Electricity Market Regulatory Authority (EPDK) [Enerji Piyasasi Duzenleme
Kurumu] on 30 April 2013. This was approved by EPDK on 26 May 2013,
meaning that the company withdrew from the process (Evrensel, 2013).
9.4 Meaningful Participation and Saklıkent HEPP
To analyse the HEPP process of Saklıkent, it is first necessary to look at the
planning and tendering and licensing processes to make an initial analysis of the
meaningful participation of local communities and nature. The proposed HEPP was
licensed in December 2008, and the licensed company convened the two
EIA-bound meetings in the villages neighbouring the construction site in April
2010 (see Demir, 2011). This shows that this HEPP had already been planned,
implemented, evaluated, approved, and licensed before December 2008, since these
steps need to be completed prior to licensing (see the 2003 By-Law). A water use
rights agreement between the state and company had also been signed before this
date, according to the By-Law (2003). This implies that the majority of the processes required for the above steps were undertaken without public participation.
Accordingly, it can be stated that the state institutions and company were the only
participants in the majority of this HEPP process.
It can be claimed that the local community was, in theory, included into the
HEPP process during the EIA phase. In the Saklıkent basin, there were two
EIA-bound meetings conducted by the company before it attempted to initiate the
construction, since this HEPP fell under Annex I of the EIA by-laws (2008, 2013,
2014), requiring the company to obtain EIA clearance by going through an EIA
process. As previously stated, the first element of meaningful participation is
considering local communities and including them in the policy processes. To
evaluate whether the locals were included to the HEPP process or not, and the
degree of representation of their concerns and recommendations, it is essential to
analyse how they were informed about the process and the EIA meetings.
The participants of Focus Group Interview 1 at Demirler Village claimed that it
was their mukhtar (village head) who mentioned the potential HEPP construction
around the village. They maintained that the mukhtar had immediately communicated with the volunteers in Fethiye, as a result of which the legal struggle was
initiated. These participants reported that locals came across the company
employees when they were reportedly conducting feasibility measurements in the
area prior to the construction process (Focus Group Interview 1). One environmental activist from Fethiye added that the mukhtar coincidentally encountered the
company representatives, whom he knew from the EIA meeting (the first meeting
detailed below), and they had a confrontation there, after which mukhtar took a
proactive role against HEPPs in his village.
In Focus Group Interview 2, conducted in the neighbouring village, Esen, the
EIA-related meeting was indicated as the first occasion when locals were officially
informed about the potential HEPP construction. This meeting was mentioned
146
R. C. Sayan and A. Kibaroğlu
Kurumu] on 30 April 2013. This was approved by EPDK on 26 May 2013,
meaning that the company withdrew from the process (Evrensel, 2013).
9.4 Meaningful Participation and Saklıkent HEPP
To analyse the HEPP process of Saklıkent, it is first necessary to look at the
planning and tendering and licensing processes to make an initial analysis of the
meaningful participation of local communities and nature. The proposed HEPP was
licensed in December 2008, and the licensed company convened the two
EIA-bound meetings in the villages neighbouring the construction site in April
2010 (see Demir, 2011). This shows that this HEPP had already been planned,
implemented, evaluated, approved, and licensed before December 2008, since these
steps need to be completed prior to licensing (see the 2003 By-Law). A water use
rights agreement between the state and company had also been signed before this
date, according to the By-Law (2003). This implies that the majority of the processes required for the above steps were undertaken without public participation.
Accordingly, it can be stated that the state institutions and company were the only
participants in the majority of this HEPP process.
It can be claimed that the local community was, in theory, included into the
HEPP process during the EIA phase. In the Saklıkent basin, there were two
EIA-bound meetings conducted by the company before it attempted to initiate the
construction, since this HEPP fell under Annex I of the EIA by-laws (2008, 2013,
2014), requiring the company to obtain EIA clearance by going through an EIA
process. As previously stated, the first element of meaningful participation is
considering local communities and including them in the policy processes. To
evaluate whether the locals were included to the HEPP process or not, and the
degree of representation of their concerns and recommendations, it is essential to
analyse how they were informed about the process and the EIA meetings.
The participants of Focus Group Interview 1 at Demirler Village claimed that it
was their mukhtar (village head) who mentioned the potential HEPP construction
around the village. They maintained that the mukhtar had immediately communicated with the volunteers in Fethiye, as a result of which the legal struggle was
initiated. These participants reported that locals came across the company
employees when they were reportedly conducting feasibility measurements in the
area prior to the construction process (Focus Group Interview 1). One environmental activist from Fethiye added that the mukhtar coincidentally encountered the
company representatives, whom he knew from the EIA meeting (the first meeting
detailed below), and they had a confrontation there, after which mukhtar took a
proactive role against HEPPs in his village.
In Focus Group Interview 2, conducted in the neighbouring village, Esen, the
EIA-related meeting was indicated as the first occasion when locals were officially
informed about the potential HEPP construction. This meeting was mentioned
146
R. C. Sayan and A. Kibaroğlu