They are used to justify the centralized and top-down nature of the HEPP process
by these key actors. However, most importantly, this understanding paves the way
for the creation of controversial legal frameworks which permit HEPP constructions
in sensitive environments and non-inclusive HEPPs. Any action boosting development is justified under these circumstances, in which public consent and participation are not necessarily required to be sought – see key legislation, including
but not limited to the Law on Expropriation (No. 2942, 1983), the Law on
Resettlement (No. 5543, 2006), the 2003 By-law on Water Use Right Agreements
and the 2005 Law on Renewables as well as environmental acts including the Law
on Forestry (No. 6831, 1956), providing numerous exceptions which allow construction on ecologically and socially sensitive and vulnerable areas.
9.6 Concluding Remarks
It could be claimed that the non-participative approaches present in HEPP processes
come from the modernist legacies of nationalism and developmentalism in Turkish
politics. Analyses of the local HEPP process showed that the locals did not accept
these modernist legacies, or the non-inclusive HEPP process itself. The Saklıkent
case and some others analysed by Hamsici (2010), Islar (2012a, b), and Aksu et al.
(2016) also display the fact that locals were against the non-inclusive operation of
the HEPP process. The local interviewees demonstrated that they wanted to
meaningfully participate in HEPP processes, as these might significantly impact
their lives. However, due to the modernist legacies embedded in Turkish politics, a
degree of meaningful participation has not been achieved within the official process.
This is despite the existence of a relevant legal framework in the Turkish legal
system, especially within the EIA by-laws. Instead, in the case studies, meaningful
participation was obtained through the locals’ own efforts (see Hamsici, 2010 for
numerous similar cases in Turkey). This malfunction of the meaningful participation element in HEPP processes can be concluded through an independent local
activist’s explanation, in which he criticized the entire HEPP process and the
administration’s reluctance to include local people in HEPP processes, while
underlining the will and role of the locals in the achievement of their meaningful
participation:
The official part of the story [referring to the State] does not make any effort to protect
[people and the nature]. Everything is lumbered on the people who will be affected by those
projects. They become their own engineers, their own academics, their own peasants, their
own farmers, their own protesters and their own environmentalists.
156
R. C. Sayan and A. Kibaroğlu
by these key actors. However, most importantly, this understanding paves the way
for the creation of controversial legal frameworks which permit HEPP constructions
in sensitive environments and non-inclusive HEPPs. Any action boosting development is justified under these circumstances, in which public consent and participation are not necessarily required to be sought – see key legislation, including
but not limited to the Law on Expropriation (No. 2942, 1983), the Law on
Resettlement (No. 5543, 2006), the 2003 By-law on Water Use Right Agreements
and the 2005 Law on Renewables as well as environmental acts including the Law
on Forestry (No. 6831, 1956), providing numerous exceptions which allow construction on ecologically and socially sensitive and vulnerable areas.
9.6 Concluding Remarks
It could be claimed that the non-participative approaches present in HEPP processes
come from the modernist legacies of nationalism and developmentalism in Turkish
politics. Analyses of the local HEPP process showed that the locals did not accept
these modernist legacies, or the non-inclusive HEPP process itself. The Saklıkent
case and some others analysed by Hamsici (2010), Islar (2012a, b), and Aksu et al.
(2016) also display the fact that locals were against the non-inclusive operation of
the HEPP process. The local interviewees demonstrated that they wanted to
meaningfully participate in HEPP processes, as these might significantly impact
their lives. However, due to the modernist legacies embedded in Turkish politics, a
degree of meaningful participation has not been achieved within the official process.
This is despite the existence of a relevant legal framework in the Turkish legal
system, especially within the EIA by-laws. Instead, in the case studies, meaningful
participation was obtained through the locals’ own efforts (see Hamsici, 2010 for
numerous similar cases in Turkey). This malfunction of the meaningful participation element in HEPP processes can be concluded through an independent local
activist’s explanation, in which he criticized the entire HEPP process and the
administration’s reluctance to include local people in HEPP processes, while
underlining the will and role of the locals in the achievement of their meaningful
participation:
The official part of the story [referring to the State] does not make any effort to protect
[people and the nature]. Everything is lumbered on the people who will be affected by those
projects. They become their own engineers, their own academics, their own peasants, their
own farmers, their own protesters and their own environmentalists.
156
R. C. Sayan and A. Kibaroğlu