Edit Case Study: Ilisu Dam Project, Turkey

Issues are the concerns of groups of stakeholders within the context of the water basin and the case study. Some issues may be extremely significant, and some may be peripheral to your particular perspective or framework.

Each issue has a specific group of stakeholders. Stakeholders are organizations or powerful individuals who may have input into the process or may bear the results of management decisions in the water basin. The stakeholders for a given issue are those who have a primary concern in its outcome.

The greatest value of any case study is the ability to identify transferable knowledge, particularly identifying the context and usefulness of this knowledge. Select a few questions from the question bank and provide a brief synopsis on the contributions this case study makes to providing more insight or answering this question.

Because multiple cases can require an understanding of the same basic facts about

• water features such as a basin (watershed), minor rivers, lakes, groundwater resources, etc;
• projects, such as built infrastructure or organizational initiatives (such as a commission); and
• agreements and treaties

each case can be linked to new or existing articles containing background information on these topics. This way, individual natural features, projects and initiatives, or agreements do not need to be explained in great detail in the body of every case.

If an article exists, you can enter the title (e.g.: Ganges River, Mekong River Commission, Glen Canyon Dam, Indus Water Treaty), and it will be automatically linked to the case study. If the article does not exist, a new page will automatically be created for the feature. You will be able to see/edit that page by clicking the link when viewing your saved case study.

We suggest looking at the existing list of features, projects, and agreements to see if relevant sections already exist for your case.

For each case, multiple contributors will have the opportunity to add his/her own analysis/synthesis or insights into the specific case, and these nuanced, contextual additions will be presented together in the case to provide multiple viewpoints. Because of this, each contributor will need to both add and annotate their contributions to this section to highlight major points and also receive credit for the original thoughts.

ASIs already associated with this Study

There are no ASI articles linked to this case study.

ASIs on this study that you have already created

You have not added any ASI sections that are linked to this Case Study.

Please use this section to analyze interactions between issues and stakeholders, synthesize information presented, draw conclusions, highlight important lessons learned, or to provide insight into the knowledge/wisdom from this case can be transferred to other settings.

Add an ASI

Provide a focused summary to facilitate case organization/searches. The organization for summaries is meant to create short, information-dense documents. You should complete this section after preparing the rest of your case study.

We suggest the case summary is kept under 300 words and touches on the following topics: major issues addressed, important stakeholders, major points of analysis/synthesis/insights (especially if there are multiple contributors of insight to the case), opportunities for transferrable knowledge. This is not meant to be fully comprehensive, but simply provide enough information to a reader to indicate whether or not s/he is interested in reading further.

The Ilisu Dam Project on the Tigris River in Turkey is one of the world’s most controversial hydropower projects. As part of the Turkish Government’s Greater Southeastern Anatolia Project (GAP), the project is intended to reduce Turkey’s high dependency on energy imports while developing the country’s poorest region. The GAP includes the construction of a total of 22 dams, including 19 hydropower plants and 3 dams for irrigation, 15 of which have already been built. This case exemplifies a project where there is a need to promote a more inclusive and integral planning to reach better outcomes, both regarding different scales (time and space) and domains (natural, societal and political). It is a complex water problem because social, natural and economic variables and processes that conform the network interact in ways that render unpredictable outcomes. Therefore, it is difficult to plan while only considering objectives with a pure engineering logic. Issues such as social and environmental impact will put at risk the accomplishment of objectives as seen by Turkey’s government (generation of electricity and water for irrigation) and pose new challenges for the economic development of the region. Also, there is a conflicting order in the possible arrangement of preferences of the different actors involved. For some actors, power generation is a top priority, while for others, the conservation of cultural heritage is the greatest concern. Conflicting priorities make it difficult to arrive to a straightforward outcome that are easily approved by all actors. Additionally, the case also presents an open and continuously changing network of processes and actors. There are several continuously changing issues, like unpredictable climate conditions as well as social interactions; the former lead to challenging contexts such as drought, while the latter lead to the articulation of new social pressure groups. The changing network is enforced by dynamic and porous boundaries; in other words, the watershed boundaries do not form a closed system. Finally, understanding context-specific information implies the involvement of local actors. Without doing so, it would be difficult to figure out efficient and stable solutions. In the Ilisu Dam, local involvement has been left aside due to the lack of trust after a history of civil conflict in the Anatolian Region. Additionally, there was no initial involvement of social and local representatives of environmental, cultural or economic matters. Although it was not a foreseen outcome, the government has been obliged to face pressure from non-governmental groups. Now that they are part of the network of actors, both nationally and internationally, they have put at risk the financial viability of the project.

Topic Tags

Help others find this case study by providing topic tags -- either keywords or short phrases without any punctuation.

• Each entry utilizes autocomplete to find similar words/phrases. You can also add a new tag keyword or phrase.
• You can add as many as you'd like -- we suggest between 1 and 5.
• You shouldn't add tags that are the same as article titles linked to cases or values that have been added by selecting check boxes elsewhere in this case -- those keywords have already been recorded!

References Please list all reference here. use (name date) parenthetical citations in relevant text areas.

The contributing author, other editors, and admins can all provide public case review. Checking any of the boxes below will place a notice at the beginning of the case

To enhance the ability of a contributor to improve a case, please answer the yes/no questions below. For each "yes" (checked) answer, you should initiate a discussion on the case study discussion page to explain the improvements required.

The purpose of this review is to both encourage users to continually improve cases and also to alert readers that there are aspects of the case that could be improved. Any editor/contributor may remove an alert (by unchecking the related box) after the issue has been addressed.

Completeness

Are 1 or more sections empty?
does the case/page need more formatting or copyediting help?
Are 1 or more sections incomplete?
Does the case/page need additional or better references?
Does the case/page need more internal links (to AquaPedia Pages)?
Does this case/page need more external links (to relevant external sources)?

Content

Is content out of date? or, are there recent developments that should be addressed by the case?
Is there a dispute about the accuracy of the content?
Is there a need to represent additional points of view?