Water Crisis or Political Crisis?
The year 2025 was extremely dry, and despite the arrival of winter, the reservoirs supplying drinking and domestic water to many of our provinces and districts remain depleted. Water rationing programmes are in place in some areas. Water security risks exist in many cities across our country, including our three major cities.
Nowadays, statements made about the current situation on many issues often tend towards generalisation or reductionism. However, this approach does not seem to be very helpful in better understanding and resolving the issues. A roadmap based on approaches that focus on cause-and-effect and means-end relationships is needed. This need is growing day by day for water management.
2025 was a very dry year, and the drinking and domestic water reservoirs in many of our provinces and districts are still empty. Water rationing programmes are also in place in some areas. Many cities in our country, including our three major cities, are at risk in terms of water security. Furthermore, we are waiting for rain in irrigation reservoirs and irrigation ponds. Rainfall in October and November was below normal in Central Anatolia and Southeastern Anatolia. These conditions necessitate that water management plan and implement a series of measures now to prevent a possible crisis by conducting risk analysis. The alternative is simply to wait for rainy days.
The task of water management in our country is to have the capacity to manage this uncertainty and to manage it in the most effective way. This requires the implementation of a process that extends from policy to application.
Strategic Management Process
The most consistent, widespread and logical hierarchical flow of a public policy cycle and strategic management process is Policy, Strategy, Programme, Plan, Implementation.
Because first you determine your general direction, principles and objectives. Then you develop your strategy on how to implement this policy. You prepare a programme with the concrete headings of this strategy. You carry out the time, resource, benefit and financial planning for this programme. Then you try to achieve your goal by putting it into practice.
The first step is to develop a policy. Water Policy is defined as the preferred basic determinations and practices for water management. Work then begins on the other steps. In order to be successful in the areas of economic efficiency, social equity and environmental sustainability in water management, your fundamental policy preferences must be clearly stated. You strive to implement this policy within a chain of strategy, programme, plan and implementation. For this, your legal infrastructure must be complete, your institutional infrastructure highly developed, your stakeholders strong, and your system operational.
Currently, there is a multi-headed, fragmented and poorly coordinated institutional structure in water management. This situation can be considered one of the main reasons for failure in water management. In addition, socio-political pressures are one of the most powerful influences that divert established water policies from their plans.
Populism and Institutional Capacity
Populist policies also hinder the sustainable management of water services based on the concept of public service. It is crucial to renew the deep-rooted institutional structures in water management, develop their capacity in line with needs, and train human resources. Without this, the system becomes inefficient, begins to deteriorate, and wears down all its components and areas of activity.
Populist policies and socio-political pressure erode institutional capacity from within, erase its memory, weaken its institutional reflexes and narrow its sphere of influence.
Water management has long been an area that requires the collective wisdom of many professions (economics, ecology, international relations, climatology, meteorology, etc.), not just the engineering discipline. It has become imperative that the workforce involved in water management be trained with a multidisciplinary or even transdisciplinary approach. To keep pace with developments in this field, we must move beyond the conventional understanding of both water management and water use. Meanwhile, conflicts of authority between water service providers and the reflexes of these institutions to protect and expand their spheres of influence, rather than fostering a culture of collaboration, also hinder progress. Furthermore, due to the lack of an effective institutional infrastructure at the basin level, we are unable to integrate and implement decisions taken at the provincial level in water management with a holistic approach at the basin level.
The Need for Innovative Approaches
Today, beyond other pressures, numerous innovative approaches are needed in water management simply to sustainably manage the uncertainties created by climate change. The national water plan mentions the effective participation of civil society in the decisions to be taken, but in practice, no steps have been taken in this regard. In short, a radical revolution in thinking is essential for economically, ecologically, and socially sustainable water management. In conclusion, what we are experiencing in this area is more related to a policy crisis than a water crisis.
