necessary conditions to participate in the process, failed. Hence the locals adopted
alternative methods such as protests and legal struggles to influence the HEPP
process.
By analysing these protests and legal struggles, the fourth element of meaningful
participation, which examines the State’s efforts to ensure the participation of
locals, can be assessed. Instances of this component can be found in the
pre-construction and construction stages of the HEPP. It can be seen here that the
locals did not face pressure or obstructions by the state institutions. However, state
institutions did not make much effort to ensure their participation either. At least, by
examining locals’ claims about the EIA meetings, it can be seen that the participation of locals was not achieved in practice, and the process was not managed
properly. Concerning this HEPP case, there is not much to say about the State’s
efforts to ensure public participation, which is implied in the process itself, but the
situation can be clarified by the anecdotes provided by two volunteers from Fethiye,
who took part in this HEPP process and attended these EIA meetings. Accordingly,
one NGO representative describes the EIA-bound meetings convened in this basin
as follows:
They announced the meeting there [referring to the first meeting conducted in Esen] in a
newspaper distributed in Muğla [referring to the fact that the locals may not have access to
that newspaper since it is distributed in a limited area], so it is obvious that they tried to
conceal something. Once we went there, we slowly understood. The man in front of us was
an engineer, the company employee. [He was] very annoyed, very nervous. He was
chewing gum, was talking slowly. [We asked] how many trees will be cut down? He does
not know. How much excavation will be carried out? He does not know. How long will the
construction continue? He does not know. So, there is a trick there…He said like we will do
this, nothing is going to happen, in fact, the water will rise a little bit, nothing else will
happen etc.
An independent activist also describes these meetings:
We attended [those meetings]. At the beginning we thought that these meetings may be
beneficial. We were thinking that the signatures collected there and discussions held would
lead to the right outcome. We then learnt through experience that EIA meetings were used
by the companies during the legal processes to prove that they had actually informed the
local people. The public consultation process is superficial. We learnt how these reports and
discussions held there were just token as follows: Many of these meetings are conducted
under the supervision of the Ministry of Forestry [and Water Affairs]. We saw that the
official reports did not reflect the complaints made there; on the contrary, we saw that the
language of these reports was quite positive [about the project]. In fact, in one of those
meetings, I asked for a copy of the official record, which NGO representatives and/or
mukhtars may request on behalf of the participants, but the guy did not want to give it…For
this reason, we witnessed that at many places, public servants act maliciously in favour of
the companies. We realized that these meetings are not useful.
The anecdotal accounts and group interviews reviewed above affirmed that the
processes supposed to ensure public participation were not adequate to convince
people. On the contrary, they led to further suspicion about the HEPP project in the
local people’s minds. In addition to this information, local activists and NGO
representatives also praised the efforts of the mukhtars of this basin in the HEPP
9 Exploring Environmental Justice: Meaningful Participation …
149
alternative methods such as protests and legal struggles to influence the HEPP
process.
By analysing these protests and legal struggles, the fourth element of meaningful
participation, which examines the State’s efforts to ensure the participation of
locals, can be assessed. Instances of this component can be found in the
pre-construction and construction stages of the HEPP. It can be seen here that the
locals did not face pressure or obstructions by the state institutions. However, state
institutions did not make much effort to ensure their participation either. At least, by
examining locals’ claims about the EIA meetings, it can be seen that the participation of locals was not achieved in practice, and the process was not managed
properly. Concerning this HEPP case, there is not much to say about the State’s
efforts to ensure public participation, which is implied in the process itself, but the
situation can be clarified by the anecdotes provided by two volunteers from Fethiye,
who took part in this HEPP process and attended these EIA meetings. Accordingly,
one NGO representative describes the EIA-bound meetings convened in this basin
as follows:
They announced the meeting there [referring to the first meeting conducted in Esen] in a
newspaper distributed in Muğla [referring to the fact that the locals may not have access to
that newspaper since it is distributed in a limited area], so it is obvious that they tried to
conceal something. Once we went there, we slowly understood. The man in front of us was
an engineer, the company employee. [He was] very annoyed, very nervous. He was
chewing gum, was talking slowly. [We asked] how many trees will be cut down? He does
not know. How much excavation will be carried out? He does not know. How long will the
construction continue? He does not know. So, there is a trick there…He said like we will do
this, nothing is going to happen, in fact, the water will rise a little bit, nothing else will
happen etc.
An independent activist also describes these meetings:
We attended [those meetings]. At the beginning we thought that these meetings may be
beneficial. We were thinking that the signatures collected there and discussions held would
lead to the right outcome. We then learnt through experience that EIA meetings were used
by the companies during the legal processes to prove that they had actually informed the
local people. The public consultation process is superficial. We learnt how these reports and
discussions held there were just token as follows: Many of these meetings are conducted
under the supervision of the Ministry of Forestry [and Water Affairs]. We saw that the
official reports did not reflect the complaints made there; on the contrary, we saw that the
language of these reports was quite positive [about the project]. In fact, in one of those
meetings, I asked for a copy of the official record, which NGO representatives and/or
mukhtars may request on behalf of the participants, but the guy did not want to give it…For
this reason, we witnessed that at many places, public servants act maliciously in favour of
the companies. We realized that these meetings are not useful.
The anecdotal accounts and group interviews reviewed above affirmed that the
processes supposed to ensure public participation were not adequate to convince
people. On the contrary, they led to further suspicion about the HEPP project in the
local people’s minds. In addition to this information, local activists and NGO
representatives also praised the efforts of the mukhtars of this basin in the HEPP
9 Exploring Environmental Justice: Meaningful Participation …
149