The Ilisu Dam, An essay on
Created | Updated Feb 25, 2002
Note, this entry was an essay that I had to write for my International Law module at Uni. If there are any experts on International Law and/ or Affairs who use the Guide, I would be grateful for some feedback.
I would also like to say that this essay is not in any way an attack on the Turkish people, and nor is it meant to be in any way racist.
Thank you,
Bambos (9th December 2000)
The Ilisu Dam in South Eastern Turkey is a plan being negotiated by the Turkish government as part of the South eastern Anatolia Project (known as GAP), which is a huge irrigation and hydroelectric scheme on the Euphrates and Tigris rivers in the Kurdish part of Turkey. Begun in 1974, and scheduled
for completion in 2010, GAP includes 22 dams and hundreds of miles of irrigation tunnels and canals. The Ilisu Dam, to be the biggest hydroelectric generator in Turkey, is intended to address the country's
energy shortage. The turkish government describes the project (GAP) as a miracle of our time which
will provide "a clean source of energy" to bring "power, jobs and prosperity" and give "65 million citizens the benefits of life enjoyed by citizens of industrial economies in western Europe". Covering 1.7 million hectares of land, GAP has already not only brought a vast increase in crop production and jobs, but it also has the potential to "avert mass starvation" by restoring to life the Fertile Crescent .
The World Commission on Dams has said in it's report that dams (in general), have made an important and significant contribution to human development, and the benefits derived from them are considerable . Yet the report also goes on to say that the majority of the dams that have been constructed, or those that are under construction have not been properly conceived for a number of reasons. Little problems at the planning stages can multiply themselves at a later stage, and quite often by the time the problems manifest themselves it is too late. There are a variety of issues which must be considered.
Turkey: Local issues
The site of the dam has, at this present time, been described as "The jewel in the crown of archaeological sites in south eastern Turkey". Over the years there have been claims of ethnic cleansing and discrimination brought against the Turkish government on it's policy towards the native Kurds in the region, which many human rights groups (e.g. Amnesty International, among others) claim has been contrary to the International Convention on Human rights. Turkey has promised a humane resettlement program and compensation for landowners. To this end the government in Turkey have appointed a local firm to work on such a plan. Balfour Beatty, the English partner in the consortium, told the government that fewer than 15,000 people would be displaced by the Dam, although the firm later claimed that the figure was in between 12- 16,000 people. However, a recent study commissioned by the UK has placed this figure at 36,000 individuals. Stephen Byers MP stated that internationally accepted practices and international monitoring must be used in the program , and stated that such a program must include the people affected at the earliest opportunity. The problem we face is that the Dam was first planned in 1954, and upon further investigation, it was revealed that the stakeholders have waited nearly 20 years for an accurate plan, even though planning permission was given in 1982. There has only been one public meeting on Ilisu so far (held on the 22nd December 1999). However, contrary to the wishes of the UK government, Semor only told them the timetable of events.
Another problem these people face concerns the level of compensation which the people affected will be given. In it's report on the planning of large dams, the commission stated that 1) Many of the people displaced were not recognised (or enumerated) as such, and therefore were not resettled or compensated, 2) Where compensation was provided, it was often inadequate, and where the physically displaced were enumerated, many were not included in the resettlement plans, and 3) Those who were settled rarely had their livelihoods restored, as resettlement programmes have focused on physical relocation rather than the economic and social development on the displaced . The most likely affect on the indigenous Kurds living in the region is that they will be relocated to a city slum like Diyarbakir, about 600 miles from Ankara. This city, which has been swollen to nearly three times it's original size due to the ongoing wars in the region, would be the most likely destination of the displaced Kurds. Of course laws exist in Turkey which provide rights to those who are evicted by such projects, but these are largely ignored in practice in a region of ongoing political tension. This problem was shown when the main beneficiaries to the Ataturk dam, also in south east Turkey, were rich landowners. The poorer, landless majority received little compensation, if anything. In a country where the majority of Kurds are illiterate, where women are treated as second class citizens and where the people do not speak Turkish as their first language, compensation is an unknown, foreign concept.
We have already mentioned that the proposals will include the submersion of the ancient city of Hasankeyf, but the full impact on the archaeological, cultural and social loss has not been properly looked into in any depth. The city is one of the largest centres for Kurdish culture, and houses some five thousand people, who live in caves around the ancient cities ruins. It has a long and glorious history stretching back nearly 10, 000 years, and was granted special archaeological protection by the Turkish Department of Culture in 1978. This special protection has however, been swept away by Turkey's (as one campaign web site put it ), passion to develop. The law on archaeological sites is virtually non existent. However, many experts in the field predict that at least 50- 60 years of work still remains to be done. As of 1998, the archaeologists from the METU Centre for Research and Assessment of the Historic Environment (translated as TACDAM in Turkish) were in charge of the site, and a special protocol was signed between TADCAM, the Ministry of Culture and the State Hydraulic Works. The protocol was meant to agree on a salvage project for the site. But so far, only a fraction of the work has been completed, and with the prospect of the project going ahead, it is unlikely that any of the excavation work will be properly completed. We have recently heard that a group of Irish and British archaeologists is petitioning the government to reconsider its position on granting export credit to the project. They are calling for a new independent assessment of the dam, full consultation with the people to be affected, and a detailed consideration of the cultural heritage which will be destroyed by the project, via a panel of indigenous representatives and national and international experts .
Wider Implications:
The problems concerning the dam will not only affect Turkey internally, there are also wider issues to take into consideration, such as the environmental impact and the relationship of Turkey as a sovereign state with it's neighbours.
Dams frequently alter the shape of the environment around them. The generic nature of the impacts of large dams (such as the one being made at Ilisu) on ecosystems, bio diversity and downstream livelihoods is increasingly well known . However, Turkey has failed to take into consideration the impact that the dam will have with it's closest neighbours: Syria and Iraq. The river is one of the main sources of water in these countries, and the erection of the dam is very likely to cut off a lot of the supply. Moreover, it has been claimed that Turkey may be able to capitalise on it's position in order to restrict the water flowing to these states. This state of affairs will leave Turkey with a powerful position politically. The CIA have also warned that the dispute over water may lead to a new war in the middle east. With Turkeys eagerness to join the EU, can it really afford to risk a war right on the borders of Europe?
Many people would believe that the building of this dam contravenes international law. The river may be considered to be an international watercourse, the definition being systems of surface waters and ground waters which are situated in more than one state. Such watercourses form a unitary whole and normally flow into a common terminus. In 1992, the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International lakes was adopted in Helsinki within the framework of the Economic commission for Europe of the UN. Under the Convention, all parties must take all appropriate measures to prevent, control and reduce any significant adverse effect on the environment resulting form a change in the conditions of transboundary waters caused by a human activity. Such effects on the environment include effects on human health and safety, water (the Ilisu consortium has admitted that the erection of the dam may bring with it waterborne diseases, and may attract malaria carrying mosquitos), and also effects on the cultural heritage of the region . The Convention also calls for parties to establish monitoring programmes, to co-operate in research and development projects and to exchange relevant information as early as possible. As we have already established, the Turkish government has repeatedly failed to do any of the above, and has fail to inform not only the countries surrounding Turkey, but also it's own citizens on the full implication of the project. The Draft on the Law of the Non- Navigational Uses of International Watercourses which was adopted by the International Law Commission in 1994 also provides that watercourse states shall in their respective territories utilise an international watercourse in an equitable and reasonable manner. Article 7 of the aforementioned Draft also provides (in a reflection of customary law), that watercourse states shall exercise due diligence to utilise an international watercourse in such a way as not to cause significant harm to other watercourse states. If any such harm may be caused, consultations are to take place in order to eliminate or mitigate such harm and with regard to compensation if and where appropriate. The Draft also provides for regular exchanges of information and consultation in particular on the possible effects of planned measures on the condition of an international watercourse . Article 20 of the Draft stipulates that watercourses shall protect and preserve the ecosystems of international watercourses, and shall act to prevent, reduce and control pollution of an international watercourse that may cause harm to other watercourse states or to their environment. Under all of these articles, the project runs into serious problems, as there can be no doubt that the dam will affect the countries in all of these ways
Conclusion:
The Ilisu dam project is a project fraught with many holes in the planning and was ill- conceived from the beginning. The resettlement of the Kurdish people is one of the main potholes, as without a carefully thought out resettlement plan that will ensure the social and economic wellbeing of those people displaced it is unlikely that the majority of the countries backing the project at the moment will want to pursue the project, if not for humanitarian reasons, then for political reasons (the idea being that the parties will not want to appear to have double standards in their foreign and domestic policies). The Archaeological wealth of Hasankeyf has yet to be fully exploited, and more time is needed to fully excavate the site, time which Turkey is not prepared to give. International law is also against the Turkish government, as we have already seen that there are powerful authorities on law that could take a considerable number of years if either Syria or Iraq takes them to court. On a final note, we also need to look at Turkeys prospective EU membership. The Government’s eagerness to become a member of the EU will be a big problem in this complex equation, as their government has to balance out the strengthening of their economy by building these dams, the potential human rights violations (on top of their already infamous reputation), the archaeological loss of Hasankeyf, and the very real risk of war with two very hostile neighbouring states. Bearing all of this in mind, I would withdraw the United Kingdoms backing of this project until all of these questions have been resolved.
Bibliography:
Malcolm N. Shaw: International Law (4th Edition), Grotius Cambridge
http://www.ilisu.org
http://www.damsreport.org/wcd_overview.htm
http://services.searchengine.com/0000002/search.cgi?search=Ilisu
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,37279,00.html
http://www.times-archive.co.uk/news/pages/tim.2000/04/17/timfeafea02005.html
I would also like to say that this essay is not in any way an attack on the Turkish people, and nor is it meant to be in any way racist.
Thank you,
Bambos (9th December 2000)
The Ilisu Dam in South Eastern Turkey is a plan being negotiated by the Turkish government as part of the South eastern Anatolia Project (known as GAP), which is a huge irrigation and hydroelectric scheme on the Euphrates and Tigris rivers in the Kurdish part of Turkey. Begun in 1974, and scheduled
for completion in 2010, GAP includes 22 dams and hundreds of miles of irrigation tunnels and canals. The Ilisu Dam, to be the biggest hydroelectric generator in Turkey, is intended to address the country's
energy shortage. The turkish government describes the project (GAP) as a miracle of our time which
will provide "a clean source of energy" to bring "power, jobs and prosperity" and give "65 million citizens the benefits of life enjoyed by citizens of industrial economies in western Europe". Covering 1.7 million hectares of land, GAP has already not only brought a vast increase in crop production and jobs, but it also has the potential to "avert mass starvation" by restoring to life the Fertile Crescent .
The World Commission on Dams has said in it's report that dams (in general), have made an important and significant contribution to human development, and the benefits derived from them are considerable . Yet the report also goes on to say that the majority of the dams that have been constructed, or those that are under construction have not been properly conceived for a number of reasons. Little problems at the planning stages can multiply themselves at a later stage, and quite often by the time the problems manifest themselves it is too late. There are a variety of issues which must be considered.
Turkey: Local issues
The site of the dam has, at this present time, been described as "The jewel in the crown of archaeological sites in south eastern Turkey". Over the years there have been claims of ethnic cleansing and discrimination brought against the Turkish government on it's policy towards the native Kurds in the region, which many human rights groups (e.g. Amnesty International, among others) claim has been contrary to the International Convention on Human rights. Turkey has promised a humane resettlement program and compensation for landowners. To this end the government in Turkey have appointed a local firm to work on such a plan. Balfour Beatty, the English partner in the consortium, told the government that fewer than 15,000 people would be displaced by the Dam, although the firm later claimed that the figure was in between 12- 16,000 people. However, a recent study commissioned by the UK has placed this figure at 36,000 individuals. Stephen Byers MP stated that internationally accepted practices and international monitoring must be used in the program , and stated that such a program must include the people affected at the earliest opportunity. The problem we face is that the Dam was first planned in 1954, and upon further investigation, it was revealed that the stakeholders have waited nearly 20 years for an accurate plan, even though planning permission was given in 1982. There has only been one public meeting on Ilisu so far (held on the 22nd December 1999). However, contrary to the wishes of the UK government, Semor only told them the timetable of events.
Another problem these people face concerns the level of compensation which the people affected will be given. In it's report on the planning of large dams, the commission stated that 1) Many of the people displaced were not recognised (or enumerated) as such, and therefore were not resettled or compensated, 2) Where compensation was provided, it was often inadequate, and where the physically displaced were enumerated, many were not included in the resettlement plans, and 3) Those who were settled rarely had their livelihoods restored, as resettlement programmes have focused on physical relocation rather than the economic and social development on the displaced . The most likely affect on the indigenous Kurds living in the region is that they will be relocated to a city slum like Diyarbakir, about 600 miles from Ankara. This city, which has been swollen to nearly three times it's original size due to the ongoing wars in the region, would be the most likely destination of the displaced Kurds. Of course laws exist in Turkey which provide rights to those who are evicted by such projects, but these are largely ignored in practice in a region of ongoing political tension. This problem was shown when the main beneficiaries to the Ataturk dam, also in south east Turkey, were rich landowners. The poorer, landless majority received little compensation, if anything. In a country where the majority of Kurds are illiterate, where women are treated as second class citizens and where the people do not speak Turkish as their first language, compensation is an unknown, foreign concept.
We have already mentioned that the proposals will include the submersion of the ancient city of Hasankeyf, but the full impact on the archaeological, cultural and social loss has not been properly looked into in any depth. The city is one of the largest centres for Kurdish culture, and houses some five thousand people, who live in caves around the ancient cities ruins. It has a long and glorious history stretching back nearly 10, 000 years, and was granted special archaeological protection by the Turkish Department of Culture in 1978. This special protection has however, been swept away by Turkey's (as one campaign web site put it ), passion to develop. The law on archaeological sites is virtually non existent. However, many experts in the field predict that at least 50- 60 years of work still remains to be done. As of 1998, the archaeologists from the METU Centre for Research and Assessment of the Historic Environment (translated as TACDAM in Turkish) were in charge of the site, and a special protocol was signed between TADCAM, the Ministry of Culture and the State Hydraulic Works. The protocol was meant to agree on a salvage project for the site. But so far, only a fraction of the work has been completed, and with the prospect of the project going ahead, it is unlikely that any of the excavation work will be properly completed. We have recently heard that a group of Irish and British archaeologists is petitioning the government to reconsider its position on granting export credit to the project. They are calling for a new independent assessment of the dam, full consultation with the people to be affected, and a detailed consideration of the cultural heritage which will be destroyed by the project, via a panel of indigenous representatives and national and international experts .
Wider Implications:
The problems concerning the dam will not only affect Turkey internally, there are also wider issues to take into consideration, such as the environmental impact and the relationship of Turkey as a sovereign state with it's neighbours.
Dams frequently alter the shape of the environment around them. The generic nature of the impacts of large dams (such as the one being made at Ilisu) on ecosystems, bio diversity and downstream livelihoods is increasingly well known . However, Turkey has failed to take into consideration the impact that the dam will have with it's closest neighbours: Syria and Iraq. The river is one of the main sources of water in these countries, and the erection of the dam is very likely to cut off a lot of the supply. Moreover, it has been claimed that Turkey may be able to capitalise on it's position in order to restrict the water flowing to these states. This state of affairs will leave Turkey with a powerful position politically. The CIA have also warned that the dispute over water may lead to a new war in the middle east. With Turkeys eagerness to join the EU, can it really afford to risk a war right on the borders of Europe?
Many people would believe that the building of this dam contravenes international law. The river may be considered to be an international watercourse, the definition being systems of surface waters and ground waters which are situated in more than one state. Such watercourses form a unitary whole and normally flow into a common terminus. In 1992, the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International lakes was adopted in Helsinki within the framework of the Economic commission for Europe of the UN. Under the Convention, all parties must take all appropriate measures to prevent, control and reduce any significant adverse effect on the environment resulting form a change in the conditions of transboundary waters caused by a human activity. Such effects on the environment include effects on human health and safety, water (the Ilisu consortium has admitted that the erection of the dam may bring with it waterborne diseases, and may attract malaria carrying mosquitos), and also effects on the cultural heritage of the region . The Convention also calls for parties to establish monitoring programmes, to co-operate in research and development projects and to exchange relevant information as early as possible. As we have already established, the Turkish government has repeatedly failed to do any of the above, and has fail to inform not only the countries surrounding Turkey, but also it's own citizens on the full implication of the project. The Draft on the Law of the Non- Navigational Uses of International Watercourses which was adopted by the International Law Commission in 1994 also provides that watercourse states shall in their respective territories utilise an international watercourse in an equitable and reasonable manner. Article 7 of the aforementioned Draft also provides (in a reflection of customary law), that watercourse states shall exercise due diligence to utilise an international watercourse in such a way as not to cause significant harm to other watercourse states. If any such harm may be caused, consultations are to take place in order to eliminate or mitigate such harm and with regard to compensation if and where appropriate. The Draft also provides for regular exchanges of information and consultation in particular on the possible effects of planned measures on the condition of an international watercourse . Article 20 of the Draft stipulates that watercourses shall protect and preserve the ecosystems of international watercourses, and shall act to prevent, reduce and control pollution of an international watercourse that may cause harm to other watercourse states or to their environment. Under all of these articles, the project runs into serious problems, as there can be no doubt that the dam will affect the countries in all of these ways
Conclusion:
The Ilisu dam project is a project fraught with many holes in the planning and was ill- conceived from the beginning. The resettlement of the Kurdish people is one of the main potholes, as without a carefully thought out resettlement plan that will ensure the social and economic wellbeing of those people displaced it is unlikely that the majority of the countries backing the project at the moment will want to pursue the project, if not for humanitarian reasons, then for political reasons (the idea being that the parties will not want to appear to have double standards in their foreign and domestic policies). The Archaeological wealth of Hasankeyf has yet to be fully exploited, and more time is needed to fully excavate the site, time which Turkey is not prepared to give. International law is also against the Turkish government, as we have already seen that there are powerful authorities on law that could take a considerable number of years if either Syria or Iraq takes them to court. On a final note, we also need to look at Turkeys prospective EU membership. The Government’s eagerness to become a member of the EU will be a big problem in this complex equation, as their government has to balance out the strengthening of their economy by building these dams, the potential human rights violations (on top of their already infamous reputation), the archaeological loss of Hasankeyf, and the very real risk of war with two very hostile neighbouring states. Bearing all of this in mind, I would withdraw the United Kingdoms backing of this project until all of these questions have been resolved.
Bibliography:
Malcolm N. Shaw: International Law (4th Edition), Grotius Cambridge
http://www.ilisu.org
http://www.damsreport.org/wcd_overview.htm
http://services.searchengine.com/0000002/search.cgi?search=Ilisu
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,37279,00.html
http://www.times-archive.co.uk/news/pages/tim.2000/04/17/timfeafea02005.html
