Ecology Association vs Diyarbakir Governorship (Intervening: Transatlantic Petroleum, LLC)

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 (Transatlantic Petroleum), 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. On October 21, 2024, 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 plaintiffs 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. Consequently, human health will also be negatively affected. The plaintiffs argue that the “EIA not required” decision by the Diyarbakır Governorship contradicts the opinion of expert institutions that there might be a threat to agricultural production and that an EIA process should be carried out. The plaintiffs also refer to several legal bases. 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 plaintiffs also suggest that the project contradicts with the national goals set by the “Ecosystem Based Adaptation Strategy for the Anatolian Steppe Ecosystems” which was decreed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forests. The court assigned a commission of experts regarding the case, and the report of the commission was in favor of the plaintiffs and advised the court that the EIA process is needed for the project. Consequently, the court decided in favor of the plaintiffs.