Water and Politics in Turkey

Structural Change and EU Accession

Vakur Sumer

• Publisher: I.B. Tauris
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9780857728890
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Política y relaciones internacionales
• Subtopic: Geopolítica

As Turkey approaches EU membership it faces the challenge of implementing the requirements of the WFD by the date of its accession to the union, something that will require major structural change and financial investment. Water and Politics in Turkey provides a comprehensive, detailed and authoritative examination of all aspects water management and water resources in Turkey, from evaluation of existing institutions and practices to assessing the difficulties inherent in the enormous changes that must be implemented as Turkey prepares for EU membership. It will be essential reading for water professionals, policy makers, environmentalists, and all those with an interest in Turkey the workings of the European Union.

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Water management internationally and in Turkey

Water is the basic source of life and its availability in adequate quantities and quality is necessary for people, for economic production and for the health of ecosystems. Without water, there would be no life on earth. It is a substance that has no substitute. One may say that water is life. Water is also intimately linked to sectors such as health, agriculture, energy and biodiversity, which are essential for sustainable economic growth.

In discussing water politics, numerous concepts are used, depending on the context or issue. Among these, two especially widely used concepts are relevant for the purposes of this book: ‘water management’ and ‘water resources development’ (or ‘water development’). The concept of water management is broader in scope. It includes the activities of planning, developing, distributing and managing limited water resources in the optimum way. In other words, water management involves not only the political and technical decisions taken for water resources development but also the rules and procedures for water rights and water allocation, the issue of protection of the environment, economic issues like water tariffs, principles for land-use, participation of the public in decision-making procedures, etc. Thus, the concept of water management denotes a context in which water is managed through rules, norms, decisions, institutions and policies.

The concept of water resources development, on the other hand, includes both structural elements, such as infrastructure (e.g. dams, water canals, water storage facilities, flood control structures, water-treatment plants), and non-structural elements, such as efficient use and allocation of available water resources.¹ The main aim of water resources development is to draw benefit from the available water and to prevent the damage that water can cause.

Water management is a multifaceted phenomenon with ramifications for many aspects of economic and social life. Accordingly it is currently understood that, for successful water management, a number of targets need to be met.² Yet our modern understanding of water management did not emerge in an instant. Despite the fact that water and its management have always been a focus for humans throughout history, it is only in the last two centuries that the characteristics of, and differences between, various water management policies have begun to be discussed.

Approaches to the question of how water is to be managed vary greatly across time (throughout history) and space (among countries).³ These differences in style of water management may be classified according to an analytical framework of paradigm shifts.⁴ Each water management paradigm is characterized by different perceived roles of water in society, the economy and the environment, and resultant practices.

Prior to the nineteenth century, water was often taken ‘from the nearest source’. With the Industrial Revolution and its aftermath, technological innovation and increasing financial capabilities made formerly distant waters economically available and technically feasible for utilization. Thus, the modernist thinking of ‘water can be tamed’ was enabled by technological breakthroughs in engineering that made it possible to build huge dams and storage facilities on large rivers.

By the late 1970s, developed countries of the Global North entered into a phase of ‘reflexive modernity’, whereby agents (individuals) were able to reflect on social rules and resources in contexts where the emergence of flexible networks was possible and loyalties to structures and institutions were questioned. It had become apparent that ‘industrial modernity’ had created negative pressures on environmental resources and that it ‘damaged rather than controlled nature’. As demonstrated by Beck's ‘risk society theory’, in the Global North people's trust in progress faltered after shocks like Chernobyl. People in the Global North became anxious that ‘science and industry could neither control nature nor be trusted to understand its potential power’.⁵ During this phase of reflexive modernity, the ‘hydraulic mission’ was superseded by three subsequent water management paradigms. The third of these – inspired by the ‘environmental awareness of the green movement’ – included a shift in water allocations in semi-arid industrialized regions. For such regions, this meant a reduction in the water allocated to agriculture, and an increase in the water allocated to the environment.

A fourth paradigm was associated with the ‘economic value of water’. Water has increasingly begun to be understood as a scarce economic input, and understanding water as an economic good gained prominence after the Dublin Conference of 1992.⁶ An attempt was made to adopt this economic approach in the Global South, by international agencies such as the World Bank; by global water fora such as the Hague in March 2000 and Kyoto in March 2003; and by associated institutions such as the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), the World Water Council (WWC) and the Global Water Partnership (GWP).⁷ Under this framework, the employment of economic instruments such as water pricing, water demand management, and related instruments such as tradeable water rights, subsidies, grants, soft loans, product charges, tax differentiation, tax allowances, and penalties⁸ have been promoted in the Global South.

By the late twentieth century, however, developing countries still mainly adhered to the so-called ‘hydraulic mission’. One reason for this may have been that many of the countries of the so-called Global South are still ‘traditional societies’, as Beck has called them.⁹ According to this perspective, in traditional societies individualism cannot deepen its hold on the imagination of the people. The result is a continuation of loyalty to existing structures and institutions,¹⁰ which, in this case, includes the continuing legitimacy of the hydraulic mission. Accordingly a re-appraisal of the negative environmental externalities of industrial development did not easily develop. For instance, while in past decades environmental concerns have acquired a strong political voice in developed countries, attention to environmental conservation in developing countries is perceived as ‘anti-poor’.¹¹ Another reason for the adherence of the Global South to the hydraulic mission lies in the fact that most of these countries, unlike the industrialized countries of the Global North, were unable to exploit their natural resources to the full. These countries were thus unable to complete their water resources development projects and this, in turn, contributed to the continued salience of water resources development issues in countries of the Global South.

So, a divergence emerged between the water management paradigm in the developed countries of Europe and North America and that being implemented in the developing countries of the Global South. This shift in the trajectory of the water management paradigms, basically fits, as Tony Allan has explained, with the findings of modernity studies in the sense that shifts in water management paradigms go hand in hand with changes in a society's ideas concerning linkages between society, politics, culture and economy.¹²

In the second half of the twentieth century, and particularly in its last quarter, the necessity for reasonable use and protection of fresh water, and the need to consider different interest groups, became increasingly obvious. It was understood that only approximately 0.4 per cent of the world's water resources is fresh water available for human use and that one-third of the world's population lives in areas where water is scarce or extremely scarce. And today we expect that number to increase by two-thirds by the year 2025.¹³ Thus, the second half of the twentieth century witnessed increasing prominence regarding concerns over water management issues.

It was understood by the 1980s that the solution to these and related water crises lay not solely in the implementation of new technologies but also through changes in water use practices and water resources management. The primary reasons for the water problems afflicting developing countries were understood as political and institutional failures not technical ones. The Global Water Partnership concluded that ‘the water crisis is mainly a crisis of governance’.¹⁴ It was accepted that sectoral regulation of water resources management leads to ‘splintered and uncoordinated’ water use and hinders significantly the organization of water protection. The only way to secure reasonable solutions to water-related problems in these countries was seen via implementation of the principles of integrated water resources management (IWRM).¹⁵

By the beginning of the third millennium, therefore, water management began to be understood as a totality. ‘Integrated Water Resources Management’ (IWRM) was accepted as the most recent water management paradigm. This paradigm is associated with such approaches as participation, consultation, and inclusive political institutions, enabling mediation between the conflicting interests of water users and the agencies. The inclusive political process of this paradigm requires that the interests of water users, government, social movements (NGOs) and the private sector are included in water policy making discourses. IWRM has also become a concept and strategy for stimulating change in policies in the water sector. It is gradually replacing the traditional understanding and practices of water resources development, mainly directed at policy and institutional changes on sub-national, national and international levels.¹⁶

Concomitant to the changing water management paradigms at the global scale, water management policy in the European Union (EU) also went though different stages. While the earlier phases of European integration adopted the parallel but incompatible approaches of ‘environmental quality standards' and ‘emission limit values’, the resultant unsuccessful water-quality protection led to a reappraisal of water management policy at the EU level. Ultimately, parallel to increasing global recognition of IWRM as the most recent water management paradigm, the need for an integrated approach in the EU has been included as part of the European political agenda.

Water management legislation at the level of the EU started in the mid-1970s. Thus, it is a relatively recent experience. The emergence of water management policies has had to wait for environmental policy to be developed across the EU. In this context, the EU's water management policies emerged out of its environmental policies. One of the main reasons that water is associated with environment lies in the fact that EU countries have long experienced the negative externalities of industrial development in their water environment. Pollution of transboundary European rivers, such as the Rhine and the Danube, for instance, has become a grave concern for European policy makers. The degradation of water resources is seen as the primary problem regarding water. Given the climatic conditions of Europe, water quantity¹⁷ has not been a serious problem for most of the continent but, rather, matters pertaining to ‘water quality’ have had the upper hand in shaping EU legislation on water.

Another reason for the prioritization of water quality over water quantity relates to the internal functioning of the EU. While decisions on water-quality legislation could have taken place on the basis of Qualified Majority Voting (QMV), legislation on water quantity matters requires a unanimous decision.¹⁸ Accordingly, a series of legislative procedures in water management was adopted in the EU framework. By the mid-1990s, the need for a more integrated approach to water management policy had become apparent. This growing need for an integrated water management approach facilitated adoption of the IWRM approach with regard to EU-level water policy. European institutions came to the conclusion that the new European water policy had to address water management and water protection in a more coherent way. The development of a single framework legislation culminated in the adoption of the Water Framework Directive or WFD.¹⁹

The WFD provided for the first time in the development of European water policy a single piece of framework legislation that aimed at co-coordinating environmental objectives and all measures, instead of concentrating on improvements in different water-related sectors separately. Therefore, an ecological and holistic water status assessment approach was introduced as well as river basin planning, a strategy for the elimination of pollution by dangerous substances, public information and consultation, and financial instruments.

It is officially argued by the EU that the IWRM paradigm is embraced by the EU through the enactment of the WFD.²⁰ Proponents of this understanding state that the WFD is in compliance with IWRM principles. According to this view, the WFD is Europe's way of realizing IWRM, i.e. ‘IWRM in the North’.²¹ As Jaspers argues, the term ‘integration’ is the key concept of the WFD,²² which is also one of the key concepts of IWRM. The existence of a number of similarities between the IWRM approach and the WFD is also recognized.²³ At the rhetorical level, the WFD is being exported – by the EU – to places outside Europe as a model for IWRM within the framework of the EU water initiative.²⁴

Although the compatibility between the WFD and IWRM could be evidenced, the argument that there is some mismatch between the WFD and IWRM is notable as well. For instance, it is evident that the WFD neglects the way that water is used as an input to the economy.²⁵ The WFD also ignores the need for ‘further water development and balancing of multiple policy goals’.²⁶ As argued by Mollinga, the WFD was preceded by ‘quantity-focused’ and ‘agriculture-biased’ water management practices within the EU.²⁷ Now, the WFD makes the realization of ‘environmental objectives’ its main focus, with the attainment of ‘good status’ as its basic aim. In this regard, it prioritizes the resolution of the water-quality problem in EU waters. The WFD is said to be concerned with the priorities of countries in northern Europe, ‘where water is abundant and water infrastructure is in place’. In this manner, the WFD represents a paradigmatic shift in the European water management setting, besides the discussions on the level of compliance it demonstrates with IWRM framework.

In summary, it could be argued that even though the WFD is not IWRM per se, it reflects many of the elements of IWRM, and it is tailored to specific EU priorities. In this context, the WFD could be regarded as a step towards IWRM. Overall, it brings significant novelties to European water management policy as well as to national water management policies across Europe. Whether the WFD is compatible with the principles laid out by the IWRM paradigm or not, it will remain for member states of the EU a binding legal text with a demanding schedule for implementation....

Table of contents

• Front Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• List of Abbreviations
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Development of an Environmental Policy in the EU
• 3. The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
• 4. The Legal Setting and Discourses in Water Management in Turkey
• 5. Institutional Arrangements in Turkey’s Water-Management Policy
• 6. Water Management in Turkey: Change and Continuities in Policy Networks
• 7. Turkey’s Efforts towards WFD Harmonization: What Has Been Achieved?
• 8. Conclusion
• List of Interviews
• Notes
• Bibliography