This section introduces the “Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project Sub-Regional Development Plan” (“TSBD Project”) prepared by the Turkish Social Science Association (Türkiye Sosyal Bilimler Derneği - “TSBD”) following fieldwork in the RVRP provinces, with the aim of preparing a spatial planning and rural development project. Information is also provided on the “Research on Migration and Displaced Persons in Turkey” (Türkiye Göç ve Yerinden
Olmuş Nüfus Araştırması - “TGYONA”), which was commissioned to HIPS by the DPT
and which aims to establish the number of IDPs and their current conditions, the state of returns, and the dimensions of outstanding issues.
9.1. The TSBD Project
The TSBD Project, carried out within the framework of the project that GAP Regional Development Administration of the Prime Minister’s Office and TSBD acceded to in February 2001, consists of planning reports regarding the 12 provinces within the RVRP. The project covers 12 provinces and is basically a technical spatial planning and a rural development project. The macro level plans and the proposals for rural development were completed in mid-2002.109
The objectives of the TSBD Project are as follows: to make it possible for the groups which were involuntarily displaced and were most affected by the consequences of displacement to become productive and be of benefit to themselves and to society; to transform the cost of involuntary displacement to the society and the economy into opportunities via the correct planning of the return to villages; to form a new settlement pattern instead of the current form which is scattered and difficult to reach, where the cost of providing services is high, and which is overly-dependent on agricultural activities rather than letting the return process happen of its own accord; to use a new approach in re-organizing the ruined dwelling and rural service infrastructure; and to form a more rational and livable physical and social environment.
In the first stage of the project, face-to-face focus meetings, aiming for a quick rural assessment, were held with households determined according to a certain sampling, within groups that lived in provincial centers and certain district centers within the scope of the research and which informed administrative authorities of their wish to return to villages. The working groups formed within this framework went to the provinces in the work area within the scope of the project between 19 February and 1 March 2001, and met with governors, deputy governors, sub-provincial governors and mayors, and completed the focus group work.110
109 TSBD (2002).
110 The working groups were formed under the leadership of Prof. Oğuz Oyan, Prof. Melih Ersoy, Assoc. Prof. Çağatay Keskinok, Assoc. Prof. Tarık Şengül, Dr. Galip Yalman, city planner, Remzi Sönmez, and city planner, Erdal Kurttaş.
The working groups held focus group meetings within a sampling of 1,097 people who migrated from the provinces of Batman, Bingöl, Diyarbakır, Elazığ, Hakkâri, Mardin, Muş, Siirt, Şırnak, Tunceli, and Van, from the districts of Gercüş in Batman, Genç in Bingöl, Palu in Elazığ, Eruh in Siirt, and from the village of Kumçatı in the district of Merkez in Şırnak.
Following the analysis of the data collected, a report was presented to the GAP Administration. Assessments and conclusions that were reached concerning the social feasibility of the return, its conditions of realization, and a preliminary determination regarding the settlements where return will take place were presented to the relevant provincial governorships at a briefing organized in the State of Emergency Regional Governorship.
The report contains the results of the focus work, as well as some policy recommendations based on these results. In summary, these results are as follows: i. Internal migration has become an urban problem as much as a rural one. Even
if people return to their villages, their organic ties with the cities will continue. Therefore, the projects of return to villages and re-development of urban centers should be conducted in parallel;
ii. Displacement has created situations of absolute poverty;
iii. Opportunities must be provided to persons who were displaced from villages that were close to cities to live in the city and continue working in rural areas; and a new planning strategy aimed at provincial and district centers must be developed;
iv. According to one of the findings of the focus group work, IDPs do not wish to return to places other than their own villages and hamlets;
v. However, individuals feel positively about projects aiming to collectivize services;
vi. A significant part of IDPs are not in a position to undertake their return without government aid. It is important from the point of view of peace and integration that attention is paid not to cause unfairness and feelings of marginalization during the provision of aid; and
vii. While establishing a strategy regarding return, people’s wish to return voluntarily and whether they are in a position to undertake return must be taken into consideration.
The second stage of the project was followed by the determination of the sub-region where the return should take place and of villages to be examined in detail in order to form the basis for the selection of villages. For the selection of villages to be examined in this framework, the following data was used as a basis: the list of villages in the project description prepared by the GAP Regional Development Administration; lists of villages prepared by relevant provincial governorships; the willingness to return determined during the focus group work; the pre-displacement population of
villages and the “central village list” adopted by the Council of Ministers. In order to collect data from the settlements selected on the basis of these lists, 180 villages in 12 provinces were visited, the necessary examinations were carried out, and detailed data regarding 157 of these was collected.
The report prepared by the TSBD states that, within the method followed in the project, rather than planning returns to individual villages, the attitude adopted regards the villages as sub-regions. In this context, the concept of “sub-region” indicates a rural settlement pattern which consists of more than one village and sub- village unit, which shows or has the potential to show common characteristics within a totality of geographical conditions, economic, and cultural relationships, and which can be thought of collectively, especially from the point of view of service provision. According to the report, the objective of this approach was established as decreasing costs and increasing the benefit of services by planning schools, village clinics, post offices, police stations, and other public services at sub-regional scale rather than village scale. Because of the high number of sub-village settlements (hamlets) in the region, the report does not foresee encouragement to return to settlement units with a population beneath the limit of service provision. The support for intermediate stage settlement units is regarded as an important starting point. Among the objectives adopted in the project, there is the development of such centers not only as service provision centers but, if conditions are suitable, as centers where economic exchanges take place.
In accordance with the agreement reached between the TSBD and the GAP, one sub- region was selected among the many sub-regions formed by the villages examined in the first part of the project that is within the framework of the method developed concerning the selection of the sub-region and villages where the detailed planning will take place. The report specifies the criteria that were used in the selection of villages where sub-scale planning work is foreseen:
i. Efforts were made to make a selection from village clusters where internal displacement occurred;
ii. Particular attention was paid to select villages where there is minimum risk of natural disasters;
iii. Rural units were selected where settlements in the short term are considered rational from the point of view of infrastructure possibilities and the constructed environment;
iv. Among the villages where there was no significant problem in the short term from the point of view of settlement, villages where IDPs wished to return were taken into consideration;
v. Among these villages, the ones which showed stronger characteristics of a central village in comparison to other villages or sub-village units in the vicinity were selected;
vi. Priority was given to the selection of villages with a strong potential for economic/ agricultural development;
vii. Particular attention was paid to the selection of villages where the number of pre-migration households and the number of households wishing to return was no less than 30; and
viii. Although the fact that villages were completely empty, partially empty (where the return process has started), or not empty was not taken as a basic scale; priority was given to villages which were empty and/or to which the return process had already started.
The report states that, in determining the central village within the sub-region, where the detailed sub-level implementation plan was to take place, the villages in the sub-region, which would be prioritized, were chosen on the basis of criteria under six headings: number of households, state of technical and social infrastructure, state of the dwelling, vegetal production, animal husbandry, and existence of pastures. The values calculated according to the number of points given to these criteria, were taken as a basis and the “central settlement” was determined for detailed planning work to be carried out within that sub-region. According to the TSBD report, the governorships were informed of the settlements thus determined, their opinion was taken, and as a result of meetings held, some changes were made in the sub-regions of certain provinces; and new sub-regions were determined in other provinces and new fieldwork was carried out. It is also stated in the report that “action plans” were prepared concerning the public investments proposed for sub-regions for which plans and supra-level plans were prepared, and that the institution to make the investment, the settlement where the investment should be made, the type, the priority, and the cost of the investment were specified one by one.
The “sub-regional development plans” commissioned by the GAP Administration to the TSBD have not been implemented yet. It is also stated that within the framework of the cooperation held between the UN and the Turkish government on internal displacement, the data from the reports was also discussed in meetings, but that, at that stage, the TGYONA data and findings that were about to be made public were of great importance, but that the findings of the TSBD research were by then out-of-date.
9.2. The HIPS Research
Within the framework of the cooperation initiated in 2003 with the UN and the European Commission on the issue of IDPs, the Turkish government decided that new research needed to be undertaken in order to establish the current state of returns and the dimensions of outstanding issues.
Collecting data on the number of IDPs and the problems affecting them was among the recommendations that the former Representative made in his report.111 The
government assigned this task to HIPS, which started working on the TGYONA Project in December 2004.112 The project was supposed to be concluded in February
2006 but was extended to June 2006.
The objective of TGYONA was established as collecting data through a survey to be carried out in the 14 provinces within the scope of the RVRP, where there was a significant amount of migration and internal displacement (Adıyaman, Ağrı, Batman, Bingöl, Bitlis, Diyarbakır, Elazığ, Hakkâri, Mardin, Muş, Siirt, Şırnak, Tunceli, and Van), and in the provinces which received a large number of migrants from the former.113
The project’s goal was declared to be the determination of several figures: the numerical dimension and the reasons of the post-1990 migration, which occurred throughout Turkey, but especially in Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia; the demographical structure of the region and of population movements in the region; the destination preferences of migrants; and the problems encountered by migrants in their new places of settlement and their adaptation to these places, and other problems that they encounter.
In 2004, HIPS carried out a pre-project work concerning the objectives and the scope of this project, the population targeted by the research, and what the research strategies and activities should be. HIPS presented these preparations for debate at a working meeting on 16 July 2004 attended by the relevant public institutions, academics, NGOs, and representatives from international institutions.
At a meeting held on 4 March 2005, again with the participation of relevant public institutions, academics, NGOs, and representatives from international institutions, the project was officially presented, developments regarding the project were reported, and activities to be carried out by the end of 2005 were presented and opened to debate with participants.114
At that meeting, it was stated that during the fieldwork the following information would be collected: 1) basic information on all of the population that migrated from
112 TGYONA was carried out by a team of HIPS academics. The Director of TGYONA was the HIPS Director, Prof. Sabahat Tezcan. Assoc. Prof. Turgay Ünalan was responsible for technical matters, Assoc. Prof. İsmet Koç for the questionnaire design, Assoc. Prof. Banu Ergöçmen and İlknur Yüksel for the quantitative work, and Dr. Sinan Türkyılmaz for the sampling and fieldwork. However, following the release of the report “The Problem of Internally Displaced Persons in Turkey: Assessments and Proposed Solutions,” Aker et al. (2005), by the TESEV Working Group on 28 October 2005, Turgay Ünalan, who was also a part of this team, was dismissed from his post at TGYONA by the Hacettepe University. For more detailed information on this subject, see Kurban et al. (2006).
113 This article presents information on TGYONA that was made public after October 2005 (such as information on quantitative work, field work, contents of question forms, and headings of the report about to be released) and was updated by Deniz Yükseker, member of the TESEV Working Group, in the light of presentations held by HIPS officials at the “Conference on Internally Displaced Persons” organized collaboratively on 23 February 2006 by the UNDP and the Ministry of Interior.
114 The presentations held during the introduction meeting can be found at TGYONA’s web site: (http://www. hips.hacettepe.edu.tr/tgyona/sunum.htm).
provinces in the scope of the RVRP; 2) demographic and socio-economic information on IDPs; and 3) detailed information on the population who were included in the definition of IDPs as a sub-group and who were obliged to leave their villages/places of residence within the last 20 years or so because of armed clashes in the region. It was emphasized in the presentations, that within the above described sub-group, information would be gathered on both people who had returned to their villages, and people who had not returned and who continued to live in cities; and that particular attention would be paid so that men and women would be represented equally and different age groups would be covered during the interviews with IDPs. In order to estimate for the first time in this project the quantitative dimension of internal displacement, various publications, reports, and data resources were reviewed. As the existing resources do not permit for the direct estimation of the number of IDPs, in this first stage a general analysis was carried out by HIPS concerning, not only IDPs, but the general internal migration movements in Turkey in the last 20 years.115 It was stated by Ünalan that in the later stages of the project, first
quantitative and then qualitative approaches would be used to collect information and data on IDPs, both within and outside of the region.
At the meeting on 4 March 2005, it was stated that the 1985, 1990, and 2000 general censuses, the 1997 population assessment, the 1993, 1998, and 2003 “Turkey Population and Health Research” studies, and statistics carried out on this subject by the Ministry of Interior would be analysed. Furthermore, the findings of small or large scale researches carried out in regions where a significant amount of migration occurred in this period and the reports by domestic and international NGOs would be assessed.
The reason for migration was asked for the first time (to people who had changed their places of residence in the last five years) during the 2000 census. Questions regarding a change of place of residence within the last five years were asked of all household members of and above 5 years of age for the first time during the 2003 “Turkey Demographic and Health Survey” by HIPS. It was declared in the introduction meeting that a detailed analysis of this data will be carried out as part of TGYONA.
As a result of these activities, TGYONA aimed at obtaining quantitative evaluations concerning people subjected to internal migration after 1980, analysis of the reasons for the internal migration (data permitting), and findings regarding the changes that internal displacement has undergone over the years and regarding its distribution from a geographical point of view. Besides internal displacement, it is probable that migration movements arising from other reasons, principally economic ones, are also expected to be included within the overall migration movements in the region.
The establishment of overall migration movements would form a basis for the determination of the highest possible number of IDPs and for the assessment of whether the number of 1 to 4 million estimated by various NGOs and international organisations is realistic or not.116
In the second stage of the project, qualitative work was carried out in which in depth interviews were held with people who live in places which had received intensive migration over the last 20 years from Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia, in villages where returns have taken place, and in large provinces of Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia. As part of this stage, in depth interviews were held with 70 IDPs living in Diyarbakır, Batman, Van, Istanbul, Adana, and Mersin.117 In a meeting organized
by HIPS on 4 May 2005, the objective of the qualitative work was described as the collection of in depth information on the future expectations, the willingness to return, and the reasons for unwillingness to return of individuals who have settled in new places of residence; on the degree to which the expectations of IDPs who have returned to their villages have been met; on how IDPs dealt with the decision to return; on IDPs’ problems regarding health, education ,and accommodation, as well