Archived press release

Government 'minded' to support dam

21 December 1999

Trade Secretary Stephen Byers today said that he was 'minded' - subject to some limited conditions - to give the go ahead for a £200 million export credit for building the notorious Ilisu Dam in the Kurdish region of Turkey [1]. The decision has been slammed by FOE as “a disaster for the environment, a tragedy for the Kurdish people and a threat to peace”. FOE understands that the decision to give the go ahead to the dam was taken with the direct involvement of the Prime Minister.

The Dam plan was opposed by Foreign Secretary Robin Cook and by the League of Arab States.Trade Secretary Stephen Byers has described the dam as “the hardest decision” he has yet had to take as a Minister, but has also insisted that it has been taken by “the whole Government” rather than his Department. In order to build the dam, the UK member of the consortium - Balfour Beatty,builders of the Pergau Dam in Malaysia - needs a £200 million credit from the Export Credit Guarantee Department, an agency of the DTI [2].

After threats of court action from FOE, the Government promised to commission and publish assessments of the environmental and social impacts of the dam, which have also been released today [3]. These reveal many fundamental failings in the project.

FOE has set out seven conditions for approval of the dam. The reports and DTI press release demonstrate that these will not be met. Indeed the Government's own reports outline more detailed 'essential preconditions' for ECGD support. FOE's conditions are:

1. The agreement of downstream states has been secured and appropriate legally-enforceable treaties have been signed. Stephen Byers seems content to seek“assurances” from Turkey that downstream flows will be maintained (DTI release P/99/1048), rather than agreement to the proposals by downstream states.
2. A full socio-economic survey for the area has been conducted, detailing property rights, common property regimes, intangible and tangible assets which will be lost,patterns of livelihood and incomes, etc. The report reveals for example that “how social capital can be protected or compensated has been neglected” while “land tenure and land title problems have not been addressed ... to date” ('Stakeholder's attitudes' p51) .
3. A detailed assessment has been carried out of alternatives to the project and made available for independent scrutiny. The reports show that at best cursory attention has been paid to alternatives. The 'Stakeholder' report refers only to alternative dam designs and sites, and the EIA review notes that while other dams and oil-fired power stations have been briefly considered,”no mention is made of other available options, such as demand side management” (p3)
4. A full environmental impact assessment has been carried out and made available for independent scrutiny, both locally and in those countries considering public support for the project. The EIA review reveals several significant shortcomings of the current EIA - no consideration of indirect impacts, inadequate attention to cumulative

impacts, too little consideration of alternatives, and poor mitigation and monitoring provisions (pp2-3).
5. Those to be resettled have been fully informed of the implications of the project and consulted, with a view to obtaining their prior informed consent to resettlement and compensation terms. The 'Stakeholder report reveals that the “majority of local stakeholders object to the dam project” (p51) and that even amongst supporters“perceptions of resettlement are not based upon factual information” (p)35. In fact “local stakeholders have been waiting for more than 20 years to be informed directly about resettlement, despite the fact that project design was approved by the government in 1982"! (p50)
6. A resettlement plan has been drawn up in consultation with project affected communities. Byers has stated that a resettlement plan which reflects such internationally accepted practice, and includes independent monitoring (DTI release P/99/1048). The Stakeholder report, on the other hand, reveals that there is no such plan even though at least 16,000 people will be resettled and a further 25000 affected (p1), and raises concerns that there is not the political will for open and participatory monitoring (p52).
7. There is independent evidence that human rights are being observed in the region and that local people have the opportunity to express themselves without fear of state retribution. The Stakeholder report reveals that data-gathering was constrained by“restricted access to some of the affected area due to local security issues” (p2), and reveals that forced resettlement has already emptied some villages in the area (pp42-3).

Commenting, Tony Juniper, Policy Director of Friends of the Earth said:
“The Government is backing a project that would be a disaster for the environment, a tragedy for local people, and a major threat to peace. Ministers have reached this decision on the basis of advice saying that the present assessment is inadequate. Ministers are providing support for the dam in the absence of standards and procedures that reflect Britain's so called ethical foreign policy or commitment to environmental protection and peace”.

The campaign to stop the dam is far from over. This issue will be a bright beacon of double standards and fragmented Government until this decision is reversed or realistic conditions are imposed.”
NOTES
[1] The proposed dam site is on the Tigris River, forty miles upstream from the Turkish/Iraqi/Syrian border. It will flood 15 towns and 52 villages and displace up to 20,000 Kurdish people. The Ilisu project is part of the South East Anatolia Project (GAP), which has already displaced hundreds of thousands of Kurdish people, many without compensation. Because of the war between the Turkish army and Kurdish guerillas,local opposition to such schemes cannot be voiced for fear of state reprisals. Towns which will be lost include Hasankeyf, the only Anatolian town to have survived since the Middle Ages. In 1978, the Turkish Government's Department of Culture gave the town “complete archeological protection” (decision A-1105).The dam and its proposed sister a few miles further upstream will control water flows from the Tigris into Syria and Iraq, threatening regional conflict (described by defence analysts as a “water war”.
[2] The ECGD has no rules in place requiring environmental assessments of large projects before guarantees are given. A Written Answer to Cynog Dafis MP (Hansard Written Answers, 11 Feb 1999, column 411) claimed that the ECGD “is undertaking further work ... to determine the best means of further enhancing its policies and procedures and of raising the awareness of UK exporters, investors and overseas buyers on its approach to environmental issues. Relevant documents will be placed in the Library of the House when this process is complete”.
[3] Environmental Review of Ilisu Dam Project: Desk review of EIA and associated documents (by ERM for the ECGD). November 1999.
Stakeholders' Attitudes to Involuntary Resettlement in the Context of the Ilisu Dam Project, Turkey. ECGD,August 1999.

If you're a journalist looking for press information please contact the Friends of the Earth media team on 020 7566 1649.

Published by Friends of the Earth Trust