Diyarbakır Barosu & Ekoloji Derneği vs. Diyarbakır Valiliği

The case has been filed against Diyarbakır Governership, for the suspension of execution and annulment of the decision of “EIA not required”, issued about an oil exploration and extraction project. According to the Turkish regulation of EIA, an EIA is required for some oil projects and expert examination is needed to determine whether an EIA is required. The exploration and drilling project (Permit No: "AR/TPO/K/L42-c1,c3,c4) of TPAO (Turkish Petroleum)in Diyarbakir, Cermik, Petekkaya Village 154 block 18 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 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 seriously negatively affected. The claimants argue that the “EIA not required” the decision issued by the Diyarbakır Governorship 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. Nonetheless, the claimants note that hundreds of mining and oil projects have been launched in Cermik and Diyarbakir area in recent months, without any cumulative impact assessment in the introduction file. In the product introduction file, it was stated that only 3 tons of caustic chemicals would be used and tens of tons of different chemicals would also be used. TPAO, established a financial responsibility insurance for potential hazards which means the dangers mentioned above are most probable. Also, the area of the project is an agricultural area. Food security is a growing issue worldwide and projects which are threats to agriculture are also threatening food security. The Claimants assert that there are houses and people living as close as 178 meters from the project area, with wells, pastures and agricultural areas close by. 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. In its opinion regarding the field of activity, DSI (State Hydraulic Works) stated that the area was surrounded by drilling wells and indicated that water analyses should be conducted. In addition, DSI stated that the opinion of the 15th Regional Directorate regarding the nearby dam should be obtained, thus revealing the danger. However, surface waters were not mentioned in the introduction file. Claimants further 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, and water resources are being endangered. Furthermore, there are wildlife forms protected by the Bern Convention of The Council of Europe in the project area. Animals like “Night Frog”, “Thin and Broad-Toed Lizard”, “Field Lizard”, “Evening Bat” are endemic to the area, and they are protected by the convention. In addition, 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 GHGs 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 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 GHG emissions, and stop exploiting fossil fuels. The activity in question will serve to increase global warming by polluting water and agricultural resources and paving the way for fossil fuel use. Therefore, Claimants argue that the project which bears all those risks can’t be exempted from an EIA. The claimants state that the project should be annulled or, at the very least, that the decision of “EIA not required” should be annulled. On May 14, 2024, 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 August 10, 2024. The report concluded by majority vote that the ‘EIA not required’ decision is lawful. The Court’s decision is pending.