FightING ILISU DAM - SAVE HASANKEYF AND TIGRIS VALLEY

Welcome to the Homepage of the „Initative to Keep Hasankeyf Alive“

Ilisu Trip Report from May 18 to 24, 2009

Ilisu Trip Report from May 18 to 24, 2009

 

Christine Eberlein, Berne Declaration, Switzerland

Heike Drillisch, CounterCurrent, Germany

 

The aim of our field trip was to assess to what extent the conditions attached to the

German, Austrian and Swiss export credit guarantees for the Ilisu dam project have

been fulfilled, six weeks prior to the end of the six month suspension period of the

export insurance- and credit contracts. The focus of our research was on

resettlement issues. On May 18, we kindly had the chance to talk with

representatives in Ankara in charge of the resettlement planning, namely Mr. Hikmet

Icten from DSI, Mr. Tolga Balta from Encon and Mr. Partridge, international

consultant for resettlement planning to Encon. From May 19 to 23 we visited the Ilisu

region and talked with affected villagers in Ilisu, Hasankeyf and several other places.

At our meetings in Ankara we were informed about the new resettlement policy and

the state of the new resettlement plans prepared by Encon. It seems that some

important improvements have been made, especially the offer to compensate

affected people with free houses and the plans to provide everyone with 2 ha of land

and to support people to reach a minimum income of 12,000 lira. Also the volume of

the new studies and documents is certainly impressive, given the short amount of

time. However, a couple of critical issues remain:

 

Resettlement Policy

We kindly received a copy of the new resettlement policy. While this is a step forward

compared to Turkish current legislation, the above mentioned features (2 ha of land,

minimum income of 12,000 TL) do not appear in the policy. Therefore, a legal basis

for the affected people to enforce what has been promised to them is still missing.

Also a phrase formerly in the text, promising houses to families now renting houses

and to homeless people was erased. This raises doubts on how sincere the

government takes the policy and urgently needs clarification.

The new policy lowered the time frame during which people cannot sell or mortgage

or rent their house from 20 years to 10 years. However, there should be no deadline

at all and the fact that they still cannot even sell or rent for 10 years is not in line with

World Bank standards according to Robert Goodland (ex World Bank staff in charge

of environmental and resettlement standards). Also, Mr. Balta told us that people

were allowed to rent out their new houses, while according to the policy this is not

allowed.

Further, the new policy will only apply as long as the ECAs stay in the project. This is

not what the ECAs aimed at, when they stated again and again that they are working

to improve Turkey's long term standards. We learned about other ongoing dam

projects where Turkey presently still treats the affected people very badly.

Our talks revealed that the Turkish Government does not seem to be ready to

implement the new policy and international standards within the government

institutions, including DSI. Staff trainings for example are still no issue. Overall, the

great concerns over DSI’s willingness to actually implement international standards remain and could not be cleared by the fact that Encon as consultant formulated new

income restoration plans.

 

Income restoration

We were told that detailed plans for income restoration exist only for the first 6

villages near Ilisu. Apparently for 20 other villages there are plans, but not up to

appraisal level. What will happen to the other 180 villages has not even been

discussed. We asked villagers in several villages of phase 2 and 3, but all they could

tell us is that people from Encon stopped by to do a baseline study and informed

them in general about the new policy but not about possible resettlement sites or

income restoration measures. According to the ToR and the reports by the committee

of experts, resettlement issues and income restoration measures must be ready up

to appraisal level before the start of the project, hence before the decision on July 6,

which will not be the case.

We also have some doubts regarding the income restoration programme for the

villages around Ilisu. The terracing of the hills and the forced conversion of

subsistence farmers into market farmers has never been tested in the region. Thus,

the new plans are a bare trial and error approach, possibly resulting in a disaster.

People are subsistence farmers and our talks to agricultural experts but also

experiences with World Bank projects show that it will take at least one generation to

convert subsistence farmers to market farmers. Even Mr. Partridge agreed that there

is a high likelihood that the villagers will continue to grow a mix of vegetables for their

own needs instead of the crops foreseen in the income restoration plans. However in

this case, they would never make the income to buy the necessary fertilizer or ever

be able to earn the promised 12’000 Lira per year, also given that many farmers’ size

of land will considerably be reduced to only 2 hectars. Many villagers considered the

designated area of 2 hectars too small to survive. Also, many villagers told us they

don’t want to be market farmers, which increases doubts over the feasibility of the

new plans.

Another critical issue is Encon’s idea to plant 200’000 almond trees. Mr. Balta clearly

stated that if these trees shall be ready to make a living in 7 years they need to be

planted now. However, there is no indication by the Turkish government to buy these

trees and plant them. The villagers in Ilisu even told us that almond trees don’t grow

well in this climate. Thus there is a high likelihood this base of income will not be

available.

The same goes for the cattle and dairy production. Several villagers told us their

cows don’t give a lot of milk in this hot climate and they need to give the cows to

herders, who are moving with them in the wider area. We sincerely doubt the dairy

milk project including cool houses will work, if each family is given 2 ha land. The

area is arid and not suited for larger herds of cows or cattle to provide income.

Another issue of concern is the limitation of land replacement to 2 ha. As we were

told by Encon and is stated in the new resettlement policy, large landowners will also

receive only 2 ha and are free to use their expropriation money to buy land

elsewhere. While this may be an option for landowners who rent their land to

landless farmers, this is completely impossible for farmers who farm their land themselves, as there is no suitable farmland available in the area. We learnt from

farmers outside of Hasankeyf that they were told they could buy additional land in the

area of Diyarbakir. This would imply driving an hour or more to reach their fields,

which would obviously make the cultivation of their fields unprofitable.

The implementation of this new resettlement trial will take at least until fall of the

following year, when one harvest has been collected. Mr. Partridge pointed out, that

before no comment can be made whether it will really work. Realistically, at least

three to five years would be necessary to test the market based income approach

and to assure the plans work and the villagers will not impoverish. Therefore there

may by no means be a decision to go ahead with the project as long as the success

of the new income restoration measures has not been demonstrated. However, as

there is no time for this, the plans remain a trial and error concept which should not

be imposed on the poorest and non-literate people of the region without any proof of

success. On top of this, DSI has no experience with implementing a resettlement

project in line with international standards and does not yet show any willingness to

learn how to do so.

 

Still confusion on number of affected people: Refugees and Nomads not

counted

Mr. Balta from Encon pointed out, that refugees are entitled to resettlement if they

can prove that a family member is still living on the property or the land is being used.

Many refugee families might show up and claim their rights. However, they have not

been counted by Encon in the scope of their baseline studies. The new study

estimates a new figure of 35,000 affected people, stating that many families already

emigrated due to lack of jobs.

The same applies for nomadic families, who we talked to in the Botan River Valley.

They informed us that there are approximately 3000 nomadic families which

depend on the Tigris valley to move between their summer and winter pastures.

Counting about 10 family members, this adds up to an estimated number of 30000

people that have been totally neglected. They have neither been contacted by Encon

or the government, nor integrated into compensation plans and only heard of the

dam by rumours. For thousands of years they have been driving their cattle along the

fertile banks of the Tigris and Botan between Van and Hasankeyf. A dam would stop

their moving, their source of income and they would not know where to go or what to

live of.

 

No concept for Hasankeyf

Our talks in Ankara confirmed that a viable concept for the creation of an

archaeological park in Hasankeyf is crucial to generate new income for the

population of Hasankeyf, as most people now live of tourism and it is assumed they

shall do so in the future. Both Mr. Balta and Mr. Partridge made it very clear that

without the tourist park it will not be possible to provide the people with a new

perspective. However, when we had the chance to speak to archaeologists on the

site in Hasankeyf, we learned that obviously there still is no proof that even a single

monument can be moved. We were told that the most important monuments are

made out of sand and unique plastering which will crumble when moved. However, if the moving of important monuments will not be possible, the archaeological parc will

not be worth the visit. No tourists will come and thus, the 3000 or more people of

Hasankeyf will not be able to make a living. This is a problem which obviously cannot

be solved, no matter how many more studies will be promised.

This also means that also the ToR regarding cultural goods and the promises by the

Turkish government to “save” Hasankeyf will not be met. In addition, we were

confirmed that the excavations will only start in June and that in the entire province of

Batman works are only underway on nine sites. Thus the plans to at least document

what will be inundated are also a mockery.

We further discussed the issue of the missing bridge in Hasankeyf with Mr. Partridge

as well as the archaeologists in Hasankeyf and several villagers. All agreed that

without a bridge new Hasankeyf will not be able to exist. Adding to that (as pointed

out by Mrs Van Ess in her report) the water level will raise and drop often by more

than 40 meters. This will put the use of a ferry boat transfer to the fortress part of

Hasankeyf into question. The local leader of the AK Party and members pointed out

that it will be unlikely tourists will make the effort to drive 25km down to the bridge

and up again just to see the fortress and a door inlay in a museum. They rather

assume that the constant stream of tourists visiting Hasankeyf (2000 per day in the

ninetees and about 1000 or more these days) will cease.

Given the complete lack of a resettlement plan for more than 3000 people in

Hasankeyf, we consider Encon’s new plans not ready to receive a go ahead by the

three European governments. Even more, considering the fact that even

archaeologists on site believe that it is impossible to create the envisaged

archaeological park, we believe that a go ahead of construction work would be the

informed and willing consent to surrender Hasankeyf and its inhabitants to expulsion.

 

Budget

World Bank standards clearly state that a detailed budget must be in place before a

decision can be taken. It is obvious that resettlement costs will be far higher than

envisaged in the original planning. However, due to the lack of planning and the still

missing concept for resettlement, expropriation and income restoration of large parts

of the affected population, yet no clear account of the required funds and budget

exists. This makes it impossible to conduct a cost-benefit-analysis as stipulated by

World Bank standards. Incidentally, it is also not in line with World Bank standards

this has never been done and does not seem to be planned.

 

Creation of committees to inform villagers

Mr. Balta informed us about Encon’s plan to create a committee in each village which

will be responsible for transferring the information between the villagers and the DSI

or Encon. At first sight this seems like a good idea, contributing to less work by

Encon. However, in practice it will not work well and should be replaced by a true

consultative process. We asked villagers in several villages whether this committee

had been formed and others whether they received the necessary information. In all

villages (except Hasankeyf and llisu), the imam, the mukthar or the school principle

had been called to Batman to attend the creation of the committee. All complained that they were not given the right of a proper consultation process to voice their

disapproval of the dam or their needs. All felt they were forced to create these

committees and thus made confidants of their opponents (DSI), by having to inform

their next of kins of the detailed plans for resettlement. Further, in most villages

(except Ilisu and Karabayir) information was not passed on to the other affected

people.

We visited one quite far away village, at the confluence of Tigirs and Botan river,

which was abandoned in 1994. Encon had randomly called land owners now living in

Batman and told them they were now members of the committee. One person we

spoke to and who actually testified on film, informed us he was asked to sign the

commitment letter to be part of the committee. However he does not have any

contacts with his former neighbours who fled to Istanbul or other regions and of

course he does not want to be responsible for not finding them or not being able to

inform them. He was also informed this dam will be built in any case if the villagers

like it or not. Other families said they don’t want to be informed by a former neighbour

about their fate. If the government plans this dam in an authoritarian way at least the

government should inform them personally.

In Hasankeyf, people involved in forming the committee informed us that at first there

was a misunderstanding as they thought this was a consultation and they

disapproved the way this consultation was held. When they were told it was to form a

committee and that there would not be discussions about the dam, many people left

the meeting. They protested for their right to be heard and properly consulted. The

committee was apparently formed afterwards, but it is unclear who actually agreed to

be part of the committee. People were angry that the government is not willing to

spend time for a proper consultation. Participants felt used for the purpose of Encon

and did not establish a mechanism to pass on the information.

 

Most people are against the dam

We visited many villages and spoke to the imam or mukthar and villagers. No one

was for the dam. They were furious they had never been properly consulted and

could not voice their fears and opinions.

We come to the conclusion that despite some good intentions, the new plans of the

Ilisu dam project still disrespect the World Bank standards: They are still a top-down

approach, forced upon the affected people and they represent a trial and error

approach with a high likelihood of failed implementation due to a severe lack of

commitment from the Turkish side. As still no concrete plans are set up for the

majority of the affected people, one cannot assume that the resettlement of 40’000 to

60’000 people or more will be successful. The danger of a failure is too high and we

have no proof at all it will ever work.

Therefore we urgently demand that the German, Austrian and Swiss governments

stop their involvement in the Ilisu project on July 6th.

 

Zürich/Berlin, June 8, 2009

 

Christine Eberlein, Berne Declaration, Switzerland

Heike Drillisch, CounterCourrent, Germany