Turkey's Water Policy

Turkey’s Water Policy Framework

Aysegül Kibaroglu and Argun Baskan

Department of International Relations, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey, E-mail: [email protected]

Department of International Relations, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey, E-mail: [email protected]

1 Introduction

Turkey’s water policy and management is a feature ofvarious laws and regulations, and is subject to a rangeof national ministries and executive administrations.Some of the legislation governing water managementdates back to the early years of the Republic.1 Due tonumerous amendments and additions to the existinglegislation in course of time, water management inTurkey ceased to be simple. The chapter is mainly adescriptive one, which introduces the legal andadministrative setting of the water sector in Turkey.However, some analyses will also be presented,particularly when reflecting the critiques on the waterpolicy and management. In the event, criticism ofTurkey’s water policy originate basically from twodifferent perspectives: equity and environmental protection.Hence, some local analysts as well as international(e.g. OECD), supranational (e.g. EU), and non-governmental (e.g. WWF-Turkey) entities claim thatthere is a high emphasis on infrastructure developmentand management (which is no doubt necessary) butprotection of water resources and related aquatic eco-systems is weak (see Orhan and Scheumann; Scheumann;

1 For instance, Village Act No. 442, 1924 and the Act No. 831 onWaters, 1926

mailto:[email protected]

2 Aysegül Kibaroglu and Argun Baskan

Divrak&Demirayak; Sumer&Muluk in this volume). Whileanother group of opponents, the Union of Chambers ofTurkish Engineers and Architects (TMMOB2 in Turkishacronym) in particular, criticize the changing waterpolicy discourse and practice and the erosion of thepublic nature of water resources and resultingnegligence of strategic planning and investment. Theopponents point to the fact that equitable access towater resources by all has been hindered by neoliberallegal and institutional reforms, which have beenintroduced since the early 1980s in the name ofefficiency and accountability (Kibaroglu et al. 2009;Cinar 2009, 362-63). The chapter refers to thesepositions when deemed necessary.

2 Legal framework

The Constitution of 1982 (currently in effect)established the basic principles (Article 168) whichgovern water resources: water is a public good underthe State’s trusteeship. The authority to explore andmanage water resources is vested in the State. TheTurkish Civil Code3 (2001) considers water in twodistinct categories: public water resources and waterresources in the domain of private law and privateproprietorship. This classification is deduced fromArticle 715 of the Civil Code: the assets undernobody’s possession and the commodities at the serviceof the public shall be under the command and possessionof the Government (Coskun 2003, 70). The Civil Code,Article 756 regulates springs as a subject to privateownership. It specifies that “any spring is an integralpart of the land, the ownership of a spring may be

2 TMMOB is a corporate body and a professional organizationdefined in the form of a public institution as stated in Article135 of the Turkish Constitution. As an umbrella organization, ithas 23 chambers and about 300,000 members.3 ‘Codes’ also stand for ‘Laws’ as well as for ‘Acts’

Turkey’s Water Policy Framework 3

allowed only together with the ownership of the land”(Coskun 2003, 74). Articles 715 and 756 should beevaluated together, thus, except for privately ownedsprings, surface and groundwater resources cannot beowned, but are subject to user rights which are grantedfor beneficial use only, such as domestic andagricultural use, fishing, hydropower generation,industry and mining, transportation and medicinal andthermal uses (Ozbay 2006, 37-8).Assigned user-rights enjoy the right of prior use,

and can neither be sold nor transferred. User-rights towater resources in the domain of private law andownership are subject to title deed registration. Until1960 this included groundwater resources which werethen transferred from the private to the public domain.However, legislation on user rights and ownership isnot clear for surface waters. Water is allocated, inpractice, by a variety of agencies and users operatingindependently of each other. These include StateHydraulic Works (Turkish acronym DSI), surface andgroundwater water management organizations (irrigationassociations, irrigation cooperatives etc.),municipalities and industries. There is no legalframework for surface water rights and only a system ofgranting access to groundwater, and both are largelyopen access resources at present. The current nationalsystem of recording and harmonizing user rights towater dates back to early years of the Republic and isnot well adapted to water short environments. It doesnot provide security for present users, does not allowfor or adequately protect environmental uses of water,and does not provide incentives for an economic use orfor orderly transfers among sectors (Harmancioglu etal. 2007, 138, 149 and 151). A prevailing view is that as there is no system for

allocating water rights for surface water users,various provisions are present in the different codes,which brings about some complications regardingauthority, organizational malfunctions, and legal gaps.


These gaps are being filled by means of judiciarydecrees (Coskun 2003, 71). However, according toOzdemir Ozbay, former legal adviser at the DSI,“although there are separate enactments dealingrespectively with matters such as rural and urban watersupply, groundwater, irrigation and hydropower, Act No.6200 on the Organization and Duties of the StateHydraulic Works (Establishment Law of DSI, 1953)empowers DSI to coordinate water use at the nationallevel.” In this respect, any agency, which embarks on awater development project or engaged with a water-sector related activity has to cooperate with DSI andmust obtain prior approval from DSI concerning thesource and volume of water to be used for each purpose(Ozbay 2006, 38-9). Furthermore, when a dispute arisesbetween a user and the supplier (DSI) about publicsurface and groundwater resources and theirutilization, the cases are dealt with by theadministrative courts rather than courts of justice.There are numerous administrative courts’ and theCouncil of State (highest administrative court:Danistay, in Turkish) decisions, which confirm that theDSI is the ultimate authority to allocate public waterresources.According to Article 756 of the Civil Code and the

Groundwater Law No. 167 (1960) groundwater resourcesare public waters, and, therefore, shall be under thecommand and possession of the State. Any spring, in aninherent part of an area under private property, isalso considered as private property. Groundwaterresources, however, are of public nature and owning apiece of land does not bring along the ownership ofwater beneath that land. All forms of research,utilization, protection and registration are subject tothe provisions of this Law. Later, Law No. 3202, whichinstituted the General Directorate of Rural Services(GDRS), and the Law No. 2560 which introduced the


Istanbul Water and Sewage Administration4 also began tooperate within the domain of Law No. 167. This hasresulted in administrative duplications which, in turn,caused improper protection of groundwater resources(Ozbay 2006, 38).In Turkey, the way for environmental protection has

been paved since the 1970s. Environmental awarenessrose internationally because negative environmentalimpacts of industrialization became increasinglyapparent. In 1973, following the United NationsConference on the Human Environment of 1972,environmental concerns were addressed for the firsttime in the country’s third Five Year Development Plan (seeOrhan and Scheumann in this volume). It took anotherfive years, until in August 1978, the first department,Prime Ministry Undersecretariat for the Environment, responsible forthe coordination of activities related to environmentwas established. Moreover, the Constitution, Article 56grants the right to a healthy environment andstipulates the prevention of environmental pollution asa duty of the State and its citizens. The law providedthe first framework legislation for environmentalregulations to come. The first environmental law wasthe National Parks Law of 1983. It defined a variety ofprotection areas such as National Parks and NatureConservation Areas and prohibited any harmfulactivities within their borders such as theconstruction of dams (see Scheumann in this volume).In 1982, an Environmental Law was enacted and came

into force in 1983. Its basic principle is thatcitizens as well as the State bear responsibility forthe protection of the environment. It requires that alleconomic activity takes every measure to minimize

4 Responsibilities of Water and Sewage Administrations (withinthe border of all metropolitan municipalities) are to take legal,technical and administrative measures for preventing groundwaterpollution and decreasing quantity. Supplying potable water torural communities by drilling groundwater wells is one of themain duties of the Special Provincial Administrations after theabolition of GDRS (See Vliegenthart et al. 2007, 68-69).


pollution. It also incorporates the polluter paysprinciple (Article3/e). In 1988, the By-law on theControl of Water Pollution put forward principles forthe discharge of waste water into surface and groundwaters, defined strategies for the protection of waterbasins where drinking water is generated, and laid downdrinking water standards. The 1988 By-law set ambitioustargets but implementation has always been weak.The By-law on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

which was issued in 1993 and revised several times, thelatest revision being in 2008, is compulsory for alllarge-scale projects, including storage facilities (damreservoirs) with a surface area of more than 15 km2 andmore than 10 million cubic meters, and for irrigationand drainage projects, water supply and sanitationfacilities etc. Development projects on agriculturallands, wetlands, lakes and eco-systems which are richin biodiversity, as well as lands protected undernational law or accord with international agreementswhich Turkey signed, are subject to EIA studies. Theseinternational agreements are the Barcelona Conventionand the Ramsar Convention, which concern the protectionof the Mediterranean Sea and the protection of wetlandsrespectively. Turkey has not yet signed the EspooConvention (1991) which refers to EIA in atransboundary context. However, as EU accession talksprogress, Turkey will have to reconsider signing theEspoo, Aarhus and other UNECE conventions (see Kramerand Kibaroglu in this volume).The primary sources of Turkish law are the

constitution, laws, law amending ordinances (decree-laws), international treaties, regulations and by-laws.With regards to water as a resource, the three mostcommonly used categories of legislation are laws(acts), decree-laws and by-laws.5 Water resource

5 Article 87 of the Turkish Constitution authorizes the TurkishGrand National Assembly to make, amend, and abrogate laws.Legislative bills are proposed by the Council of Ministers andindividual deputies as stated in Article 88. Such bills are


development and management is affected by several keyelements of Turkish legislation. One can findprovisions related to water use, management andallocation in almost 100 different law (acts), by-laws,decrees etc. There are practical difficulties andcontradictions in the implementation and enforcement ofwater-related legislation (Ozbay 2006, 38).

Box 1 Principal water legislation in chronologicalorder (own compilation based on Carl BroInternational (2001) and World Bank (2006))

Village Act No. 442, 1924 (Articles 1, 6 and 13) Act No. 831 on Waters, 1926 Act No. 1593 on General Hygiene, 1930

debated and adopted by the Parliament in its plenary session inaccordance with the Constitution and the Standing Orders of theGrand National Assembly. The Constitution requires a simplemajority for the adoption of ordinary laws in Article 96.Legislative bills adopted by the Grand National Assembly aresubmitted to the President of the Republic in accordance withArticle 89 of the Constitution. The President shall either signthe bill within fifteen days or return it partially or entirelyto the Grand National Assembly for reconsideration within thesame period. However, budget laws are excluded from this power ofthe President due to time considerations. If the Grand NationalAssembly readopts the bill without a change the bill shall bepromulgated by the President. Laws are only enacted bypublication in the Official Gazette. Law amending ordinances(decree-laws) have the same legal effects as laws. By-laws areregulated in Article 124 of the Constitution. The Prime Ministry,the ministries, and public corporate bodies may issue by-laws inorder to ensure the application of laws and regulations relatingto their particular fields of operation, provided that they arenot contrary to these laws and regulations. The law shalldesignate which by-laws are to be published in the OfficialGazette (See S. Yazici, Update: A Guide to Turkish Public Law andLegal Research, 2009,http://www.nyulawglobal.org/Globalex/Turkey1.htm#_Laws. Accessed09 June 2010).


Act No. 4759 on the organization and duties ofThe Bank of Provinces Law, 1945 (replacing theBank of Municipalities Law 2301, 1933)

Act No. 6200 on the Organization and Duties ofthe General Directorate of the State HydraulicWorks (Establishment Law of DSI), 1953

Act No. 7478, Village Domestic Water Supply,1960

Act No. 167, Groundwater, 1960 Act No. 1053, Domestic and Industrial Water

Supply Law, which authorizes the DSI to providedomestic and industrial water to Ankara,Istanbul and to cities with a population overone hundred thousand, 1968

Act No. 2872 on Environment, 1983 Government Decree No. 181 in Force of Law on the

Organization and Duties of the Ministry ofHealth (Article 9/e), 1983

Agricultural Reform Act No. 3155 (Article 2/c),1985

Act No. 3202 on the Organization of the GeneralDirectorate of Rural Services (GDRS) (Article2/d), 1985 (abolished)

Act No. 3416 Amending Act No. 2872 onEnvironment, 1988

Act No. 3621, Coastal Law, 1990 Government Decree No. 443 in Force of Law on the

Establishment and Duties of the Ministry ofEnvironment, 1991 (abolished)

Gov. Decree No. 441 in Force of Law on theEstablishment of Ministry of Agriculture andRural Affairs, 1991


Act No. 4950 Amending Act No. 1380 (1971) onAquaculture, 2003

Act No. 4856 on the Organization and Duties ofMinistry of Environment and Forestry, 2003

By-law* 19919 on the Control of Water Pollution(RCWP) 1988, which is abolished by By-law 25687on the Control of Water Pollution, 2004,amendments, 2008

Act No. 5393 on Municipalities 2005 (Act No.1580 on Municipalities, 1930 (abolished); ActNo. 5215 on Municipalities, 2004 (abolished)

Act No. 5216 on Metropolitan Municipalities,2004, which replaces Act No. 3030 (1984)

Act No. 5177 Amending Act no. 2560 (Act on theOrganization and Duties of the Water and SewageAdministration of Istanbul-ISKI, 1981) 2004

Act No. 5286 on Abolishment of GDRS (1985), 2005 Act No. 5302 on the Special Provincial

Administrations, 2005 Act No. 5625, Amending Act No. 1053 (1968),

which authorizes the DSI to provide water supplyto all cities with municipalities without dueregard of the population criterion, 2007

Act No. 5686 on Geothermal and Mineral Waters,2007

*Recent by-laws concerning water quality and environmentalprotection are presented thoroughly by Orhan and Scheumannin this volume.

3 Administrative setting

While it is sometimes argued that Turkey’sadministrative set-up for water resources is highlyfragmented with overlapping responsibilities, the


organizational structure is actually not so complex: atthe strategic decision-making and planning level, thePrime Minister, the State Planning Organization (DPT,in Turkish acronym) and ministries are involved.Governmental organizations under the ministries formthe executive level and governmental and private sectororganizations implement water policies, and operate andmaintain the water infrastructure. The Turkish “watersector” has a distinct pattern: Water-related development objectives are part of thegovernment’s strategic planning6 with a centralplanning organization (i.e. DPT) in place;

The government has taken the lead in infrastructuredevelopment and financing in order to provide waterand water-related products (e.g. energy), but thereis a trend towards greater private sector involvementin particular for generating hydroelectricity (seeBaskan in this volume);

Water management is organised along sectoral lineswith strong central government organizations;

Managing water and operating water networks isdecentralized in urban water supply and sanitation,and in the irrigation sector through irrigationmanagement organizations.The Turkish administrative system, including the

water-related institutions, has three administrativelevels: the national, the provincial and the locallevel (i.e. municipalities and villages). Beingmodelled on the French system, it is highly centralizedand linked to strong central government organizations.Administratively, Turkey is divided into 81 provinceswith appointed governors, i.e. head of the provincialgovernments, who are affiliated to the Ministry ofInterior. All ministries and their General Directorateshave provincial branches. At the intermediate level,

6 Associated with the strategic role water plays for the Turkisheconomy, water policy, in terms of funding, puts much moreemphasis on water development than on protection.


the General Directorates are organized in RegionalDirectorates covering different service areas.7

Municipalities are elected in all provincial anddistrict centres. Turkey has 3,225 municipalities ofwhich 16 are structured as “Greater City/MetropolitanMunicipalities”.8 According to the Turkish Village Law,villages are the lowest administrative units and areself-governing autonomous local administrations.

3.1 Strategic orientation and planning

The State Planning Organization-DPTAt the national level, the State Planning

Organization (Devlet Planlama Teskilati, DPT in Turkishacronym) which is under the Prime Minister, is thestrategic organization established to guide economicand social development through each of the Five YearDevelopment Plans in which experts from all ministriesparticipate. DPT was founded in 1960 in order toaccelerate the economic, social and culturaldevelopment of Turkey. Each Five Year Plan is a basicplanning instrument which defines investment prioritiesand the allocation of resources for public investment.To illustrate, the Eighth Five Year Development Plan(2001–2005) emphasised the necessity of striking abalance between ecological stability and economicgrowth, and called for new regulations to increase theefficiency of the environmental impact assessmentprocess. Under the Eighth Five Year Development Plan,the most important policy has been to increase theratio of population with access to basic infrastructurefacilities. To this end, an integrated planningapproach and harmonisation among the organizations

7 The Regional Directorates of State Hydraulic Works areorganized in a way that their respective jurisdictions cover mainriver basins.8 The Union of Municipalities of Turkey,http://www.tbb.gov.tr/istatistik.php. Accessed 28 May 2010


involved was strongly emphasised with respect to theconstruction of municipal water supply, sewerage andwastewater treatment facilities. The Ninth Five YearDevelopment Plan, covering the period 2007-2013, hasunderlined that necessary legal regulations would beprepared in order to establish a well coordinated andeffective national administrative structure, whichwould be responsible of allocation, use and improvementof water resources as well as protection againstpollution (SPO 2007). Given its status, DPT is theorganization that is supposed to monitor the completionof the regulation process. Another statement in thesame Development Plan is about the coordinating role ofDPT, indicating that the effective use of water will beemphasized through “a strong and structuralcoordination among relevant institutions,” anenthusiastic, yet challenging goal.The General Directorate for Electrical Power ResourcesSurvey and Development Administration-EIEThe first agency responsible for stream flow

measurement, hydropower planning and design was theElectrical Investigation Administration (ElektrikIsleri Etud Idaresi, EIE in Turkish acronym), foundedin 1935. The General Directorate of EIE is affiliatedto the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, and itis the main agency responsible for hydrometricmeasurement (part of its responsibility lies with theDSI). The EIE conducts studies and surveys to explorethe country’s hydropower potential, executesengineering services and designs studies for dams andhydroelectric power plants. It also carries out studiesfor new and renewable energy sources (wind power, solarenergy, etc.) to determine if they are feasible forproducing electrical energy, and it oversees and makeshydrological plans for Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT)projects (World Bank 2006, 5).


3.2 Major implementing agencies for developing water infrastructure and its management

The General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works-DSIThe General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works

(DSI) is the primary state executive state agencyresponsible for the planning, implementation andmanagement of hydraulic works. Its principle objectiveis to develop the water and land resources of Turkey.DSI was established under Act No. 6200 in 1953 as alegal entity. For the most part it acted under theaegis of the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources.Yet, with a government decree issued (and approved bythe President) on August 30, 2007, DSI has beenattached to the Ministry of Environment and Forestry.It is organised along the 25 major river basins in thecountry with Regional Directorates being responsiblefor preparing master plans which set priorities for thedevelopment of water resources in the respectivebasins. Priority projects are submitted to the StatePlanning Organization for their incorporation into eachof the Five Year Development Plans and into the annualinvestment programmes.DSI plays a leading role in coordinating water sector

planning. Any agency and private party is obliged tocooperate with DSI and must obtain prior DSI approvalfor the source and volume of water to be used by eachproject and individual. As the licensing authority9, itapproves both the use and the extraction rate of waterfor different purposes including groundwater. The Law(No. 6200) establishing DSI defines it as the main

9 Since 2001, with the adoption of the Electricity Market Law No.4628, an independent public institution, namely the Energy MarketRegulatory Authority (EMRA was created to be responsible forissuing licenses for production activities (including hydropowergeneration) in the electricity market. For hydropower projects inorder for private sector to get licenses a Water Use Right Agreementshould be signed between the DSI and the private entrepreneur(See Electricity Market Licensing By-Law No. 248364, 2002).


state agency to develop surface and groundwaterresources, to make optimal use of them and to developthem in such a way as to achieve optimum benefit. DSIis empowered to plan, design, construct and operatedams and domestic water and irrigation schemes (Bayazitand Avci 1997). Its mandate and responsibilitiesinclude the construction of protective facilities forflood and torrent hazards; the construction ofirrigation and drainage networks; land reclamation andthe drainage of swamps; the construction of hydropowergeneration facilities10 and the improvement of thenavigability of rivers. DSI is also entrusted with (Act. No. 1053) the

provision of water supply for cities with more than100,000 inhabitants, provided that the governmentauthorises DSI and that the concerned city council alsoapproves.11 Greater private sector involvement has beenalso envisaged in order to construct and operatedrinking water plants based on Build-Operate-Transfer(BOT) contracts. Under a BOT contract, the privatesector finances, builds and operates a new facility inaccordance with performance standards set by thegovernment. The government retains ownership, and thefacility is reverted to the state after an operationperiod of typically 10 to 20 years. Despite the Turkishgovernment’s guarantee to repay 85% of the constructioncosts, few BOT contracts such as the one for the

10 With the Electricity Market Law No. 4628 of 2001 and theRenewable Energy Law No. 5346 of 2005, the Turkish governmentenvisaged the acceleration the development of the underexploitedpotential by inviting private investors and private financialservice institutions (see Scheumann in this volume).11 Article 10 of Law No. 1053 has recently been amended. TheAmended Law No. 5625 has revoked the city criteria (cities with apopulation of which is over 100,000) and extended the duties ofDSI. Thus, since 2007, DSI has been authorized for the domesticand industrial water supply of 3,225 settlements all over Turkey,which have municipality administrations. The Law stipulates that,if necessary, DSI could give priority to wastewater treatmentplants in progress.


drinking water plant in the city of Izmit, have beensigned (Bennett et al. 1999).In terms of number of personnel, DSI is the state’s

most powerful organization with nearly 25,000employees, of which 4,500 are engineers and technicalpersonnel. The main financial resources of DSI comefrom the national budget. For a long time, DSI’sinvestment budget had amounted to roughly one third ofthe state investment budget. However, DSI’s budget hasbeen diminished. Examination of past investment figuresof public institutions in Turkey reveals that the shareof DSI in the state budget has decreased from 33.3% to24.5% since 2005 (DSI 2009a, 14). Yet, due to the sizeand capital intensive characteristics of dam projects,the largest share of public investments goes to thewater sector. In 2009, DSI had an investment budget ofmore than US$2 billion, which accounts for around onefourth of Turkey’s state investment budget. Since the mid-1980s, DSI has had an in-house unit

dealing with environmental issues, mainly monitoringwater quality in rivers and lakes, and issuingenvironmental impact assessment studies which becamemandatory from 1993 onward (enactment of EIA By-law)for, e.g., dams, irrigation and drainage projects of adefined size, which have become stricter during thecourse of time (see Scheumann in this volume). DSI has the primary task of planning, constructing,

managing and operating irrigation and drainage systemsup to the farm level, including the collection of waterfees. However, the Establishment Law 6200 entitles theDSI to transfer operation and maintenance (O&M) ofirrigation systems to irrigation managementorganizations, such as village administrations,municipalities, cooperatives, irrigation associations12

and other private legal entities (see Topcu in thisvolume). From the early 1960s DSI had a programme for

12 A form of transfer considered innovative, where the irrigationscheme covers more than one local administrative unit (forexample, a village or municipality).


such transfers relating to secondary and tertiarycanals. Until 1993, however, the DSI was able totransfer O&M irrigation systems amounting to onlyapproximately 70,000 hectares to various types ofirrigation management organizations. The process hasgained momentum since 1993, and within the pastseventeen years the management of irrigation coveringmore than 2 million hectares have been handed over tolocal administrations or to Irrigation Associations(Kibaroglu et al. 2009). Irrigation managementorganizations are currently constituted under the LocalGovernment Associations Law No. 5355.The General Directorate for Rural Services-GDRS and theSpecial Provincial AdministrationsIn 1960, Law No. 7457 established the General

Directorate for Soil and Water, which in 1985 wasreconstituted as the General Directorate for RuralServices (GDRS) under the Ministry of Agriculture,Forestry and Rural Affairs. However, when the GeneralDirectorate for Soil and Water (TOPRAKSU, in Turkishacronym) was closed, some of its major tasks such assurveys and inventory works on soil-water relationswere not clearly transferred to the new unit, GDRS.Thus, much essential data and information related tosoil surveys on a national scale such as soil type andclassification (land capability and fertility), depth,slopes, organic materials, erosion characteristics havenot been studied and updated since the late 1970s(State Planning Organisation 2007, 7-13).From 1993 until recently, the GDRS operated under the

Prime Minister’s Office. In 2005, as part of thegovernment’s decentralization and cost-cuttingprogramme the GDRS was abolished, and its personnel,cadres, equipments and vehicles and other belongings atthe headquarters were transferred to the Ministry ofAgriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA) while itspersonnel and belongings at the provincial level weretransferred to the metropolitan municipalities inIstanbul and Kocaeli and to the Special Provincial


Administrations (SPA)13 within local provincialgovernments in all other provinces.14 GDRS researchstations were also transferred to MARA.In large-scale public irrigation schemes which were

constructed and managed by the DSI, the GDRS wasresponsible for all on-farm development activities,i.e. land levelling of agricultural lands; improvingsmall, scattered land parcels owned by the farmersthrough land consolidation activities; construction offield canals as well as carrying out functions such asconstruction of rural transport networks and on-farmroads, on-farm irrigation and surface and tile drainageinfrastructure (World Bank 2006, 13-14). The agency wasconcerned with soil conservation; the construction ofsmall dams/reservoirs, and the construction of minorsurface and groundwater irrigation schemes (with acapacity of less than 500 litre/sec) which are turnedover to irrigation management organizations andgroundwater cooperatives, respectively. Since 1964,first the General Directorate for Soil and Water, andthen the GDRS were also responsible for supplyingdrinking water to villages and rural households eitherfrom surface water or ground water, regardless ofgeographic location.

13 With the Act No. 5302, adopted in 2005, 81 SPAs areestablished in the country; one in each province. The SPAs coverareas that fall neither within municipal nor village boundaries.The SPAs are the public entities enjoying administrative andfinancial autonomy, which are set up to meet the local and commonneeds of the people dwelling in the province, and whose decision-making branch (general provincial assembly) is elected and madeup by electors. They are composed of the general provincialassembly, the provincial council and the governor. The governor(chief executive of the province and principal agent of thecentral government) is the chief of the Special ProvincialAdministration and the representative of its legal personality.14 Act No. 5286 on Abolishment of the General Directorate ofRural Affairs, 2005.


For the time being, it is rather difficult to reachsystematic empirical studies15 on the impact of theabolishment of GDRS, particularly by analyzing theimpacts at the provincial level. However, theabolishment of GDRS and its ramifications stimulated adebate among the Chambers, non-governmentalorganizations and the concerned government offices suchas MARA and SPA officials. The debate culminated in thediscussion over the possible negative outcomes of thedecentralization of land and water resources managementand conservation from the central authority, namelyGDRS to the local entity, namely the SPAs. TMMOB makes the point that because soil and water

resources are strategically significant, and becausethey are defined as public resources by theConstitution and should be protected and safeguarded,their management and conservation should not be left tolocal governments. It argues that country-widestrategic planning and investment will always benecessary. Moreover, in their contention,decentralization of these public services will give wayto the privatization of land and irrigation watermanagement, which would be against the Constitutionalorder (Articles 44 and 45). Moreover, it will diminish

15 A World Bank team, conducting a study on key irrigationpolicy, institutional, and especially investment issues in Turkeyin 2006, paid visits to the former Regional Head of GDRS in Izmirwho was appointed later on as the head of the technical wing ofthe SPA. The following observations are interesting in thisrespect: “When GDRS was dissolved the SPA’s technical staff weremerged with the GDRS staff in the former GDRS building; theinvestment budget for the unit has reduced considerably since theGDRS period, it is now some 500,000 YTL per annum whereas beforeit was 60 million YTL for the GRDS region (the region covered 3provinces, whereas the SPA covers only one province). Moreover,it was reported that the Council of the SPA was not interested inirrigation development, land consolidation or drainage; it ismore interested in rural water supply and rural roads, and inurban development. The SPAs have been completing some of theexisting irrigation and drainage (I&D) projects but have notplanned any further I&D projects” (World Bank 2006, 62).


the efforts to remove regional socio-economicdisparities between the different regions in Turkey.TMMOB agrees that “decentralization” of public servicesprovision could be an essential step towardsdemocratization, yet this should not have been startedwith rural land and water resources protection andmanagement. Furthermore, the Chambers, being the mainpressure group, have been observing the poorperformance of local governments in terms of protectingagricultural lands particularly those which are locatedin the proximity of heavily industrialized cities.Thus, the TMMOB claim that land and water resourcesplanning, conservation and development should becarried out at the river basin level, hence delegatingthe GDRS tasks to the SPAs and decentralizing thesemain services will hinder these efforts to implementriver basin planning and management (Soganci 2005)16. TEMA,17 a leading NGO in soil protection has, also

been vocal in criticizing the government about itsdecision to abolish GDRS particularly without theconsultation of with various stakeholders in thesector. Hence, TEMA argued that while it is possibleand useful to devolve the infrastructure-related tasksof the GDRS such as building roads and provision ofwater supply to the SPAs, which may reduce bureaucracyand increase efficiency and effectiveness, the samedoes not hold true for protecting soil and waterresources, which should be strategically planned andcarried out at the basin level.More time is required to establish more clearly the

role of the SPAs. The picture obtained to date is thatthey are not interested in soil conservation,irrigation development or land consolidation or other

16 Soganci is Head of the Board of the TMMOB17 The Turkish Foundation for Combating Soil Erosion, forReforestation and Protection of Natural Habitats (TEMA) wasfounded in 1992 and has been since then one of the leading NGOsin Turkey with specific focus on soil protection and naturalhabitats and erosion control within the country.


on-farm development activities, preferring to focus onrural water supply, sanitation and roads (World Bank2006, 55-56; Unver 2010; and SPO 2006). In thisrespect, the KOYDES Project18 was specificallyintroduced by the government to mobilize substantialfinancial resources to complete and rehabilitate ruralroads and water supply networks. Ozden Bilen, formerdirector general of the DSI, draws attention to thefact that while a consensus has been growing amongdiverse stakeholders on the issue that ‘river basinplanning and management’ is the most appropriate policyinstrument for efficient and equitable water use andmanagement in Turkey, decentralization of the GDRStasks particularly soil conservation and small-scalewater management to the SPAs stands in contradiction tothe general consensus on river basin management (Bilen2009, 300).

3.3 Local services: water supply, sewage collection and wastewater treatment19

The Act No. 5393 on Municipalities (2005) assignsnumerous powers and duties to municipalities20 whichare, for example, the construction of urban water

18 KOYDES (Village Infrastructure Support Project) being underwaysince 2005, has been implemented by the Directorate General ofLocal Administrations, Ministry of Interior. The aim of theProject is declared as to solve village problems related topotable water, and roads, with minimum costs and in the shortestpossible time under the leadership of governors and districtgovernors, Special Provincial Administration and village serviceprovision units (Kapucu and Palabiyik 2008, 163).19 Villages, i.e. the lowest administrative units, are self-governing autonomous local administrations. Village mayors andvillage councils may decide on, for example, the construction ofdrinking water wells. The concerned agencies, the GDRS until 2005and then the SPAs, are in charge of providing water to villages.20 A municipal administration can be established in settlementshaving more than 5,000 inhabitants.


supply and sewerage systems and wastewater treatmentplants. Municipalities usually prefer to combine waterand urban transport services as a means of obtainingrevenue and cross-subsidizing public services. In thenon-metropolitan areas, the primary concern of localgovernment is usually water supply rather thanwastewater disposal and treatment. However, separatingwater supply and sewerage services under differentmanagement lines preclude the possibility of anintegrated approach21 (Cinar 2009, 351).Metropolitan areas have faced serious sewerage

problems as a consequence of population increases fromthe 1980s onward. This has encouraged the establishmentof new organizational models which link water andwastewater management. Starting with Istanbul and theestablishment of Istanbul Water and SewerageAdministration (ISKI) in 1981, autonomous entities werecreated with the responsibility for planning,designing, constructing and operating water supply andsewerage services in metropolitan areas. In thebeginning, ISKI was independent of the IstanbulMunicipality, but after the reorganization of themunicipality as a metropolitan administration in 1984,ISKI was subordinated to the Istanbul MetropolitanMunicipality as a public entity with an independentbudget. This water and sewerage administration modelwas extended to cover other metropolitanmunicipalities, such as Ankara in 1987 and Izmir in

21 Where the population is less than 10,000, the municipal publicworks department is responsible for water supply, which isfinanced from its own budget. In this case, both water supply andsanitation services are grouped with other public services. Inmunicipalities with a population of 10,000–50,000, it is commonto have a directorate or ‘water office’ that is responsible forwater supply. These offices do not have a separate legal entity.In municipalities with a population greater than 50,000, watersupply is generally combined with other municipal services in aseparate operating unit established by the municipal council as alegal entity. These service providers are specific organizationsrather than autonomous commercial units, and they have budgetsassigned to them (Cinar 2009, 351).


1989. Today there are 16 water and sewerageadministrations within metropolitan municipalities(Cinar 2009, 351). Metropolitan municipalities andtheir utilities have been encouraged to mobilize theirown resources beyond the Bank of Provinces mechanismand to finance large-scale urban infrastructureinvestments through foreign loans under the TreasuryGuarantee Scheme. In turn, this has stimulatedprivatization initiatives in the delivery of localservices in Turkey (Cinar 2009, 354).The General Directorate of the Bank of Provinces

(Iller Bankasi, in Turkish) was established in 1933 andrestructured in 1945 under the then Ministry of PublicWorks and Resettlement with a mandate to allocate fundsand loans to local governments (municipalities)irrespective of size, in the financing and constructionof infrastructure for water supply (drinking water),sewerage and wastewater treatment. Financing is largelyprovided by the central government through theMunicipalities Fund of the Bank. Hence, the Bank wasstructured to be a financing institution without theresponsibility of implementing the projects, yetproviding technical support to local governments.However, limitations on access to highly subsidizedfunding have led to delays or interruptions in theimplementation of municipal water supply and sanitationprojects. Moreover, rapid population growth and influxof people from rural to urban areas as well asbudgetary constraints accumulated further debts inmunicipalities. As a result, the option of reformingthe Bank to enable more efficient transfer of publicfunds to the municipalities has become a priority itemfor successive governments (Cinar 2009, 354). Apartfrom central government’s funding constraints, higherinvestment needs for the provision of local serviceshave forced municipalities to seek alternativefinancial sources. A general look at the financial sources at the

disposal of the municipalities to undertake water


supply and sewerage investments reveals that the Bankof Provinces lost the former role it had played sincethe mid 1980s (Cinar 2009, 353-54). In the period from1990s to early 21st century, external financinginstitutions (e.g. World Bank, the German Bank forReconstruction and Development, Asian Development Bank,Islamic Bank, Council of Europe, Japan Institute forOverseas Investment, the European Investment Bank)gradually took the lead in the field. However, it isalso clear that the Bank of Provinces has again assumedits former role as the creditor in the 2000s. Thereason of this revival was the still ongoinginvestments of smaller municipalities to realize waterservices projects, whereas the bigger municipalitieshad already completed most of their work. Beginning inthe year 2000, levels of foreign credit use andmunicipality budget resources decreased particularly inthe case of the Metropolitan Municipalities. Thischange can be explained by the new policy of thecentral government to minimize the use of foreigncredits, and to prioritize the completion of projectsof the Metropolitan Municipalities rather than theconstruction of new ones. There is a similar patternfor investments in drinking water. The credit agreementsigned between the Bank of Provinces and the World Bankunder the framework of the 213 million Euros“Municipality Services Project” stipulates that theBank of Provinces is also likely to begin to rely onforeign credits in the near future just like theGeneral Directorate of State Hydraulic Works22 (Cinar2006, 230-239).Allocations from the national budget still remain the

main financial source of the municipalities to providewater services but the municipalities are graduallygetting more “soft loans” (state-to-state credits) or

22 A comparison of the debt structures of the Bank of Provincesand DSI reveals that 25 to 50% of DSI’s investments are financedthrough foreign credits whereas the Bank of Provinces uses itsown financial resources (Cinar 2006, 230-39).


loans and/or credits from international financialagencies under the guarantee of the Turkish Treasury.Use of foreign credits obtained from internationalfinancial organizations not only results in the debtsof the municipalities and rises in the service tariffsimposed on the final consumers, but also had otherimpacts such as privatization of water services andchanges in the institutional structures of themunicipalities. In the loan category, the World Bankstands as the leading agency in the debt profiles ofthe municipalities.23 Since the 1999 Helsinki Summit, EU has been

supporting water services projects in themunicipalities of Samsun, Eskisehir, Mersin, Bursa,Tarsus, Diyarbakir, Adana, Izmit, Ankara, Antalya, andSanliurfa. EU also supported country wide projects inTurkey through its loans and credits under the MEDA Iand MEDA II projects and via credits from the EuropeanDevelopment Bank and the KfW Bankengruppe. Moreover,the Social Development Bank of the Council of Europehas provided credits to several Southeast Anatolianmunicipalities, and official bodies between 1992 and1999, the highest single credit amount being US$123million (Topcu 2006, 287-299). EU accession process isexpected to increase the investments, use of foreigncredits and the participation of the private sector tomeet the high EU standards especially for waterquality. Furthermore, the Japanese credits provided bythe Japanese Official Development Assistance, the JapanBank for International Cooperation, and the AsianDevelopment Bank as well as the World Bank havefinanced some drinking water projects in Ankara andIstanbul (Cinar 2006, 244-245 and Cinar 2007).Antalya was the first case in Turkey where

multinational companies were involved in providingurban water infrastructure, investment, management and

23 The World Bank has provided credits worth US$1217.7 million intotal for projects in Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir, Bursa, Antalya,and Cesme-Alacati (Cinar 2006, 230-39).


service delivery. In Antalya, the need for an extensivewater supply and sewerage system became very urgent inview of the city’s rapid population growth andsignificant demand for water during the tourist season(Cinar 2009, 355). From the early 1990s, environmentand sewerage projects appeared on the policy agenda,and loans were negotiated with the World Bank. Afeasibility study was prepared for an alternative modelof water and sewerage services in 1992. Discussionswere accelerated when Antalya became a metropolitanmunicipality in 1993. Following the World Bank’srecommendations, the Antalya Water and Public TransportServices (ASO) Directorate became the Antalya Water andWastewater Administration (ASAT), established along thelines of the ISKI model, which is responsible for watersupply and sewerage services in Antalya (Cinar 2009,355). ASAT then launched an international tender forthe operation of its water services. One of the loanconditions stipulated that ASAT should establish aseparate company for administrative and financialservices to oversee the tender process. It thus set upthe Antalya Infrastructure Management and ConsultingServices Company (ALDAS), which was then contracted fora 12-year period to deliver water and sewerageservices, and collection and disposal of all kinds ofsolid waste within the boundaries of AntalyaMetropolitan Municipality. As agreed with the World Bank, in 1996 ALDAS

transferred the water supply operations to AntalyaWater Management Company (ANTSU), which is a subsidiaryof ONDEO, part of the Suez group, one of the leadingmultinationals in the water sector. Following atransition period, ANTSU took over the responsibilityfor providing, managing and operating water andwastewater services in 1997. Under ANTSU the provisionof water-supply services was regulated for a ten-yearperiod (Cinar 2009, 356). ASAT was expected to set thedrinking water and wastewater tariffs on the basis of aminimum profit rate of 10%, in line with the ISKI law


and the operator’s margins. In the contract, theoperator’s payment is based on fixed annual tariffs percubic meter of water paid by the subscribers.Nevertheless, due to the high inflation rate, chargeswere actually reviewed each quarter, so inevitablywater tariffs rose. During 1996–2002, when the privateoperator was in charge, the lowest water tariffs forhouseholds rose by 26 cents to 84 cents per cubicmeter. This trend continued in 2003 after thewithdrawal of the private operator from the contract. Despite the reduction applied to water tariffs in

2004 and 2005, the price of the water was still high,compared with the early 1990s (Cinar 2009, 357). Theresult was the takeover of the urban water servicesmanagement by ASAT-ALDAS-ANTSU troika which increasedtariffs while service quality in Antalya, a veryimportant tourism city, decreased. Despite thepossibility of turning this change into a new source ofincome for ASAT and the Antalya MetropolitanMunicipality, it turned into a loss because of pitfallsin infrastructure, organizational framework andfinancial flows. There were problematic issues from thebeginning like the transfer of “water ownership” of themunicipality infrastructure despite the fact that itwas only to transfer the “right to operate” (Guler1999, 150). Before the contract was due to expire in2007, ANTSU decided to dissolve, in accordance with theprovisions of Article 324 of Turkish Commercial Law in2002, and to seek international arbitration to settlethe dispute caused by the unwillingness of ASAT toassume the responsibilities defined in the contract.The reasons for applying international arbitration werestated by the private operator as uncontrollableincreases in operating expenses and significant lossesdue to the misdirected investment, increasing illegaluse and inefficiencies in the network. Following thedissolution of ANTSU, delivery of urban water andsewerage services reverted to ASAT, which thenintroduced new personnel policies resulting in an


increase in the number of employees from 50 in 2000 to350 in 2004 (World Bank 2004).

3.4 Protection of natural resources including water

A new legal structure of environmental protection andwater management has emerged over the past threedecades in Turkey, driven by an increased emphasis indomestic law, the expansion of activity in terms ofbilateral and multilateral international agreements andthe nation’s efforts to meet EU criteria toward fullmembership. The combined result of these threeapproaches is to raise both the visibility of water andthe environmental issues in Turkey and to enhance theability of the government to act effectively inprotecting what its Constitution refers to as its“national wealth” (Republic of Turkey 2003, 93). Theleading government body that deals with protection ofnatural resources including water is the Ministry ofEnvironment and Forestry (see below). In addition, theMinistry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs isresponsible for making investigations and preparingprojects to protect and improve soil, water, plant,animal and fisheries resources and products, to controlwastewater discharges into fish production areas and tomonitor nitrates parameters in freshwater andgroundwater in accordance with Decree-Law No. 441.Also, the Ministry of Health is responsible fordetermining quality standards for drinking and domesticwater, monitoring these standards and preparinglegislation in these areas (DSI 2009b, 15).The Ministry of Environment, which was established on

21 August 1991 by the Decree Law (number of decision443/KHK), replaced the Undersecretary for theEnvironment, which led to the diversification of theMinistry’s responsibilities and to an expansion of itsstaff. This also led to the administration’sempowerment concerning the implementation and


enforcement of policies for the protection andconservation of the environment. However, the Ministryof Environment has limited resources and limitedcompetence.The mandate of the Ministry covers issues such as

appropriate land use, protection of natural resourcesincluding protection of water and prevention ofpollution. Its departments concerned with waterresources are the Directorate General of EnvironmentalManagement, Directorate General of Prevention andControl of Environmental Pollution (Water Department),the Directorate General of Environmental Protection(Sensitive Eco-Systems Protection Department) and theDirectorate General of Environmental Impact Assessmentand Planning. Authority for the Protection of Special Areas (APSA),

which had been linked to the Prime Ministry from thevery outset, was linked to the Ministry of Environmentin 1991. APSA was linked to the Ministry of Environmentand Forestry after these two Ministries were united onMay 1, 2003 (Act No. 4856)24. APSA has been carrying itsoperations as a public institution, having a specialbudget. It is responsible for protecting and managingthe natural and environmental values of 14 SpecialProtected Areas. In 2007, DSI has been aligned with the Ministry of

Environment and Forestry, which has caused differentinterpretations by different stakeholders. Bygovernment decree approved on August 30, 2007, DSIbecame part of the Ministry of Environment andForestry. With this development, water quantity andwater quality management is combined under the sameMinistry, which seems to be in line with strongrecommendations of EU circles (Grontmij ConsultingEngineers 2004b and European Commission 2005). However,a significant number of experts assert that this willput DSI into a different position than its entrusted

24 Act No. 4856 on the Organization and Duties of the Ministry ofEnvironment and Forestry, 2003.


central role in water resources development, possiblyeroding its investor, provider and managerial functionsby burdening it more with coordinating, supervision andmonitoring tasks in the water sector (Yildiz 2009). Adifferent viewpoint emphasizes that environmentalprotection will be ignored and the clashing discoursesand conflict of interests between the DSI and the MoEFwill give way to the dominance of the DSI approach inthe MoEF. In this context, being a leading NGO in thewater sector, the WWF-Turkey criticized the governmentdecision to attach DSI, with its large number ofpersonnel and large investment portfolio for waterresources development to the MoEF. According to theWWF-Turkey, that merger would damage main functions ofthe MoEF, which basically encompass protection andmonitoring of water resources rather than development(Divrak 2009).The provincial branches of the Ministry are

responsible for taking measures to prevent and minimisepollution, to inspect any activity that might threatenthe ecology and cause sea pollution. The Ministry’sprovincial branches inspect whether discharge ofwastewater from industry and domestic sources intorivers comply with legal standards. The Ministry hasrecently started to publish provincial “state of theenvironment” reports. Yet, the provincial branches arereported to lack necessary manpower to carry out manyof those functions (see Orhan and Scheumann in thisvolume)

4 The quest for a framework water law and attempts at the reorganization of the water sector

The lack of a comprehensive water law is perceived asthe major challenge in the Turkish water sector. Aclear need is identified for a framework law which


assembles the guiding principles, norms, rules,procedures in water resources management and allocation(Baris and Karadag 2007). It has been emphasized thatthere is an urgent need to revive the process offormulating, consulting on and passing a modern waterlaw that gives legally enforceable water rights towater users, and which establishes a water resourcesmanagement and regulatory authority with full legalpowers to license and enforce water abstractions anddischarges. Conferring this legal authority andestablishing individual water rights will force afundamental change in the manner in which waterresources are developed, managed and used. Thepreparation and enactment of this law will be afundamental requirement for Turkey’s accession to theEuropean Union (World Bank 2006, 76). A framework water law (national water act) has been

debated which should address issues such as increasingcompetition over limited water resources; burgeoningnumber of actors/stakeholders in the water sector;depletion and degradation of water resources as well asaddressing some challenging issues such as‘decentralization,’ ‘privatization’ and ‘river basinplanning.’ New institutions have been establishedparticularly since the early 1980s, under theneoliberal policies of decentralization andprivatization. Yet, they were introduced withoutproperly delineating the mandates between these newlyintroduced institutions and the existing ones (Bilen2009, 316). To illustrate, when the MetropolitanMunicipalities were established in large provinces in1981, they were entrusted with functions such as floodprotection and financing and implementing water supplyand sewerage systems, which used to be entirely withinthe mandates of DSI and the Bank of Provinces. Theoverlaps and conflicting mandates of these institutionscaused not only bureaucratic competition and rivalriesbut more importantly caused institutional pitfalls inresponding to the needs, urgencies and crisis


situations. A major water crisis of domestic watershortages occurred during the drought of 2007-08 incentral Anatolia, in the capital city of Ankara, inparticular. Moreover, devastating floods caused severedamages, even loss of lives in the Thrace and theMarmara region (with 70% urban population) in fall2009. Hence, much criticism around these incidents hasconcentrated on the lack of coordination andcomplementarities among the responsible waterauthorities (Chamber of Civil Engineers 2009). Thedebate over water sector reform has culminated in theproposals of a “national framework water law” and a“new ministry of water resources” (Ada Strateji 2010,18-19).It is not only that reports and review studies by

third parties such as the studies conducted by Carl BroInternational or Grontmij Consulting Engineers claimthat “current water management structures in Turkey canbest be described as complex, confusing andfractionalized,” but the government authorities alsoregistered the fact that the reorganization ofinstitutional set-up and reappraisal of legislation inthe water sector is necessary particularly in theperiod when Turkey undertakes various efforts toharmonize its administrative and legal structure withthe European Union (Grontmij Consulting Engineers2004a; Carl Bro International 2001; SPO 2007). In thiscontext, within the framework of the 7th Five YearDevelopment Plan (1996-2000), the State PlanningOrganization mandated DSI to draft a new comprehensiveframework water law. In drafting a framework law theDSI legal experts compiled and analyzed national actsand laws from various countries including the oneswhich have established legal structures such as Franceor the ones which have passed through a recentrestructuring such as Brazil and South Africa. Thedraft law was completed by DSI’s legal division in2001. However, the draft law has not yet completed thenecessary procedures in the Parliament (Turkish Grand


National Assembly-TBMM, in Turkish acronym), which maytake it to parliamentary debate and possible adoption.This delay in the parliament is possibly due to thefact that a water law has not yet been perceived as apriority by the government. Meanwhile, numerous newregulations have been adopted and since 2003 amendmentswere made to the existing laws to transpose the EUwater legislation, regardless of pushing the draftframework law to go through the legislative proceduresin the Parliament. Arising from the review the main principles that need

to be covered by the Draft Water Law were stated as: Equal rights under the law for individuals to accesswater;

Prioritization of water allocation: (i)drinkingwater, (ii)environmental needs, (iii)irrigation,(iv)hydroelectric power, (iv)industry, handicraftsand tourism;

Registration of all abstractions from the waterresource;

Water should be paid for, it has an economic value; Pollution has to be managed and controlled, and thepolluter pays principle adopted;

Transparency in water resources allocation, with widedissemination of information (World Bank 2006, 38).Hence the Draft Water Law emphasizes that in due

consideration of national security, the economic andsocial development needs of the country, multipurposedevelopment of surface and groundwater resources arecarried out to provide adequate and good quality waterfor citizens. It refers to the utilization, allocation,protection, safeguarding, monitoring of surface andgroundwater resources of the country in responding todrinking, domestic water needs of each citizen andnatural life as well as providing water for industrialand irrigation uses and hydropower generation.25

25 Su Kanunu Tasarisi Taslagi (Draft Water Law), 2001, on filewith the authors.


The Draft Water Law also maintains that water resources,including treated and recycled wastewater, aredeveloped and managed at the ‘river basin level.’Indeed, within the existing institutional and legalstructure in Turkey, there is very limited planning atthe basin level with respect to surface water andvirtually none for groundwater and wastewater disposal.There is no integrated plan which considers both groundand surface water availability, nor does existingplanning consider water quality, wastewater disposal,current and projected land use, anticipated futuredemand and return flows, or projected future quantityand quality of water resources (Harmancioglu et al.2007, 149).There are detailed stipulations, in the Draft Water Law,

on water resources utilization and allocation, andspecific references to adoption of the ‘licensingsystem’ in allocating water to various users by theDSI. Yet, still a clear statement needs to be made inthe proposed new water law giving rights to waterusers, and stating the limits of those rights. Theserights are particularly important for irrigationmanagement organizations that may be in danger oflosing their access to water as a result of agreementsmade between DSI and private developers of dams forgenerating hydroelectric power. The granting of waterrights to water users will require the strengthening ofprocesses and procedures for the measurement andrecording of water abstractions. At present thesesystems are weak, with insufficient certainty of thequantity of water being abstracted on a daily basisfrom river and groundwater resources (World Bank 2006).The Draft Water Law involves a section on the

establishment of a water information system by the DSI.Provision of water supply for drinking, domestic,industrial, irrigation, hydropower, spring and floodwater are all dealt with in detail. A separate part isentirely devoted to the utilization, allocation andpreservation of groundwater. There are relevant


sections on cost recovery and devolution of themanagement of the irrigation and domestic watersystems. When it comes to the organizational structure of

water management, the Draft Law contains only informationon the DSI: its organizational structure (headquartersand regional directorates), duties and tasks. There areno references at all to the other organizations’ roles,responsibilities, tasks and functions in the watersector. In fact, earlier, there were attempts to getthe concerned parties together including non-governmental organizations and academia to discuss mainproblems in water management in Turkey with a specificfocus on legislative and institutional structure. Thewater law review process started with the initiativesof a group of deputies (2001-2002). Intensiveconsultations with relevant agencies and authoritieswere made in order to contribute to the water lawreview process. Some leading government institutions,namely the State Planning Organization, the DSI and anumber of civil society organizations provided supportto this process. As another push to those efforts, the Ministry of

Foreign Affairs coordinated workshops on thereappraisal of water policy in the period from 2004until 2005. State Planning Organization and SecretariatGeneral for European Union Affairs led these workshopsrelated to the institutional and legal review,respectively.26 Even though these processes wereincomplete, it has already been recognized that withthe enactment of a comprehensive national law, theroles and functions of existing actors/institutionsneed to be reviewed and revised. Moreover, within thecontext of the MATRA project,27 a National Platform,

26 See Sumer and Muluk in this volume for further discussion onTurkey’s alignment with the EU water acquis.27 WFD Project 2004, “Implementation of European Union WaterFramework Directive in Turkey” Project (MAT01/TR/9/3), 2002-2004,Institutional and Legal Strengthening Report.


which brought together representatives from concernedministries as well as representatives from localgovernments and universities, was established in 2004as one of the outputs of the project. The meetingsamong the stakeholders, mainly from the regionaloffices of the government institutions involved withthe Buyuk Menderes river basin, which gathered duringthe project implementation as well as the ones gatheredunder the aegis of the National Platform, provided theplatform to discuss the institutional and legal issuesof water policy and management at national andregional levels. All in all, these efforts to review water legislation

and institutional structure have not ended up inproducing a coherent national water act, which couldhave been taken up through all the inclusive andparticipatory processes. Efforts to draft the water lawhas been dominated by the DSI, even though there havebeen attempts by the concerned government agencies suchas the SPO, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and even by theDSI itself to lead the “water law debate” by includingthe stakeholders concerned. Yet, these discussionsremained rather preliminary, not concerted, partiallyinclusive of non-governmental entities and incomplete.Parallel to these discussions at national level, aseries of projects and review processes have beenundertaken by international stakeholders, particularlywithin the context of projects, which have been carriedout in the European Union harmonization process (seeSumer and Muluk in this volume). Meanwhile, Turkish water policy and management have

been in a state of change since the early 1980s, underthe transformation of the political economy towardsliberalization (see Tigrek and Kibaroglu in thisvolume). The reorientation of the economy has resultedin the restructuring of the institutional set-up in thewater sector such as the establishment of theirrigation management organizations, water and sewageauthorities (ISKI) and the special provincial


administrations on the one hand and the abolishment ofthe GDRS on the other. The legal framework was alsosubject to change, particularly with the passing of therelevant legislation to include the private sector inwater resources development, hydropower generation andwater supply management. Major laws and by-laws havealso been adopted to introduce or strengthenenvironmental protection and water quality management.Yet, the picture is not at all clear particularly fromthe perspective of the majority of the stakeholders,namely the users in rural and urban settings. There isactually a growing consensus that legislative andadministrative changes fall short, when it comes toimplementation and enforcement. Compliance with the newpolicies is rather problematic; all the more since moststakeholders do not adopt the changes or do not realizethat these changes are responsive to their needs.

References

Ada Strateji (2010) Su Kaynakları Bakanligi Kurulus Kanunu TasarıTaslagi Onerisi. USIAD, Ankara

Baris ME, Karadag AA (2007) Water resources management issues inTurkey and recommendations. Journal of Applied Sciences, vol7, no 24:3900-3908

Bayazit M, Avci I (1997) Water resources of Turkey: Potential,planning, development and management. Water ResourcesDevelopment, vol 13, no 4:443-452

Bennett E, Grohmann P, Gentry B (1999) Public-PrivatePartnerships for the urban environment - Options and issues.PPPUE Working Paper Series Volume I. UNDP and University ofYale, New York

Bilen O (2009) Turkiye’nin Su Gundemi (Turkey’s water agenda).DSI, Ankara

Carl Bro International (2001) Analysis of environmentallegislation for Turkey. Final Report

Chamber of Civil Engineers Working Group on Water (2009) Su HakkiRaporu. Turkiye Muhendislik Haberleri (TMH), Ankara

Cinar T (2006) Turkiye’de Icmesuyu ve Kanalizasyon Hizmetleri:Yonetim ve Finansman. In: Cinar T, Ozdinc HK (eds) Su


Yonetimi: Kuresel Politika ve Uygulamalara Elestiri. MemleketYayinlari, Ankara, pp 227-252

Cinar T (2007) Personal InterviewCinar T (2009) Privatization of urban water sewerage services in

Turkey: Some trends. Development in Practice, vol 19, no3:362-63

Coskun AA (2003) Water law: The current state of regulation inTurkey. Water International, vol 28, no 1:70-78

Divrak BB (2009) Personal Communication, AnkaraDSI (2009a) Water and DSI. DSI,

http://www.dsi.gov.tr/english/pdf_files/dsi_in_brief2009.pdf.Accessed 23 August 2010

DSI (2009b) Turkey Water Report. DSI,http://www.dsi.gov.tr/english/pdf_files/TurkeyWaterReport.pdf.Accessed 23 August 2010

European Commission (2005) 2005 Regular report on Turkey’sprogress towards accession. Commission of the EuropeanCommunities, Brussels

Grontmij Consulting Engineers (2004a) Buyuk Menderes River BasinManagement Plan (Draft). Houten

Grontmij Consulting Engineers (2004b) Institutional and legalstrengthening, Report on the legal and institutionaldevelopments required to meet EU legal requirements in thefield of water management in Turkey. Houten

Guler AB (1999) Su Hizmetleri Yonetimi: Genel Yapi. Turkiye veOrtadogu Amme Idaresi Enstitusu, Ankara, Turkey

Harmancioglu NN et al. (2007) Gediz basin management: Problemsand possible remedies. In: Proceedings, International CongressRiver Basin Management, 22-24 March 2007, Antalya, Turkey,Vol. II, pp 138-153

Kapucu N, Palabiyik H (2008) Turkish public administration.International Strategic Research Organization-USAK, Ankara

Kibaroglu A, Baskan A, Alp S (2009) Neo-Liberal transitions inhydropower and irrigation water management in Turkey: mainactors and opposition groups. In: Huitema D, Meijerink D (eds)Water policy entrepeneurs. A research companion to watertransitions around the globe. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK

Ozbay O (2006) Turkiye Su Mevzuatinin Gecirdigi Evreler. HaberBulten, Chamber of Geology Engineers, no 3, July-August2006:37-40

Republic of Turkey (2003) Turkey Country Report. Prepared for theThird World Water Forum. World Water Councilhttp://www.worldwatercouncil.org/fileadmin/wwc/Library/Publications_and_reports/country_reports/report_Turkey.pdf. Accessed23 August 2010

http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/fileadmin/wwc/Library/Publications_and_reports/country_reports/report_Turkey.pdf

http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/fileadmin/wwc/Library/Publications_and_reports/country_reports/report_Turkey.pdf

http://www.dsi.gov.tr/english/pdf_files/TurkeyWaterReport.pdf

http://www.dsi.gov.tr/english/pdf_files/dsi_in_brief2009.pdf


Soganci M (2005) Koy Hizmetleri Genel Mudurlugu Kapatilmamalidir.Press Release, Ankara

State Planning Organization (2007) 9. Bes Yillik Kalkinma Plani,Toprak ve Su Kaynaklari Ozel Ihtisas Komisyonu Raporu, DPT,Ankara,Turkey

Topcu F (2006) Suda Dis Kredi: Izmit Ornegi. In: Cinar T, OzdincHK (eds) Su Yonetimi: Kuresel Politika ve UygulamalaraElestiri. Memleket Yayinlari, Ankara, pp 287-316

Unver I (2010) Elestirel Gozle 5403 Sayili Toprak Koruma ve AraziKullanimi Kanunu. Toprak Su Enerji.http://www.topraksuenerji.org. Accessed 10 June 2010

Vliegenthart FJL, Sargin AH, Gorkmen A, Dogdu MS (2007) A newapproach for groundwater management in Turkey: A groundwatermanagement plan according to EU Groundwater Directive(80/68/EEC) and Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC).International Congress on River Basin Management, Antalya,Turkey

World Bank (2004) Implementation completion report (TF-21388 CPL-38930 SCL-38936) on a loan in the amount of US$100.0 millionto the Republic of Turkey for Antalya Water Supply andSanitation Project. Report no 27700, May 28, 2004. The WorldBank,http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2004/06/03/000112742_20040603123854/Rendered/PDF/277000TR.pdf. Accessed 15 March 2007

World Bank (2006) Irrigation and water resources with a focus onirrigation prioritization and management. Economic SectorWork, Working Paper. World Bank, Turkey

Yildiz D (2009) Personal communication, Ankara

http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2004/06/03/000112742_20040603123854/Rendered/PDF/277000TR.pdf



http://www.topraksuenerji.org/

Turkey's Water Policy

Documents