Diyarbakir Bar Association & Ecology Association vs. Diyarbakir Governorship

The case has been filed against the Diyarbakır Governorship, for the suspension of execution and annulment of the decision of “EIA not required”, issued about an oil exploration and drilling project. While the project belongs to a private company, the regulations require an EIA procedure, and the procedure was conducted by the local governorship. According to the Turkish EIA regulation, an EIA is required for some oil projects and expert examination is needed for some projects to determine whether an EIA is required. The exploration and drilling project (Permit No: AR/PRT/K/M45-C) of Çalık Petroleum Exploration and Production Company in Diyarbakir, Bismil, Harmanli Village 112 block 2 plot, which is in question, belongs to the second group. The Diyarbakır Governorship issued a decision that EIA is not required for the project. The claimants argue that the decision of “EIA not required” was unlawful. The claimants refer to several grounds to support their argument. First, they refer to the seismic tests. When searching for oil, a series of explosions are often used to understand what is underground. This is called a seismic test. The claimants argue that seismic testing destroys wildlife and soil. Second, when searching for oil, taking into account that the substances used in drilling wells are toxic and that the debris carried to the surface during drilling contains radioactive minerals and heavy metals, agricultural areas, underground and surface waters will be in danger. In addition, toxic liquids coming out of the ground because of the exploration activity will mix with the air, soil, underground water and other water resources. Heavy metals in the fluids brought to the surface will also negatively affect agricultural and animal husbandry activities. Consequently, human health will also be negatively affected. The claimants argue that the “EIA not required” decision by the Diyarbakır Governorship, contradict the opinion of expert institutions that there might be a threat to agricultural production and that an EIA process should be carried out. There are water wells and agricultural areas under and around the oil field. Again, in the institution's opinions, due to the water wells around, great care should be taken, and all necessary examinations should be carried out. The claimants also refer to several legal bases. Claimants refer to the National Water Board of Turkey which was recently established by the Presidential Decree on November 29, 2023. This oil exploration and extraction activity is clearly against this decree, Considering that every place has recently been declared an oil exploration and extraction area, water resources are being endangered and that this decree, in other words, the state’s purposes, is being violated. In addition, they refer to the conditions in Annex 50, as required by Article 46/3 of the Turkish Petroleum Law Implementation Regulation stating that the conditions have not been met. Many of the other conditions in Annex 50 have also not been met. Many of the special permits, planning required by Article 48/2 and Articles 6 and 9, as well as the documents required by Article 24 of the Turkish Petroleum Law, are missing. The claimants also suggest that hundreds of mining and oil projects have been launched in Bismil and Diyarbakir in recent months, there is no cumulative impact assessment in the introduction file. It is argued that in the file, the real impact of this project on humans and the environment, as has not been taken into consideration. It has been stated that "the project implementer will undertake to take sufficient precautions in such cases during the activity" against the most critical hazardous issues. However, scientific planning and activities have not been concretized. They also assert that in the project area, there are wildlife forms which are protected by the Bern Convention of The Council of Europe. Second, the Claimants argue that the oil exploration and extraction activities are also contrary to the global climate goals that Turkey is a party to. They state that the greenhouse gases resulting from the use of oil create a heat-trapping effect in the atmosphere and cause climate change. Turkey, in accordance with many international agreements, especially the Paris Climate Agreement, to which it is a party, is obliged to limit the temperature increase to 2 degrees and contribute to the mitigation against climate change. And the only way to do this is to reduce carbon emissions, in other words, to exit fossil fuels. They also refer to the most recent climate adaptation strategy document of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, namely "Ecosystem-Based Adaptation Strategy to Climate Change for Anatolian Steppe Ecosystems" dated July 6, 2022. The Strategy Document, which covers agriculture, pastures and meadows, inland waters and forests for the period 2022-2036, aims to: • Increase resilience in ecosystems that are and will be negatively affected by climate change, • Make rural population resistant to climate with improved agricultural economy, • Increase carbon sink potential. The Claimants put forward, however, the activity in question will serve to increase global warming by polluting water and agricultural resources and paving the way for fossil fuel use. In other words, they argue that the current activity is clearly in conflict with Turkish national plans. Therefore, Claimants argue that the project which bears all those risks mentioned above can’t be exempted from the Environmental Impact Assessment. The Claimants state that the project should be annulled altogether but even if it continues to exist, because an Environmental Impact Assessment procedure is scientifically essential, the decision of “EIA not required” should be annulled. On June 4, 2023, the Court decided to appoint an independent expert committee for an exploration of the field to prepare an expert opinion. The committee completed the explorations on June 26, 2024 and issued its report July 23, 2024, which is contrary to the arguments of the Claimant. The Court’s decision is pending.