and also the company representative interviewed highlighted the necessity for more
involvement of the DSI in the entire process, demanding more centralization. DSI
officials, as argued throughout this research, based their claims on the notion that
DSI has the best knowledge of water, reflecting modernist notions of rationality and
technocratic governance. In these interviews, public participation and bottom-up
approaches in water management are ignored, while the knowledge of local people
has been criticized; they are not seen as being capable of making meaningful
contributions to the HEPP process, since it does not correspond to the technocratic
understanding of water management. A long-term employee of the local branch of
DSI in Fethiye, for instance, confirmed that HEPPs are actually ‘state projects’,
where it is only DSI preparing and calling for companies’ applications. He tacitly
admitted there were deficiencies in the way public participation is handled in the
HEPP process, but put the blame for this on the companies. He and his colleague
said that “if DSI approves a project, it means that it is appropriate”, and implied that
DSI officials are biased against public participation, since the projects planned and
approved by DSI are considered to be ‘appropriate’. It appears that the meaningful
participation of locals is inherently not welcomed in water management in Turkey,
and centralized and rationalized technocratic water management is perceived as
being necessary. Based on such evaluations introduced by DSI bureaucrats, this
also implies the State’s expertise in water management, all of which are consistent
with the notions hitherto discussed under the banner of modernization.
Furthermore, these narratives show that these discussions are centred on other
modernist legacies, namely national pride and developmentalism (see Adaman
et al., 2016). For example, two DSI officials, both of whom currently hold key
positions in the DSI, frequently referred to developmentalist and nationalist elements when they justified the operation of the HEPP process in Turkey. They
emphasized that the HEPPs and water are our “national resources”, which are “very
important” and should be utilized. When they further advocated the HEPP process
and its centralized nature, they approximately meant that “if you want electricity,
there is a price for that and you have to pay this price”, emphasizing the prioritization of the developmentalist approach in the HEPP process.
5 Furthermore,
another DSI official underlines the importance of ‘national resources’ in electricity
generation; he proposes to “obtain the maximum energy we can get out of that”,
which holds both nationalist and developmentalist elements. The company representative also implied similar issues by highlighting the necessity to “dam every
single brook” to “afford energy needs of Turkey” for economic development. He
demanded that state institutions show greater initiative and take more financial
responsibility for further planning. These examples and analyses show that the
modernist legacies of nationalism, and particularly developmentalism, still prevail
in the recent HEPP processes, when their operation is viewed at national scale.
5
Due to the positions of the participants in this group interview, the interview was not recorded.
However, they let me make notes when they were responding, so the quotation is not the exact
wording.
9 Exploring Environmental Justice: Meaningful Participation …
155
involvement of the DSI in the entire process, demanding more centralization. DSI
officials, as argued throughout this research, based their claims on the notion that
DSI has the best knowledge of water, reflecting modernist notions of rationality and
technocratic governance. In these interviews, public participation and bottom-up
approaches in water management are ignored, while the knowledge of local people
has been criticized; they are not seen as being capable of making meaningful
contributions to the HEPP process, since it does not correspond to the technocratic
understanding of water management. A long-term employee of the local branch of
DSI in Fethiye, for instance, confirmed that HEPPs are actually ‘state projects’,
where it is only DSI preparing and calling for companies’ applications. He tacitly
admitted there were deficiencies in the way public participation is handled in the
HEPP process, but put the blame for this on the companies. He and his colleague
said that “if DSI approves a project, it means that it is appropriate”, and implied that
DSI officials are biased against public participation, since the projects planned and
approved by DSI are considered to be ‘appropriate’. It appears that the meaningful
participation of locals is inherently not welcomed in water management in Turkey,
and centralized and rationalized technocratic water management is perceived as
being necessary. Based on such evaluations introduced by DSI bureaucrats, this
also implies the State’s expertise in water management, all of which are consistent
with the notions hitherto discussed under the banner of modernization.
Furthermore, these narratives show that these discussions are centred on other
modernist legacies, namely national pride and developmentalism (see Adaman
et al., 2016). For example, two DSI officials, both of whom currently hold key
positions in the DSI, frequently referred to developmentalist and nationalist elements when they justified the operation of the HEPP process in Turkey. They
emphasized that the HEPPs and water are our “national resources”, which are “very
important” and should be utilized. When they further advocated the HEPP process
and its centralized nature, they approximately meant that “if you want electricity,
there is a price for that and you have to pay this price”, emphasizing the prioritization of the developmentalist approach in the HEPP process.
5 Furthermore,
another DSI official underlines the importance of ‘national resources’ in electricity
generation; he proposes to “obtain the maximum energy we can get out of that”,
which holds both nationalist and developmentalist elements. The company representative also implied similar issues by highlighting the necessity to “dam every
single brook” to “afford energy needs of Turkey” for economic development. He
demanded that state institutions show greater initiative and take more financial
responsibility for further planning. These examples and analyses show that the
modernist legacies of nationalism, and particularly developmentalism, still prevail
in the recent HEPP processes, when their operation is viewed at national scale.
5
Due to the positions of the participants in this group interview, the interview was not recorded.
However, they let me make notes when they were responding, so the quotation is not the exact
wording.
9 Exploring Environmental Justice: Meaningful Participation …
155