All of the empirical data presented up to this point has demonstrated that the
HEPP process and the relevant legal framework did ostensibly include locals during
the EIA process, after the completion of planning and licensing. However, from the
narratives of these interviewees, it appears that the locals were informed late and
improperly. The potential negatives of the HEPP were concealed from them, and no
alternatives were offered to the villagers apart from the limited expropriation fee.
Most importantly, as indicated by a local administrator, the informants undermined
the comments and recommendations of the locals during this process. This was
confirmed by the other group interviews when they described the EIA process.
Accordingly, it could be said that the locals’ inclusion and recognition in the
Saklıkent HEPP process was limited, consisting only of the EIA meetings.
Furthermore, the representation of their concerns was not ensured in this process, as
indicated by the interviews cited above.
From this point, the analysis can move on to the third element of meaningful
participation, which is whether the local community was able to influence the HEPP
process. It can be purported that locals were able to assert their concerns during the
HEPP process, but not through the EIA meetings and legal framework of HEPPs
which were supposed to ensure their participation. Instead their participation in the
pre-construction process of the HEPP was made meaningful through alternative
ways. As corroborated by the local interviewees, they unilaterally organized a series
of activities to raise awareness of the potential HEPP issue of Saklıkent at local
level, which were also publicized at national level. Interviewees narrated these
activities. They recounted that demonstrations were initiated after the scientists and
volunteers from Fethiye informed them of the potential harms of the HEPPs. The
mukhtars of the basin then collaborated with each other and let each other know
about every single development regarding the HEPP issue, while also using their
contacts in the local branches of the ruling party to transmit their concerns about the
HEPP process to the high-level officials in Ankara. Their actions were confirmed by
the participants of Group Interview 4, in which one of them stated that they even
attended a national protest in Ankara on HEPP issues as the representatives of the
Saklikent HEPP resistance, to make their cause visible at national scale.
Meanwhile, at local scale, marches, protests, informal public information
meetings, and picnics were organized by FSKP.
2 In addition, the concerned villages
also managed to collect the necessary amount of petitions, and initiated court cases
to stop the construction of the Saklıkent HEPP. The EIA clearance, granted in 2012,
was cancelled by a court decision in April 2015.
3 Other cases were never concluded
since the company officially stepped back from the HEPP project in December 2013
due to the public opposition (Evrensel, 2013). All these attempts demonstrated that
the official EIA process, which is supposed to lead to meaningful participation of
the locals to the HEPP process by including them to the process, representing their
comments and recommendations about the HEPPs, and providing them with the
2
The copies of the calls of these activities are filed with the author.
3
The court decision is filed with the author.
148
R. C. Sayan and A. Kibaroğlu
HEPP process and the relevant legal framework did ostensibly include locals during
the EIA process, after the completion of planning and licensing. However, from the
narratives of these interviewees, it appears that the locals were informed late and
improperly. The potential negatives of the HEPP were concealed from them, and no
alternatives were offered to the villagers apart from the limited expropriation fee.
Most importantly, as indicated by a local administrator, the informants undermined
the comments and recommendations of the locals during this process. This was
confirmed by the other group interviews when they described the EIA process.
Accordingly, it could be said that the locals’ inclusion and recognition in the
Saklıkent HEPP process was limited, consisting only of the EIA meetings.
Furthermore, the representation of their concerns was not ensured in this process, as
indicated by the interviews cited above.
From this point, the analysis can move on to the third element of meaningful
participation, which is whether the local community was able to influence the HEPP
process. It can be purported that locals were able to assert their concerns during the
HEPP process, but not through the EIA meetings and legal framework of HEPPs
which were supposed to ensure their participation. Instead their participation in the
pre-construction process of the HEPP was made meaningful through alternative
ways. As corroborated by the local interviewees, they unilaterally organized a series
of activities to raise awareness of the potential HEPP issue of Saklıkent at local
level, which were also publicized at national level. Interviewees narrated these
activities. They recounted that demonstrations were initiated after the scientists and
volunteers from Fethiye informed them of the potential harms of the HEPPs. The
mukhtars of the basin then collaborated with each other and let each other know
about every single development regarding the HEPP issue, while also using their
contacts in the local branches of the ruling party to transmit their concerns about the
HEPP process to the high-level officials in Ankara. Their actions were confirmed by
the participants of Group Interview 4, in which one of them stated that they even
attended a national protest in Ankara on HEPP issues as the representatives of the
Saklikent HEPP resistance, to make their cause visible at national scale.
Meanwhile, at local scale, marches, protests, informal public information
meetings, and picnics were organized by FSKP.
2 In addition, the concerned villages
also managed to collect the necessary amount of petitions, and initiated court cases
to stop the construction of the Saklıkent HEPP. The EIA clearance, granted in 2012,
was cancelled by a court decision in April 2015.
3 Other cases were never concluded
since the company officially stepped back from the HEPP project in December 2013
due to the public opposition (Evrensel, 2013). All these attempts demonstrated that
the official EIA process, which is supposed to lead to meaningful participation of
the locals to the HEPP process by including them to the process, representing their
comments and recommendations about the HEPPs, and providing them with the
2
The copies of the calls of these activities are filed with the author.
3
The court decision is filed with the author.
148
R. C. Sayan and A. Kibaroğlu