopted Resolution 2085 condemning deliberate deprivation of water to civilian populations of Azerbaijan, highlighting the humanitarian and security risks associated with such practices.

Peace changes this equation entirely. Its most immediate impact on water security is the end of deliberate weaponization. With the restoration of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, the country has restored access to seven environmentally significant lakes, more than 6,400 kilometers of irrigation canals, over 1,400 wells, 539 waterworks, and eight reservoirs containing approximately 640 million cubic meters of water, according to official data. This restoration symbolizes more than recovered infrastructure. It marks the end of using water as a political tool and the potential beginning of its management as a shared resource.

Yet, ending weaponization is only the first step toward sustainable cooperation. The restoration of sovereignty creates new opportunities, but transforming them into durable water security requires a shift from competition to collaboration. Such transformation depends on trust, institutional mechanisms, and sustained political will, all of which can only emerge from a comprehensive and lasting peace agreement.

Indeed, peace fundamentally reshapes the political calculus surrounding water governance. During the conflict period, Armenia was not a Party to the UNECE Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes. Although it signed the Protocol on Water and Health in 1999, it did not ratify it, meaning relevant obligations remained largely domestic in scope. As a result, cross-border redress mechanisms were limited, contributing to unresolved environmental externalities downstream.

Now, as Baku and Yerevan move toward normalization, the incentives for institutional cooperation are stronger than ever. Economic development, international investment, and regional integration, critical for post-conflict recovery, are closely linked to transparent water management and alignment with international environmental norms. Consequently, water governance is likely to feature prominently in peace negotiations, opening the door for bilateral and multilateral coordination, monitoring, and joint management mechanisms.

One tangible step forward would be the establishment of transboundary basin councils for the Kura and Araz rivers. Including representatives from all riparian states, these councils could coordinate reservoir operations, harmonize monitoring systems, implement joint flood control strategies, and ensure equitable water allocation—consistent with the sovereign rights of the parties and applicable bilateral and multilateral agreements. In this way, water governance could evolve into a practical framework for cooperation.

The benefits of peace extend beyond governance into the realm of development. For decades, Azerbaijan and Armenia maintained significant security-related expenditures, constraining public investment in critical infrastructure. Peace enables these resources to be redirected toward water security: modernizing supply networks, rehabilitating irrigation systems, and constructing climate-resilient storage facilities in liberated regions. Countries facing greater economic strain stand to gain significantly from such reallocation.

Equally transformative is the re-engagement of international financial institutions. The World Bank, EBRD, ADB, and EIB prioritize investment in stable regions where long-term projects are viable. Peace unlocks access to concessional financing for regional water initiatives and projects that would have been impossible amid conflict. Similarly, private investors specializing in water-efficient irrigation, advanced treatment technologies, and smart water management systems view political stability as a prerequisite for entering new markets. Thus, peace not only attracts international finance but also mobilizes private capital, particularly in sectors such as agriculture, which Azerbaijan has designated as a diversification priority.

International organizations may also intensify their engagement once peace is secured. They offer training for government officials, water professionals, and local communities, strengthening administrative competence and public participation. The European Union Water Initiative, which already supports Azerbaijan’s National Policy Dialogue, could expand its assistance to encompass the entire South Caucasus. Moreover, Armenia’s aspiration for closer European integration provides an additional incentive to align with EU water standards and best practices, an alignment that can benefit the entire region through coordinated management and improved environmental quality.

Peace as the Master Key to Water Security

Returning to the central question: “can peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia truly secure lasting water cooperation in the South Caucasus?”, the evidence yields a resounding affirmative. Peace is not merely beneficial—it is indispensable.

Technical solutions such as new infrastructure, advanced technologies, and institutional reforms are essential, but without peace, they remain unrealizable. The end of conflict halts the instrumentalization of water, establishes the political foundation for transboundary governance, enables legal accountability, and mobilizes international and private investment. It also enables institutional transformation, fosters coordinated climate adaptation, and modernizes agriculture.

Ultimately, peace transforms water from a source of tension into a driver of shared prosperity. Given the hydrological interconnectedness of the South Caucasus, no country can achieve water security in isolation. Cooperation, trust, and sustained engagement, nurtured only by comprehensive peace, are indispensable.

The path forward is clear: comprehensive peace lays the groundwork for comprehensive cooperation, which in turn ensures comprehensive water security. Peace is not one option among many. It is the master key that unlocks all others, turning a long-standing source of division into a wellspring of collective progress and sustainable development for the entire South Caucasus.

Copied