particularly in Esen, which may be because the first EIA meeting was convened in
this village, the participation of which was ‘high’ according to Group Interview 2.
The Group 2 participants additionally maintained that people from neighbouring
villages also showed interest in this first meeting, as corroborated by, for example,
the participants of Group Interview 1. The participants of Group Interview 2
claimed that the meeting was ‘tense’. In their contention, the informants were
nervous, and the locals became nervous when the informants refrained from disclosing the potential harms of the HEPP construction. One of the participants of
Group Interview 2 also stated that the DSI and EPDK officials present at that
meeting sided with the company, which further annoyed the locals.
1
The second EIA meeting was conducted one day after the previous one in April
2010 in Palamut Village, where Group Interview 4 was conducted. The participants
of Group Interview 3 stated that they (and other people from that village) attended
this meeting, and the informants constantly told them that the village would not be
damaged, and that the minimum water flow, i.e. 10% as determined by the water
use rights agreements, would always be assured by the company. No reference was
made to the potential harmful impacts of the project. The participants of Group
Interview 4 emphasized that the company promised to repair their irrigation canals,
which had not been repaired and activated by the state for over 60 years. The
participants also highlighted that the landowners, whose lands would be expropriated and inundated by the small reservoir associated with HEPP, were not offered
any alternatives.
These two meetings were not the only ones conducted for the potential HEPP
construction in Saklikent, however. One local administrator in the stream’s basin
mentioned another meeting undertaken in Kas, which is around 50 km away from
the basin. He said that a state institution conducted this meeting in November 2011,
when the benefits of the potential HEPP constructions were described. Videos of
that meeting (see Facebook page of Fethiye Saklikent Koruma Platformu [Fethiye
Saklikent Conservation Platform, FSKP]) confirm his account. It is important to
note that this meeting was not undertaken within the EIA process. According to this
local administrator, at this meeting, the recommendations of the local people were
immediately “opposed and repelled” by the officials. He maintained that the entire
meeting was based on notions of the “commercial benefits of HEPPs” and “their
contributions to the villages”, while these benefits were “not persuasive”, “quite
rhetorical”, and “not bound to any protocol”. Like the majority of the participants of
the group interviews cited above, he also highlighted that it was the volunteers who
actually tried to inform the locals about these projects and provided a more convincing account of the whole HEPP process. As a result, the locals committed
themselves to conducting protests and initiating the legal fight against the HEPP.
1
According to the EIA by-law, state institutions should monitor the meetings, which is the reason
why these officials were present at that meeting. Here the participant notes that, instead of
observing the meeting impartially, the state representatives were backing the company’s arguments
during the meeting, which contravened their remit and consequently annoyed the locals.
9 Exploring Environmental Justice: Meaningful Participation …
147
this village, the participation of which was ‘high’ according to Group Interview 2.
The Group 2 participants additionally maintained that people from neighbouring
villages also showed interest in this first meeting, as corroborated by, for example,
the participants of Group Interview 1. The participants of Group Interview 2
claimed that the meeting was ‘tense’. In their contention, the informants were
nervous, and the locals became nervous when the informants refrained from disclosing the potential harms of the HEPP construction. One of the participants of
Group Interview 2 also stated that the DSI and EPDK officials present at that
meeting sided with the company, which further annoyed the locals.
1
The second EIA meeting was conducted one day after the previous one in April
2010 in Palamut Village, where Group Interview 4 was conducted. The participants
of Group Interview 3 stated that they (and other people from that village) attended
this meeting, and the informants constantly told them that the village would not be
damaged, and that the minimum water flow, i.e. 10% as determined by the water
use rights agreements, would always be assured by the company. No reference was
made to the potential harmful impacts of the project. The participants of Group
Interview 4 emphasized that the company promised to repair their irrigation canals,
which had not been repaired and activated by the state for over 60 years. The
participants also highlighted that the landowners, whose lands would be expropriated and inundated by the small reservoir associated with HEPP, were not offered
any alternatives.
These two meetings were not the only ones conducted for the potential HEPP
construction in Saklikent, however. One local administrator in the stream’s basin
mentioned another meeting undertaken in Kas, which is around 50 km away from
the basin. He said that a state institution conducted this meeting in November 2011,
when the benefits of the potential HEPP constructions were described. Videos of
that meeting (see Facebook page of Fethiye Saklikent Koruma Platformu [Fethiye
Saklikent Conservation Platform, FSKP]) confirm his account. It is important to
note that this meeting was not undertaken within the EIA process. According to this
local administrator, at this meeting, the recommendations of the local people were
immediately “opposed and repelled” by the officials. He maintained that the entire
meeting was based on notions of the “commercial benefits of HEPPs” and “their
contributions to the villages”, while these benefits were “not persuasive”, “quite
rhetorical”, and “not bound to any protocol”. Like the majority of the participants of
the group interviews cited above, he also highlighted that it was the volunteers who
actually tried to inform the locals about these projects and provided a more convincing account of the whole HEPP process. As a result, the locals committed
themselves to conducting protests and initiating the legal fight against the HEPP.
1
According to the EIA by-law, state institutions should monitor the meetings, which is the reason
why these officials were present at that meeting. Here the participant notes that, instead of
observing the meeting impartially, the state representatives were backing the company’s arguments
during the meeting, which contravened their remit and consequently annoyed the locals.
9 Exploring Environmental Justice: Meaningful Participation …
147