process. They highlighted that all of the mukhtars stuck together, even when the
company tried to approach them individually to negotiate about the process, and
mobilized their subjects in all these processes. Since all of them shared the same
cause, their stance was solid against construction of the HEPP. This is important,
because, in traditional Turkish rural life, if you want to do anything in a village, or
if you want access to any village, you should first talk to the mukhtar. For this
reason, companies generally try to persuade the mukhtar before they initiate constructions, as indicated in a series of interviews conducted with the DSI officials.
In the context of the Saklıkent HEPP case, the company and the state did not do
much to reflect the locals’ concerns in their projects, and did not disclose the
potential harm to the locals throughout the entire process. The full participation of
the local people in this process was not attained, which led to the neglect of their
concerns and recommendations in this process, hindering their meaningful participation. The administration or state institutions did not provide the necessary
conditions for meaningful participation, rather the local people and volunteers
sought for alternative ways to influence this HEPP process. It could be concluded
that the meaningful participation of locals (by the legal framework) was quite
limited in the HEPP case of Saklıkent, but participation became meaningful when
locals established their own ways to raise their concerns, which eventually led to the
withdrawal of the company from the HEPP process.
9.5 Scaling up the Debate: Meaningful Participation
in Turkey’s HEPP Process
The problems revealed so far are mainly peculiar to the case study area; however,
similar issues are widely seen in Turkey’s HEPP processes. Representatives of two
prominent national-level environmental NGOs respectively argue that:
It [referring to the HEPP process] is fundamentally a ‘rights’ issue…The hydrological cycle
has to be recognised and it has to serve to [provide] water, to [support] fish living and
feeding from that basin, to [produce] rain conceived through evaporation from that source,
needed by the basin’s farmer. Water is the right of humans and all living organisms of that
cycle. And the process that Turkey’s water politics and HEPPs have brought us does not
recognise that right. In fact, they operate in the worst possible way. It is okay if you
[referring to the state] consult people and get their opinions [in the HEPP process] and then
make a bad decision, but even that is not the case. They seek neither public nor expert
opinion. In fact, [even] EIA Reports are full of lies. All EIA Reports [in Turkey] are
approved…They are copies of each other. Thus, the intention [of the State] is not to have
equitable water management and there is no political commitment to ensure it. Even worse,
the Ministry [of Forestry and Water Affairs] does not advocate such a[n equitable and
participative] policy[-making process].
There are sensitive issues about HEPPs…like the existence of national parks, wetlands,
forestry areas which represent actual HEPP sites. I need to inform you that every single
river [stream] of Turkey is projected for HEPP development! It raises the question: Do we
not have any wetlands or nature protection area or forestry? It is easy to infer that HEPPs do
150
R. C. Sayan and A. Kibaroğlu
company tried to approach them individually to negotiate about the process, and
mobilized their subjects in all these processes. Since all of them shared the same
cause, their stance was solid against construction of the HEPP. This is important,
because, in traditional Turkish rural life, if you want to do anything in a village, or
if you want access to any village, you should first talk to the mukhtar. For this
reason, companies generally try to persuade the mukhtar before they initiate constructions, as indicated in a series of interviews conducted with the DSI officials.
In the context of the Saklıkent HEPP case, the company and the state did not do
much to reflect the locals’ concerns in their projects, and did not disclose the
potential harm to the locals throughout the entire process. The full participation of
the local people in this process was not attained, which led to the neglect of their
concerns and recommendations in this process, hindering their meaningful participation. The administration or state institutions did not provide the necessary
conditions for meaningful participation, rather the local people and volunteers
sought for alternative ways to influence this HEPP process. It could be concluded
that the meaningful participation of locals (by the legal framework) was quite
limited in the HEPP case of Saklıkent, but participation became meaningful when
locals established their own ways to raise their concerns, which eventually led to the
withdrawal of the company from the HEPP process.
9.5 Scaling up the Debate: Meaningful Participation
in Turkey’s HEPP Process
The problems revealed so far are mainly peculiar to the case study area; however,
similar issues are widely seen in Turkey’s HEPP processes. Representatives of two
prominent national-level environmental NGOs respectively argue that:
It [referring to the HEPP process] is fundamentally a ‘rights’ issue…The hydrological cycle
has to be recognised and it has to serve to [provide] water, to [support] fish living and
feeding from that basin, to [produce] rain conceived through evaporation from that source,
needed by the basin’s farmer. Water is the right of humans and all living organisms of that
cycle. And the process that Turkey’s water politics and HEPPs have brought us does not
recognise that right. In fact, they operate in the worst possible way. It is okay if you
[referring to the state] consult people and get their opinions [in the HEPP process] and then
make a bad decision, but even that is not the case. They seek neither public nor expert
opinion. In fact, [even] EIA Reports are full of lies. All EIA Reports [in Turkey] are
approved…They are copies of each other. Thus, the intention [of the State] is not to have
equitable water management and there is no political commitment to ensure it. Even worse,
the Ministry [of Forestry and Water Affairs] does not advocate such a[n equitable and
participative] policy[-making process].
There are sensitive issues about HEPPs…like the existence of national parks, wetlands,
forestry areas which represent actual HEPP sites. I need to inform you that every single
river [stream] of Turkey is projected for HEPP development! It raises the question: Do we
not have any wetlands or nature protection area or forestry? It is easy to infer that HEPPs do
150
R. C. Sayan and A. Kibaroğlu