sociocultural aspects of irrigation practices in south-eastern turkey

This article was downloaded by: [Florida Atlantic University]On: 11 November 2014, At: 20:10Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journalof Water ResourcesDevelopmentPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cijw20

Sociocultural Aspects ofIrrigation Practices inSouth-eastern TurkeyBahattin Aksit & A. Adnan AkcayPublished online: 21 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Bahattin Aksit & A. Adnan Akcay (1997) SocioculturalAspects of Irrigation Practices in South-eastern Turkey, InternationalJournal of Water Resources Development, 13:4, 523-540, DOI:10.1080/07900629749601

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07900629749601

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to theaccuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content.Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinionsand views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources ofinformation. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the useof the Content.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cijw20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/07900629749601

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07900629749601

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:10

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

W ater Resources D evelopm ent, Vol. 13, N o. 4, 523 ± 540, 1997

Sociocultural Aspects of Irrigation Practices in

South-eastern Turkey

BAHATTIN AKSIT & A. ADNAN AKCAY

D epartm ent of Sociology, M iddle East Technical Univers ity , 06531, Ankara, Turkey

ABSTRACT This paper examines the irrigation practices of rural households and

comm unities just before the introduction of large-scale irrigation projects in South-

eastern Anatolia, Turkey. The study is based on ® eldwork carried out by the authors in

1993. It is hoped that the sociological conceptualization of irrigation practices in the

region w ill pave the way for developm ent of a sociology of irrigation in Turkey. The

present study viewed irrigation as a very powerful tool in transforming the sociocultural

structures and social habits and/or habitus of a rural com m unity. Almost no other tool

can create such a com plete change in the total socioeconomic order of a reg ion. Yet it

m ust be stated at the outset that the m anagem ent, organization and maintenance

(MO M) m odels to be established at farm and village levels m ust take the ex isting

sociocultural structures of the com munities into account. H ence the colossal physical

dam construction efforts are to be com plem ented w ith the development of an interactive

M OM m odel which should be responsive to the economic, social and cultural structures

of rural com m unities in Turkey.

Introduction

In order to identify the most suitable management, operation and maintenance

(MOM) model for the irrigation systems in the GAP region (the Southeastern

Anatolia Project is discussed in its entirety in Unver, 1997) a socioeconomic

survey was undertaken to gain a good understanding of the social, organiza-

tional and institutional factors affecting rural households and communities . This

information was analyzed to establish the relationships between irrigation

projects and socioeconomic and cultural structures and the ® ndings were then

proposed to be used in the design of an organizational system which would best

meet the human and economic needs of the region. On the basis of this

stipulation a sociocultural study was carried out in the GAP region, and the

authors were the responsible experts who conducted research and executed the

analyses. Therefore, it is only natural that we will draw mainly on the data and

experience we gained during this research.

The possible relationships between irrigation and the social environment can

be analysed by looking at the prevailing social relationships prior to irrigation;

the state of readiness of communities to use irrigation on an extensive scale; and

whether or not there is any need for special adjustment mechanisms. The

socioeconomic study aimed to answer such questions. Thus, it was not the

intention of the study to draw a complete socioeconomic picture of the region

0790-0627/97/040523± 18 $7.00 Ó 1997 Carfax Publishing Ltd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:10

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

524 B. Aksit & A . A. Akcay

but rather to examine ways in which irrigation technology might come together

with social structures and function in a positive manner. The focus of the study

was therefore directed at farmers’ irrigation practices, their problems particu-

larly in organizational matters and their capacity to organize themselves at the

local level to carry out irrigation management, operation and maintenance;

farmers’ perceptions and expectations of irrigation and their needs for extension

services; and intra and inter-village sources of power, solidarity, cooperation and

con¯ icts.

The agricultural communities in the region have been in a rapid process of

change and transformation as a result of modernization, rationalization, urban-

ization and integration to national and international markets. The MOM model

that is in the process of construction for the region will interactively combine the

impact of induced irrigation development projects and spontaneous changes and

transformations that are engul® ng every corner of the world into global dynam-

ics. It has been one of the main aims of the socioeconomic study team to

contribute to the building of an interactive model that will be durable and

dynamic in such an environment.

Within this framework, our main target group was those farmers with

experience of irrigation and those who will soon begin to practise irrigation. This

means that the ® eldwork took place in rural settlements which are either under

irrigation (private and public) or will be irrigated in the near future.

Before proceeding further, it might be helpful to establish a quick review of

social characteristics of the region in question. However, it should be noted that

it is hard to determ ine the boundaries of Southeastern Anatolia, except for

administrative concerns. The name does not necessarily denote a uniform and a

distinct social structure. Neither does it display a cultural uniformity. Sociolog-

ical conditions also vary widely in the region . Therefore, it simply refers to a

group of provinces included in the Southeastern Anatolia Project area. For this

reason, in Turkish as well as in English , the region is usually referred to by the

Turkish abbreviation of the project: GAP region. This is also relevant for this

paper: the terms `Southeastern Anatolia’ and `GAP region ’ are used interchange-

ably throughout the text.

The region was in a disadvantaged position compared with other regions in

the country from a socioeconomic point of view and its relative economic

importance had decreased continuously over the last half century. As the

western parts of Turkey were gaining economic power, the southeastern part of

Anatolia lost its importance and signi® cance in absolute and comparative terms.

The inter-regional disparities and rural± urban differences were hindrances to

development. The GAP project is aiming to reverse this situation by using the

geographical and local advantages of the region to alter the natural course of

socioeconomic change and expedite development efforts (Akuzum et al., 1997;

Altinbilek & Akcakoca 1997; Unver, 1997).

Tribal structure has been the dominant type of organization for centuries in

the region . The tribal organizations had very deep roots in the nomadic life of

the people and the formation of institutions has been in conformity with the

tribal characteristics of the people. The change in the social system started with

settlement of the nomadic people and it has accelerated with urbanization. After

settlement, land and agriculture became the basic economic activity and animal

husbandry turned out to be a sideline activity, while the tribal structure began

to dissolve (Aksit, 1990; Erhan, 1992; Erturk, 1980).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:10

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Sociocultural A spects of Irrigation in Turkey 525

The tribal organization itself had made a transition from simplicity to com-

plexity and from homogeneity to heterogeneity with settled life and urbaniza-

tion. Tribes, although persisting in the settled rural life and even in the urban

areas, were transformed by adapting to the newly emerging situation. Tribal

chiefs renewed their roles to maintain their power through assuming new

positions such as ownership of large modern farms and/or being active in local

political life or in national politics.

The household is the primary unit in communal life, but in traditional tribal

organization the household is a part of the patrilineage which is a part of the

sub-tribe (kabile) and tribe (asË iret). The ideal structures of tribal organization and

culture have undergone radical transformations in landownership and tenure

structures, mechanization of agricultural production, irrigation and integration

and/or incorporation with administrative, educational, medical and political-

cultural structures of the modern central state (Aksit, 1992).

The landlord is another source of authority in rural areas, although he may

not be the tribal chief. But in many instances he is one and the same person

(Aydin, 1980). Landlords with large landholdings are observed in the region .

They still exist in the area but the area of land owned by them, which constitutes

the source of their power, is getting smaller (Akcay, 1985, 1995).

The averages for the region in large landownership and landlessness are still

above the national ® gures, yet the direction of change is towards a more

balanced pattern. The traditional forms of landownersh ip, land tenure and

labour organization have been transformed into more capitalistic forms of

ownership and organization in the villages by resident farmers using a more

advanced agricultural technology (Akcay, 1989).

The ® ndings of the present research should be taken as complementary to the

® ndings of research conducted on population movements in the same year in the

region by the authors and a larger team (Aksit et al., 1994). In addition to the

migrants in the metropolitan cities in western Turkey and cities in the GAP

region, migrant-sending household heads in villages were interview ed in the

framework of that research. The ® ndings related to migration, socioeconomic

transformation and sociocultural identity have been already reported (Aksit et

al., 1996). One of the recommendations emerging out of that research was that

ethnic and other sociocultural identity problems of the households and com-

munities in the region should be solved by participatory methods which involve

citizens and communities as empowered actors. The actual mechanisms of

construction of organizations of irrigation practices at the household, com-

munity, district and provincial levels will lay the groundwork for future trends

of transformation in democratic or authoritarian directions. It is hoped that the

® ndings of the present research will contribute to the formulation of policies

which will usher in democratic trends.

Research Procedures

The research was carried out at two levels. The ® rst was a village-level survey

and the second a household-level survey. In the ® rst survey 187 villages were

visited by our research team to interview the headman of the village and/or

knowledgeable members of the village council to elicit all relevant information

about village socioeconomic structure and irrigation practices. The 187 sample

villages were located in 12 irrigation project areas scattered in four of the GAP

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:10

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


provinces: the majority were in SË anlõ urfa Province (six project areas and

121 villages; 64.7%); in Gaziantep there were two project areas and 29 villages

(15.5%); in Diyarbak õ r there were two project areas and 22 villages (11.8%);

and in Ad õ yaman two project areas and 15 villages (8.0%). The 187 villages

included in the village-level survey are not necessarily representative

of provincial conditions, because as noted before only the villages in

irrigation project areas in each province were taken as the universe of the

sample.

The second level of research, household survey, included a sample of 240

farm ers/households from 40 villages scattered throughout three provinces in

the GAP region. The main target group for the study was those farmers with

some experience of irrigation and those who were soon to begin irrigating. As

a result, the settlements surveyed were either under irrigation at the tim e of

the survey or were going to be irrigated in the near future. The survey villages

for household-level data were selected on purpose from among the 187

villages where a headm an questionnaire was administered before 40 villages,

thus selected from eight different districts, were revisited by a team of

in terview ers in order to conduct household questionnaires. In each village six

households were selected , two random households from each of three `lists’ of

`low ’ , `middle’ and `high’ strata. The lists of `low ’ , `middle’ and `high’ level

households were compiled with the help of the headman and/or village

council member.

The distribution of the households in our sample among the three provinces

was as follow s: 36 in Diyarbak õ r, 30 in Gaziantep and 174 in SË an lõ urfa.

The majority of households were in SË anlõ urfa province, since this province

not only included a great number of private and state-owned groundwater

wells and other water sources but also expected to have irrigation soon

through the AtatuÈ rk Dam. Since it was our aim to collect reliable information

on irr igated agriculture and also farmers’ expectations in rela tion to irr igation,

we intentionally selected a higher num ber of villages from SË anlõ urfa province

which seem ed to be the best place for our purposes.

Field Research Findings

Village Types on the Basis of Socioeconom ic Criteria

Village types were mainly identi® ed on the basis of landownership and organi-

zation of production; use of domestic, hired or traditional and/or feudal labour;

ownership of modern agricultural machinery; and marketing rates of produce.

We studied all of the 187 villages examining the above-mentioned criteria and

the entirety of the questionnaire and qualitatively judged the village to be one

of the six types given below:

(1) villages where land is owned and operated by a landlord and villagers are

either sharecropping or renting land;

(2) villages where most land is owned and/or operated by medium-sized

farmers. In such villages, there is generally an equitable land distribution,

and there are no large landowners. Medium-sized farmers will require hired

labour and tend to own their own farm machinery;

(3) villages with both large landowners and medium-sized farmers;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:10

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


(4) villages with large landowners and small farmers;

(5) villages where most land is owned by small farmers . Such small producers,

with farm areas up to 20 ha, will use family labour and hire machinery;

(6) villages where state land is rented to tenant farmers. Tenant farmers farm 4

to 8 ha of land, and pay rent to the state.

Landlord-dominated villages that survived in the region retain some of the

traditional and/or feudal characteristics of social organization, but the modern

and/or capitalistic logic of large farms vis-aÁ -vis the market is more prevalent.

The number of landlord-dominated villages in the survey sample is small, eight

in number and 4.3% of the total. It is our conclusion from our own research that

this is not just a peculiarity of our sample, but a general trend of social change

in the region involving dissolution of tribalism and landlordism. The trend is

towards medium-sized farmer villages (42 villages and 22.5% of the total 187

villages), small farmer villages (50 villages , 26.7%) and villages with small plus

large farmers (19 villages, 10.2%) and medium farmers plus large farmers (30

villages, 16%). The only peculiarity of the present sample is that village type

composed of state tenants (38 villages , 20.3% of the total 187 villages) is

over-represen ted, because of the inclusion of the Ceylanpinar Irrigation Project

in the surveyed villages.

Village Types on the Basis of Principal Spoken Languages Criteria

Village classi® cation on the basis of ethnicity is another consideration in the

sociological litera ture. Research on sociocultural identities (YalcË in -Hekman,

1991; Erhan, 1992; GuÈ vencË , 1993; Ergil, 1995; Aksit et al., 1996) have pointed out

that ethnic identities are formed in the context of language. Language in itself ,

however, does not, automatically , lead to the form ation of ethnic identities .

Social context and levels of social integration are also contributing factors.

There were no direct questions on ethnicity in the village and household-level

questionnaires of the present research. Yet, on the basis of our knowledge of

m other tongue or principal spoken language it was possible to identify the

ethnicity of communities and households. The sample of 187 villages surveyed

consisted of Kurdish speaking (39%), Arabic speaking (30%), Turkish speaking

(20%) and Kurdish and Arabic speaking villages (11%). Kurd ish villages are

found in Diyarbak õ r, SË anlõ urfa and Adiyaman provinces; A rabic speaking

villages were located in SË anlõ urfa and Gaziantep provinces; and Turkish

speaking villages were mainly in Gaziantep, Adiyaman and SË anlõ urfa

provinces.

Ethnic distribution of the household-level sample, as identi® ed by mother

tongue of the household heads, shows differences in comparison with that of the

village-level survey because of the existence of villages with mixed populations.

It was found that 45.4% of the household heads in the sample were Arabic

speaking, 35.8% were Kurdish speaking and the remaining 18.8% were Turkish

speaking. The proportion of Arabic-speaking households was apparently over-

represented in the sample just because the number of villages selected from

Harran Plain was higher and that place was mainly populated by Arabic-speak-

ing people.

Everyone in the sample, except one Kurdish household head, can speak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:10

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Turkish . So it is possible to talk about hyphenated ethnic identities: Kurd ± Turk,

Arab ± Turk and so on. It has to be pointed out that plurality in sociocultural

identities and languages also has consequences for agricultural extension, irri-

gation organization and other participatory programmes. Policy makers, pro-

gramme designers and irrigation managers should be ready to interact in a

participatory manner with plural identities and languages rather than with

top-to-bottom, hierarchical and hegemonizing attitudes.

H owever, one interestin g ® nding of the present research was that in terms

of existing irrigation practices and attitudes, there was not much variation

among ethnically different communities and households. Cross-tabulations

and/or m eans calculated accord ing to m other tongue did not reveal statisti-

cally meaningful differen ces among ethnically differen t households and com-

m unities .

Class Structure of Rural Com munities in Irrigation Project Areas

In order to designate the class differentiation among farmers in the sample, we

developed a fourfold hierarchy main ly on the basis of the amount of land

owned and/or operated . The ® rst category `Large Farm ers’ includes farm ers

who own a large tract of land individually. The quanti® cation of the size of

land for th is category was quite dif® cult, mainly because of the intra-village

inequalities in rural Turkey. H owever, we can assum e that it was not below

50 ha for dry farming. The second type was `Medium Farm ers ’ who control an

amount of land ranging from 15 to 40 ha for irr igated land and 30 to 80 ha in

the case of dry farming. The third category, `Small Farmers ’ , comprised

farm ers whose land area was up to 10 ha for irrigated and up to 24.9 ha of land

for the dry farming. The fourth category was reserved for landless tenants,

m ostly appropriating state land through a rental arrangement in the case of

our sample. It was apparen t from the above classi® cation that there are cases

which fall betw een these categories . This has been overcome by taking into

account some additional criter ia such as tractor ownersh ip, use of paid labour,

extra agricultural income, number of livestock kept, m arketing ratio of the

product and so on.

In our sample there were 15 (6.2%) large landowners ; 60 (25%) medium

farm ers ; 96 (40%) small producers; and ® nally 69 (28.8%) tenants. As is

apparent, the m ajority (68.8%) have a small amount of land to subsist on or

have no land but cultivate small am ounts of land through a rental arrange-

m ent. As indicated earlier, the number of tenants has been exaggerated in our

sample because of the speci® city of the Ceylanpinar area. Apart from this

aspect of the sample, the result was well in accordance with the ownership

pattern in the rural areas of Turkey, i.e. an overw helm ing predominance of

small commodity producers.

There were 69 peasants (28.8%) in the sample who were landless. The

remaining 171 households (71.2%) own land. The mean average of the amount

of land among landowning farmers was 17 ha. However, this ® gure should be

taken into account with some reservation, since the standard deviation of this

distribution was as high as 28.7 ha. Apparently there was no equal distribution

of land among farmers: the range is from 0.5 ha to 200 ha without any meaning-

ful clustering.

In terms of legal title of the land owned, 80% of the landowners have

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:10

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


individual title deeds to their land, whereas the remaining 20% are in an

ambiguous position, sharing ownership most probably with their close kin.

When we differentiate the land owned as dry and irrigated we have an average

of 10.9 and 6.2 ha, respectively. There was also a decrease in the number of

farmers with irrigated land: 45% of our sample practise irrigation in this or that

way.

Some 12% of households in the sample have sharecropping arrangements

with an average of 3.2 ha of land. The number of farmers renting land

was higher (32.5%) in the sam ple because of the inclusion of the Ceylanpinar

land reform area. Another form of sharecropping differen t from the traditional

one was represented in our sample by alm ost 10%. In this type of share-

cropping arrangementÐ main ly speci® c to cotton cultivation on irrigated

land around SË anlõ urfa provinceÐ the landowner gets 70% and the sharecrop-

per gets 30% of the harvest. It was locally called `sharecropping on a

30% basis ’ . It seems that traditional sharecropping mainly occurs on dry

land, whereas the m odern form of sharecropping (on 30%) and renting

occurs on irrigated land. This was particularly the case on state land in

Ceylanpõ nar.

Most of the land sharecropped was owned by absentees. There were

17 landowners out of 22 who do not reside in the village where they own

land. In the case of renting, the majority of the land was owned by the

state (64 cases out of 74) and if it was betw een individuals, owners

were m ostly village resid ents (10 out of 15). U sually, the landowners from

whom the farm ers in our sample have taken land were m edium and large

landowners together with the land controlled by Agrarian Reform Administra-

tion. There were very few cases of sharecropping or renting out by sm all

landholders .

There were also farmers in our sample who sharecrop or rent some of their

land out, though quite a small number. There were 16 cases of sharecropping

and two cases of renting out. However, the number of farmers who have a

sharecropping arrangement on a 30% basis was higher than the ordinary or

traditional form of sharecropping. There were 22 cases of this type of modern

sharecropping which also indicates a transition from the traditional to a modern

form of contract. In both cases of sharecropping arrangement, the amount of

land given out ranges from 2 to 30 ha. In terms of land ownership pattern, 10

receivers out of 16 in the case of traditional and 11 out of 22 in the case of

modern sharecropping arrangement were landless.

One last item of information on the class structure or unequal distribution of

means of production is that of tractor ownership. There were 144 farmers (60%)

in the sample without a tractor and 96 farmers (40%) with a tractor and other

necessary equipment. There were very few cases of tractor ownership involving

more than one tractor: two farmers own three and three farmers own two

tractors. When the distribution of tractor ownersh ip into different class positions

is examined it has been observed that the majority of the large landowners and

medium farmers have tractors, whereas the number of tractor-owning farmers in

other categories was quite low. Although the number of farmers with a tractor

was low when compared with non-owners , this does not necessarily give us an

idea about the degree of mechanization as exclusively all the non-owners make

use of rental machinery in cultivation, which indicates standardization in terms

of mechanization and capital input in the process of cultivation and harvesting.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:10

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


D ecision Making, Social Solidarity and Areas of Con¯ ict in the Village

It seem s that the decision making within the family lies totally with the

household heads, a typical characteristic of a patriarchal household and/or

community. In the sample, 88% of household heads declared that they them-

selves were the sole source of authority in the family. The remaining small

minority was much more democratic, since they accepted that they shared their

authority with their wives and children.

Solidarity among the farmers in the sample mostly revealed itself as reciprocal

working on the farm. Usually, excluding monetary matters, they help each other

on every occasion which was, again, a basic characteristic of a close-living small

community. All the respondents indicated one or several areas of reciprocity, but

there was almost nothing done for the bene® t of the whole community other

than construction of a mosque. Reciprocal work mostly occurs between relatives

and close neighbours (80%).

There were also certain areas of con¯ ict such as land and water disputes,

though these were very rare. There were 22 cases in the sample (9.1%) who

mentioned such disputes. However, the number of existing effective con¯ icts

was very low: there were only three cases of land and water disputes. The

farmers solve most matters among themselves with the help of elders and

headmen.

Irrigation and Water Managem ent

The question in the interview schedule ª who should own the water?º was

answered by the majority of the household heads as ª it should be owned by

Godº (66%). There were also those who thought that it should be owned by the

state (27.5%). There were a small number of people who were of the opinion that

it should be owned by the user (3.8%) or by the society (2.5%). To the related

question ª who should control the water resourcesº , the great majority (80%)

replied that it should be the state. The remaining 20% thought that the control

of water resources should be in the hands of the farmers themselves. When we

cross-check these two variables we observe that 77% of those who had agreed

that the water should be owned by God accepted that water sources should be

controlled by the state. These results were not surprising when we consider the

religious and patrimonial characteristics of households and rural communities in

the region.

In terms of the responsibilities of the farmers and the state in maintenance

works, the majority (82%) reported that farmers should be responsible for the

maintenance of secondary and tertiary canalets in their ® elds unless the problem

requires the use of machinery and other sophisticated and expensive equipment.

When the latter condition prevails, 80% of the farmers reported that they

depended on the state for the maintenance of canals and canalets. Although few

in number (18%), some farmers expected everyth ing from the state and hence

they were totally reluctant to take any responsibility for maintenance works.

There were 177 farmers in the sample (73.75%) who in this or that way

practised irrigation and the remaining 63 farmers (26.25%) had no experience of

irrigation practices at all. However, those who were not practising irrigation

declared that they were very eager to irrigate their land. Among the farmers

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:10

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


who practise irrigation, the proportion of farmers who had been doing so for up

to 4 years was 19.2%; between 6 and 9 years 19.2%; between 10 and 15 years

41.3%; between 16 and 20 years 11% and ® nally for 21 years and above it was

9.3%. As the ® gures indicate, the number of years of irrigation experience was

quite high as far as this sample was concerned.

As to how they learned about irrigation, 51.4% of farmers practising irrigation

learned it from fellow villagers or their acquaintances from neighbouring

villages; 18.3% got some kind of help from agricultural technicians or similar

extension services; 12% have developed this skill by themselves without any

outside help; 11% made arrangements with farmers from provinces such as

Kahramanmaras and Adana to learn about irrigation; and 3.8% have inherited

irrigation skill from their fathers. These percentages revealed the basic form of

extension was some kind of self-help group or learning by doing. In other words

social networks made possible the spread of irrigation knowledge among

farmers when available. H owever, this type of information ¯ ow may also

include some risks , since if the ® rst person’s knowledge was wrong then it

would extend into a larger population in the same way. The number of farmers

who have received irrigation information from of® cial sources was quite low

(18.3%) which indicated the insuf ® ciency of extension services in the region .

However, the impact of of® cial extension was positive, since all the farmers who

had been exposed to extension found it very useful.

Among the farmers who did not practise irrigation presently, there were those

who had some ideas about irrigated agriculture. In this case the basic source of

information (45%) was their experience with cotton cultivation gained during

their seasonal migration to CË ukurova region to pick cotton. These were circular

migrants from the region who regularly provided labour to the cotton growers

in CË ukurova region. They thought that their experience with cotton cultivation

as labourers would enable them to produce that crop in a better way. In this

category there were also those who received their knowledge about irrigated

agriculture from a farmer training centre (14%), from farmers in the same village

or neighbouring villages (24%), and the remaining farmers had gained infor-

mation from several of the above sources.

As to the source of water, there were 74 cases in the sample who obtained

their water from Devlet Su Isleri (DSI, State Water Works) groundwater wells;

40 cases from their own private wells; 17 cases made use of wells owned by

someone else; eight cases obtained water from a river or a similar source with

their own motor pumps; and 46 cases through DSI canalets with gates. The sum

of these cases (185) exceeds the number of irrigating farmers (175). This was

because some of them make use of several sources for irrigation. The majority

of wells were in Ceylanpinar district where underground water was made

available to the farmers by DSI through wells; the majority of canalet irrigation

was in Diyarbakir± DevegecË idi DSI irrigation Project area where this type of

irrigation had existed for some 20 years. Private groundwater well owners were

mostly medium-sized farmers who can make use of their resources (capital and

labour) in the optimum way. Bene® ting from a water source through a rental

arrangement was fairly common among small producers.

In terms of methods of irrigation, sprinkler irrigation was adopted by 40

farmers (22.6%), while wild ¯ ood irrigation was preferred by 11 farmers (6.2%).

Sub-varieties of ¯ ood irrigation such as furrow were used by 52 farmers (29.4%)

and basin by 74 farmers (41.8%). As is apparent from these ® gures, the majority

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:10

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


of farmers irrigate their land with a method which requires labour and attention

at the minimum level. Furthermore, those who adopted the sprinkler method of

irrigation were all from Ceylanpinar district and the reason for choosing this

method, as declared by the farmers themselves, was that they were obliged to

use this method by DSI in order to save water. This meant that there was no

farmer in the sample who adopted more ef ® cient methods of irrigation on his

own initiative. Those who adopted more traditional methods of irrigation,

basically ¯ ood and basin, gave reasons for this choice as the lack of land

levelling (70 cases); because it brought better yields (® ve cases); because the ® eld

got better watering (six cases); because it saved labour (® ve cases), and because

he did not know any other way (one case).

In terms of irrigation investments of the farmers in the sample, it can be stated

that only small-scale investments were made by a minority of farmers : 29

farmers had invested in irrigation mainly in the form of buying motor pumps

(12 cases), opening a well (12 cases) and preparing the land for irrigation. In

most cases the investment was made through their own accumulation (24 cases),

and there was no case of investment through bank credits.

As reported in the previous section on class structure, sharecropping arrange-

ments were developed after the spread of irrigation practices in the region .

There were 25 cases in the sample who reported usage of a sharecropper in

order to satisfy the labour demand generated by irrigation. A new form of

sharecropping had been invented in the irrigated areas in order to meet the

time-consuming practice of watering . Certain farmers ® nd it convenient to

sub-contract the watering procedure to a sharecropper with a cost of 7% to 10%

of the total produce. There were 25 such cases in our sample for the irrigation

of cotton.

The cropping pattern of the farmers with irrigated land was, as expected,

centred on the cultivation of cotton. There were only six cases (3.4%) who do not

cultivate cotton on irrigated land. Some 33% of the farmers in the sample

cultivate solely cotton; 15.6% cultivate cotton together with vegetables; and 5.7%

practise cotton± wheat rotation on the land they can irrigate. Other cases made

optimum use of their land by cultivating various combinations of crops, cotton

being the permanent component in any combination. This was also the case for

the farmers who did not practise irrigation presently but will do so in the future.

Such farmers almost exclusively stated that they would prefer to cultivate cotton

when irrigation was available, because it brought more money than any other

crop. There were 44 cases of crop rotation on irrigated land in the sample and

these farmers alternated cotton or wheat with various crops such as corn, lentils,

vegetables and sesame.

The basic problems farmers faced in irrigation were lack of water (45%), lack

of land levelling (32%) and weeds in the canals (13%). Water shortages were

mainly caused by the insuf® ciency of underground water and claimed capacity

limitation for the canals. The solutions for the water shortages were stated as the

following: new wells should be opened up (49%); wells should be repaired (20%)

and ® nally the number of farmers using water should be decreased (18%). These

® gures suggested that cropping patterns should be reorganized such as to

decrease water demand, particularly during the peak season.

Another serious problem generated by irrigation is salinization. Some of

the reasons for this problem given by the farmers were over-irrigation (37%),

lack of drainage system (26%) and quality of water (13%). The solutions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:10

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


they offered to prevent salinization were rehabilitation of the drainage system

supplemented by appropriate training and extension to stop over-irrigation.

Among the farmers who did not practise irrigation presently there were those

(20 out of 65) who were aware of the risk of salinization and they were also

aware that it was caused by over-irrigation.

The farmers in the sample were very anxious about any training programme

on irrigation. Almost all of them stated that they were willing to participate in

such training on irrigated agriculture. Only seven of them found it unnecessary

stating that they did not need it because they knew irrigation very well or they

were too old to participate. As to the type of training, the majority wanted group

training (44%) and ® eld demonstrations (39%). The number of informants who

preferred training through TV and written materials was quite low (2.9%). The

remaining farmers (11.2%) made their preferences from different combinations

of these options.

In terms of the timing of the training, most of them wanted to be trained in

winter (48.4%), since they were not busy then; 19.2% of farmers wanted training

in summer; 14.3% in spring; and 4.8% preferred to be trained in autumn. The

remaining households did not specify any season as appropriate for training. As

to at what time of the day training should take place, there were those preferring

early in the morning (45.1%); at night (30.1%); and late in the afternoon (23.2%).

Most of the farmers (84%) found women’ s training on irrigation unnecessary for

the reasons that they had a lot of domestic tasks and when necessary they

themselves can train them. However, unlike the situation with women, almost

all the farmers (91%) wanted their children trained on every matter related to

irrigation. There was no doubt that they meant their sons, who will take over

their positions in the future, but not their daughters.

Those who irrigated their land through water sources which necessitated the

use of electricity or fuel pay between TL1 000 000 and TL2 000 000 per ha for

energy (at 1993 prices). The average cost was TL1 870 000 per ha for this type of

input. If the water was provided by DSI through canalets, however, the cost of

water was very low Ð TL300 000 per ha on average. The proportion of water cost

in any case ranges between one-third and one-quarter of their total expenditure

for most of the farmers. The subjective evaluation of this cost showed variations

among farmers: 41% of the farmers in the sample found this proportion low; for

nearly 21% of the farmers it was fair; and for the remaining 38% the cost of

water was unfair.

The farmers’ evaluation of the existing method of water charging was quite

positive. The majority (70%) of the farmers were satis® ed with the present

method, since it favoured them, whereas 25% have some complaints about this

system. The main reason for paying water charges late was lack of money on the

part of farmers (86%). Other reasons given by the late payers were wrong timing

and lack of sanctions for paying late. Their ideas about the kind of sanctions that

should be applied to those who did not pay their water charges were quite

determinate and severe: 37.5% of the farmers advised that the water supply

should be stopped as a sanction; 38.1% suggested high ® nes; there were also

those (9%) who argued that the land could be con® scated if the water charge

were not paid (these were most probably the farmers who paid their water

charges regularly). There was also another severe form of punishment: one

farmer declared that non-payers should be put in jail.

As to the charging criteria, the majority of the farmers agreed with the existing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:10

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


system; 96% of the farmers stated that the water charges should be determined

according to the size of land and crop type, and only 3.4% of the farmers accept

volumetric charging which was much more effective and realistic. Even the

farmers who did not practise irrigation presently were overwhelmingly in

favour of the same criteria; 60 farmers out of 65 (94%) wanted to be charged on

the basis of land size and crop type when they have water. Only the remaining

small minority accepted volumetric charging as a better method. Almost all the

farmers (98.3% of those presently irrigating and 100% of non-irrigators) found it

convenient to pay water charges just after the harvest of the main crop once

every year.

When farmers (presently irrigating and non-irrigating farmers combined)

were asked about the best form of organization in their village for water

management, 48.5% of them considered forming irrigation groups among them-

selves as the best model; 5.8% of the farmers wanted an organization in the form

of irrigation cooperatives; only one farmer was in favour of forming a village

council for irrigation matters. On the other hand, nearly half of the farmers

(44.6%) relied absolutely on the state for organization. They believed that the

state would provide them with the best model. It should be noted that the

farmers in the sample were informed by the interview ers about various forms of

irrigation organization before being asked for their choices. The defenders of the

grass-roots/local organization of irrigation matters (in the form of either irri-

gation cooperatives or water users ’ associations) gave the following reasons for

their choice: farmers knew about matters in the village better than government

of ® cers (six cases) or they knew about the matters related to irrigation (15 cases);

farmers could control themselves better (11 cases) and solve matters easily (30

cases); civil organizations work better than of® cial organizations (22 cases); and

® nally it was because there was a unity among farmers (13 cases). The remaining

29 farmers did not give any speci® c reason for their choice. The reasons given

by the defenders of the of® cial organization of irrigation were that state of ® cers

could treat everyone objectively and fairly (51 cases); it was the duty of the state

(24 cases); there was no solidarity among farmers (17 cases); and villages did not

know how to organize themselves (nine cases).

However, it was promising to observe that the majority of the farmers in the

sample were eager to participate in the organization of irrigation: 180 farmers or

74.1% of the sample would take part in such an organization if they could ® nd

an opportunity. This meant that even some of those who depended on state help

would take responsibilities in any local organization related to irrigation. Those

who rejected such participation gave reasons such as being too old to work (22

cases); having no time (15 cases); people did not trust someone from the same

community and other forms of individualism (23 cases) . Those who were willing

to participate in the organization of irrigation stated that they could undertake

tasks such as water distribution and control (104 cases); maintenance works and

control (27 cases) ; and the remaining farmers (49 cases) would accept whatever

was required including the collection of water charges.

Since collecting water charges was a sensitive subject, the possibility of money

collection by a council from the village was questioned separately. The answ er

was positive in 127 cases (52.9%) and the rest (113 cases , 47.1%) responded

negatively. Those who were con® dent about collecting money locally suggested

that it could be collected by respected people in the village including the

headman (77%); by anyone who had been authorized by the state (12%); and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:10

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


by a group formed in the village (10%). Those who thought that internal

collection of water charges was dif® cult mainly relied on state authority and also

they neither trusted themselves nor their fellow villagers. They claimed that

such an attempt would cause con¯ icts between the collectors and payers.

Most of the villagers respected their headman and council of elders , and also

considered that this group of people could manage the local organization of

irrigation. Since these people had been elected by the villagers themselves, it was

most probable that they could also represent popular authority besides being the

of ® cial authority in the village. This coincidence should be taken into consider-

ation by the extension staff as an initial input to facilitate their efforts. It should

also be noted that no one in the sample mentioned the relig ious leader, imam ,

and tribal leaders as the best persons for organization, although they had been

cited as ª respected peopleº by a few. It meant that there was no necessity for

one-to-one correspondence between respected and suitable people for organiz-

ing irrigation practices in the community.

Summary and Conclusions

The ® ndings of the presen t research supported the recently emerging thesis

about a diffuse trend in the region towards dissolution of tribalism and land-

lordism. The dominant large land ownership, land tenure and labour organiza-

tion patterns in the region had been transformed through converting old

traditional forms into multiple ownership in the villages by resident farmers

using more advanced agricultural technology. A general trend towards medium-

sized landholdings in villages was observed in the region. It can be argued that

an informal process of land reform was going on within the region and the

results were re¯ ected either in village size, land tenure pattern or in the number

of landless farmers. Furthermore, unequal distribution of land among the

farmers does not seem to create any problem in organizational matters as long

as equal and regular provision of water is secured. It should be also noted that

small producers may bene® t more from irrigation than large landowners ,

because marginal utility is higher in small-sized farms than in large ones.

Before the recent trends of increasing irrigation, the cropping pattern was

fairly simple in the region, dominated by grains, lentils and cotton. Gradually,

cotton became the major cash crop in the irrigated areas. Vegetables, pistachio

and grapes, melon and water melon and tobacco were the other products that

have become widespread in the region. Grains and water melons had a lower

rate of increase. Wheat and barley production with combination of lentils and

pistachio, and tobacco in suitable climate areas, were the dominating crops in

dry lands (or before irrigation). At present, one-third of the farmers practised,

mainly, cotton cultivation. A smaller percentage of farmers practised cotton and

vegetable or wheat combinations. The most radical change in the cropping

pattern was the increase of cotton production with irrigation.

It seems that irrigation will inevitably bring the spread of commercial crops

and modernization of agricultural production in the region. It also seems that

the producers will not grow the traditional food crops such as wheat, barley and

others which require less water, but prefer to cultivate more pro® table crops like

cotton which happen to consume a lot of water. Inappropriate cropping patterns

or any shortage of water during the peak season may cause a failure in the

organization of water distribution.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:10

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


The over-reliance on cotton as the main cash crop raises problems of adequate

markets and prices requiring the extension and research services to ensure that

alternative viable cropping strategies exist which do not place reliance on a

single crop for pro® tability. Linked to this type of development is the possible

over-use of harmful chemicals (sprays, fertilizers etc.) which pose environmental

problems. In addition, poor irrigation drainage, increasing salinity and over-

irrigation are factors requiring attention for successful irrigation development.

Large numbers of farmers require land-levelling services, a prerequisite of

ef® cient irrigation water use. More rapid land-levelling methods must be pur-

sued, which may involve more farmer input to this fairly basic task, provided

adequate training is given, if the government agency is unable to meet demand.

As a result of general modernization of economy in the region the technology

used in agriculture has advanced over the last two decades and irrigation has

accelerated this technological change. Most of the farmers use chemicals and

pesticides in cotton production, although the use is lower for other crops.

Tractor ownership and availability of other farm equipment is widespread and

the present stock of agricultural machinery has been enough to mechanize crop

production. Non-owners also use tractors by renting.

The presen t research revealed that the main source of income was observed to

be crop production in the region. Animal husbandry was practised widely but

it was not oriented to marketing for most of the households. Seasonal employ-

ment was another source of income but it involved mostly the landless and the

young generation of small and medium landholders. Irrigation had the potential

to improve income for many farmers as well as raising the value of their land

asset. There was an eagerness among non-irrigators to adopt irrigation, and they

perceived that yields under irrigation would increase.

It was observed that irrigation systems used in the region were generally

surface water schemes with distribution canals constructed by DSI. River irri-

gation is much less important compared with DSI systems. Underground water

is also used both through the DSI organization and privately. Private tubewell

ownership is widespread in Harran. AkcË akale and Keysun use a combination of

DSI and private tubew ells.

The main methods of irrigation used in the region were predominantly labour

intensive and the most simple methods of ¯ ood irrigation. The methods pre-

ferred were those which necessitate least investment cost and least training and

labour requirements . The irrigation investments made by the individual farmers

were quite few and primitive in the techniques used. Additional investment by

private farmers in public investment schemes to improve water use and increase

the effectiveness of their own farms was not observed in the region . This can be

considered as a signi® cant indicator towards the probable amount of sacri® ce

the farmers were ready to make. Most of the farmers were expecting that

irrigation investment should be made through public ® nancing.

The minimization of cost and water wastage in irrigation was best motivated

through the participation of farmers in the costs and risks of system operation.

The farmers who were already bene® ting from public expenditure sources were

not enthusiastic to use new methods and techniques to increase the effectiveness

of water usage in their own farm management. The market forces obliging the

farmer to cover production costs and to increase productivity and hence

pro® tability did not become effective where there was a non-market mechanism

existing in water provision.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:10

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Farmers ’ attitudes to management and organization had indicated positive

thinking on a number of issues, particularly maintenance, canal cleaning, prob-

lem solving and water charge collection, and that their perceived role was one

of involvement and participation in organization at water-user level. Fairly

strong attitudes to the use of sanctions in cases of non-payment of water fees

was another positive factor when viewed against the overall laxity of the present

system, with only a minority seeing water charges as being too high . Attitudes

to water charges, however, had been formed only in relation to one type of

inef® cient system of charging and collection based on area and crop, and more

positive thinking on this issue may emerge when MOM models are proposed

giving more scope to community-based sanctions in respect of overall charging

based on volumetric supply.

A signi® cant portion of farmers were con® dent about forming `irrigation

groups’ for management of irrigation schemes. There were others who left the

whole organization to government. The defenders of the ® rst position argued

that ª civil organizations work betterº and ª there is unity among farmersº . But

the defenders of government organization argued that ª this is already a duty of

the stateº , ª there is no solidarity among farmersº and more importantly

ª government is more egalitarian and more powerfulº , and ª villagers do not

know how to organize themselvesº . However, as a general tendency it can be

stated that most of the farmers were willing to participate in irrigation organiza-

tions.

In the literature on irrigation practices two basic principles (or policies) were

identi® ed: protective and productive irrigation. The distinction between these

two was quite simple. System s which yielded a rate of return on invested capital

above the interest rate of return plus running costs were called productive;

systems with a lower rate of return were called protective (Mollinga, 1992).

Productive irrigation represen ted a more market-oriented model of water sup-

ply; incorporating farmers at every level of the process of water distribution thus

sharing with the users to a certain extent not only the costs but also the

responsibilities related to management, operation and maintenance of the sys-

tem. In this approach there was a planned optimization of water availability and

demand-oriented water management with varying discharges; the form of

production was highly market oriented and the use of wage labour was a

signi® cant input. It can be asserted that unless a system was productive, it could

hardly be protective. Therefore, particular emphasis should be placed on the

local level of organization of water distribution by water users’ associations,

water users’ cooperative societies, or whatever name these participatory organi-

zations may be given.

Schemes in the GAP area (or elsew here in Turkey) need to be organized in a

productive way not only because otherwise it would become too costly, but

particularly because of the negative effects on farmers’ behaviour of pure

protective irrigation. Modi® cation seemed to be necessary to accommodate the

farmers’ main desire to maximize their individual incomes. It should be noted

that without appreciating their interdependency on each other, and without

realizing the communal aspects of irrigation, no one could bene® t from the

water. One of the foci of productive irrigation seemed to be the interaction

between irrigation technology and the social relations in an area, which should

be arranged in such a way as not to function to favour those who use the water,

but instead to bring about the development of an area as a whole; it should also

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:10

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


contribute to the productive capacity of the whole country. Bene® ts of irrigation

should be distributed in an equitable manner, that is over a large number of

producers, without allowing irrigation as a leading input to cause any break-

down in social relationships. Furthermore, the shift from rainfed to irrigated

farming and water distribution on such a large scale implies a radical change in

the farming system as well as in the social environment. Therefore it should be

viewed as more of a medium- or long-term endeavour than a short-term project,

particularly from a sociological point of view.

As emphasized earlier, the agricultural communities in the region were in a

rapid process of change and transformation. One of the powerful sources of this

transformation was irrigation schemes that were already in existence in the

region. The analysis of the information reported by village headmen led to the

conclusion that farmers in the existing irrigation areas were more `modern ’ and

`rational’ and using more of the agricultural and other technologies and facilities

than the others. Hence, the MOM model that was going to be crafted and/or

developed in the region should interactively combine the impact of induced

irrigation development projects and spontaneous micro-level changes and global

transformations that have been enveloping every society and community in the

world (Ostrom, 1990). It had been one of the aims of the present research to

contribute to the crafting of an interactive model that will encompass micro-scale

spontaneous individual or community irrigation and other development projects

and large-scale government induced irrigation projects. It seemed that it was a

wise policy to let farmers open up their own tubewells in the Harran Plain

thereby letting 24% of the plain be irrigated already, because these practices had

prepared the ground for assumption of the responsibility for management and

maintenance of small-scale irrigation before large-scale irrigation through canals

and canalets penetrates into the plain. The patchy efforts in agricultural exten-

sion contributed to the crafting of social capital that will be in high demand

when large-scale irrigation comes. These individual irrigation efforts, together

with the skill and knowledge necessary to carry out these individual projects,

took place in the context of market forces and hence the irrigation practices that

developed might be more receptive to productive irrigation than protective

irrigation.

One thing that the philosophy of the present research rejected was the

approach which considered farmers as passive partners who should be trained

and educated. This was a `top-down’ approach that all bureaucracies in the

world readily embrace. Turkish bureaucracy was no exception to this `iron law’ ,

but success of irrigation systems was observed in those situations where farmers

were taken as equal agents of a `contract’ or `a deal’ . Central government may

guide farmers through appropriate policies of taxation and pricing in a realistic

manner; but MOM practices should de® nitely incorporate interactive policies

and partnerships. This was certainly a new concept in the region and in Turkey;

but the long-term solutions to most of the problems of large-governm ent

paraphernalia need to be concocted through participatory practices in all realms

of life including irrigation practices.

As supported by the present research, farmers’ organizations for irrigation

seem ed to be possible, but problems should be expected in creating con® dence

in egalitarian but powerful organizations at grass-roots level. This suggested that

in the initial stages both farmers and government of® cials should be involved

but the aim should be to transfer all responsibilities to the farmers as soon as

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:10

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


they have the ability and con® dence to assume them. The role of government

of ® cials should be limited to taking care of the balance between the farmers (if

there are different interest groups) and restoring equality if there is a shift from

the egalitarian approach. The of® cial’ s role should enable him to advise the

farmers on the issues at the macro level, from the perspective of the whole

scheme covering the level of village or village groups. He must be able to

explain the relations between the local problems and the general problems

technically, and be able to visualize issues on a total project scale. He must be

both technically able and socially acceptable among the village community.

However, his role must be a temporary one and, as a consequence, his third role

must contain a training function which will prepare the village community and

irrigation organization to manage its own system in the future.

The most important factor in the role of the temporary government of® cial in

the eyes of both sides should be its transitory nature. They should know from

the beginning that the external factor will be phased out over time. The reliance

upon the government agent must diminish as the self-con® dence of the local

organization increases over time. This may not be easy, as the results of the

survey indicated. From the point of view of farmers, although there was a desire

towards self-management, there was also a lack of experience in operating such

organizations and hence uncertainty . This is quite understandable in a state of

transition from very deep-rooted traditional forms of community organization to

new and unknown forms of social organization of irrigation management.

Indeed, the success or failure of this major irrigation development will ulti-

mately depend on the farmers, their attitude and their response to the oppor-

tunity to become more productive and, overall, their positive participation. If

they perceive success and can see their way towards increased pro® tability it is

certain that they will grasp the opportunity for community and self-autonomy.

If there is doubt in their minds, they will be cautious and unwilling to expend

labour, capital and effort in the process. The central feature of the whole success

of the programme will be the farmers’ and communities’ ability to participate

wholeheartedly in the local organization and management and operation of

irrigation at village level, and to be regarded as the most important sector in the

whole irrigation supply network by water agency and government alike. Water

users ’ groups must be given the necessary autonomy at local community level

to operate, and be backed up by the necessary legal recognition if complete

success is expected. In short, all sides should be prepared to take risks in the face

of contingent conditions in the situation. The contemporary modern society is a

risk society. The households, village communities, local and national govern-

ment and and local and national bureaucracies should be ready to build

participatory management, organization and maintenance of irrigation system s

under the conditions of risk and contingencies at local, regional, national and

international levels. The future of modern, secular and democratic societies will

be, it is hoped, secured through such participatory efforts.

A cknowledgement

The data on which the present article is based were collected as a part of a MOM

project contracted out by GAP Regional Development Administration to a Joint

Venture consisting of Dolsar, Halcrow and RWC. The Socio-Economic Study

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:10

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Team consisted of, in addition to the authors of the presen t article, Gulen

Coskun, Akin Atauz and L. H essling . Our thanks go to members of the research

team and the institutions that made the study possible.

References

Akcay, A.A. (1985) Traditional large land ownership and its transformation in two Southeast

Anatolian Villages, MS thesis, Dept. of Sociology, M ETU, Ankara.

Akcay, A.A. (1989) From landlordism into capitalist farming in Turkish agriculture, Journal of Socia l

Stud ies, No. 46 (October), pp. 35± 72.

Akcay, A.A. (1995) An empirical study on rural structures and temporary-seasonal migration in

Southeastern Anatolia, unpublished PhD. dissertation, Dept. of Sociology, METU, Ankara.

Aksit, B . (1990) Small commodity production, socio-cultural change and Southeastern Anatolia (in

Turkish), Top lum ve Bilim , N o. 48/49.

Aksit, B. (1992) Socio-cultural structure and farmer’ s organizations in GAP, in: I. Duymaz (Ed .)

Farm er O rganizations and Irrigation Systems in G A P (collected papers in Turkish) (Bolu, TMMOB &

Friedrich Ebert Stiftung).

Aksit, B . (1993) Studies in rural transformation in Turkey, 1950± 1990, in: P. Stirling Culture and

Economy: Changes in Turkish V illages (Cambridgeshire, Eothen Press).

Aksit, B ., Akcay, A.A., Atauz, A., Coskun, G. & H essling, L . (1993) Management, operation and

m aintenance of GAP irrigation systems; socio-economic Studies (H alcrow ± Dolsar ± RWC Joint

Venture, GAP Regional Development Administration).

Aksit, B ., Ayata, S., Mutlu, K., Nalbantoglu, H .U. Akcay, A.A. & Sen, M. (1994) Population

m ovements in the Southeastern Anatolia Project region, Republic of Turkey Prime Ministry GAP

Regional Development Administration Report.

Aksit, B ., Mutlu, K., Nalbantoglu, H .U., Akcay, A.A. & Sen, M. (1996) Population movements in

Southeastern Anatolia: som e ® ndings of empirical research in 1993, N ew Perspectiv es on Turkey ,

N o. 14, pp. 53± 74.

Akuzum, T., Kodal, S. & Cakmak, B. (1997) Irrigation management in GAP, International Journal o f

W ater Resources D evelopm ent, 13(4), pp. 547± 560.

Altõ nbilek, D. & AkcË akoca, H . (1997) Innovative approaches in water resources development in the

Southeastern Anatolia Project (GAP), International Journal o f W ater Resources D evelopm ent, 13(4),

485± 503.

Aydin, Z. (1980) Aspects of rural underdevelopment in Southeastern Turkey: the household

economy in Gisgis and Kalhana, PhD dissertation, University of Durham, Department of Sociology

and Social Policy, Durham.

Ergil, D . (1995) Eastern Q uestion : D iagnoses and Findings of Research (in Turkish) (Is tanbul, TOBB

Stratejik ArasË tirmalar dizisi, OÈ zel ArasË tõ rma Raporu).

Erhan, S. (1992) Identity form ation and political organization among Anatolian nomads: the Beritanl õ

case, PhD. thesis, subm itted to Department of Anthropology, University of Texas at Austin.

Erturk, Y. (1980) Rural change in Southeastern Anatolia: an analysis of rural poverty and power

structure as a re¯ ection of center Ð periphery relations of Turkey, PhD thesis, Cornell University,

USA.

GuÈ venc, B . (1993) Turkish Id entity : Sources of a Cultural H isto ry (in Turkish) (Ankara, Ministry of

Culture Publications).

Mollinga, P. (1992) Protective irrigation in South India: dead lock or developm ent, DPP Working Paper

N o. 24 (M ilton Keynes, UK, Open University).

Ostrom, E. (1990) Crafting irrigation institutions: social capital and developm ent, in: D ecentra lization:

Finance and M anagem ent Project , Vol. 1, No. 1 (Burlington, Associates in Rural Development).

Unver, O. (1997) A socio-economic regional development project, International Journal o f W ater

Resources D evelopm ent, 13(4), pp. 453± 483.

YalcË in-Hekmann, L. (1991) Tribe and Kinship among th e Kurds , (Frankfurt am Main, Verlag Peter

Lang).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:10

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

sociocultural aspects of irrigation practices in south-eastern turkey

Documents