Mining operations have been ongoing for 17 years on the Hesandin Plateau, located in the Pasûr (Kulp) district of Amed (Diyarbakır), and are being carried out by Kulp Mining and Foreign Trade Inc. The Diyarbakır Bar Association initially received confirmation from the Provincial Directorate of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change that the company’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report was invalid. However, this assessment was later changed upon the company's request.

The company unlawfully acquired an “EIA not required” decision and began exploration in Hesandin. In response, the Diyarbakır Bar Association’s Commission on Environment and Urban Law filed a lawsuit with the Second Administrative Court of Diyarbakır. When the court requested the original report, the Directorate revealed that it had been lost in a flood in 2020.

Lawyer Ahmet Inan, Chair of the Diyarbakır Bar Association’s Commission on Environment and Urban Law, detailed the legal process and commented on the controversial new mining law recently passed by a parliamentary committee.

Company later obtained ‘valid EIA’ decision

Lawyer Ahmet Inan began by noting that the resistance in the Hesandin Plateau was one of the first places where ecological struggle became a social issue in Kurdistan: "There has been a struggle to defend the living environment in Hesandin since last year, and the public is somewhat aware of it. A year ago, this became a widely embraced issue, especially in the context of the ecological struggle in Kurdistan. In fact, it is one of the first places in Kurdistan where ecology became a collective cause.

It became a symbolic space where the participation of local villagers affected by the mine, the solidarity of civil society, and the legal efforts of urban actors all came together to form a comprehensive struggle.

Last year, in response to our written inquiry to the Provincial Directorate of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change, we were told that the EIA report dated back 17 years and that it would be invalid unless operations began within five years.

After our inquiry, the company went to the same Directorate and obtained a completely different response, this time stating that ‘the EIA is valid.’ The administration reversed itself, saying, ‘Sorry, we made a mistake. You started operations within five years, so the report is still valid.’

Here, the administration violated both the principle of good faith and the principle of consistency. The same authority issued two contradictory decisions on the same issue, with no new concrete developments, most likely due to pressure from the company or other undisclosed relationships. A year later, the company resumed operations based on this new ‘EIA is valid’ decision. This year’s resistance was reignited because of this.

As the Diyarbakır Bar Association, we filed a lawsuit to annul this decision. The case is currently being heard by the Second Administrative Court of Diyarbakır."

Court must urgently suspend operations

Ahmet Inan emphasized that it has now been revealed there was no valid EIA report to begin with: "In the lawsuit we filed, the Second Administrative Court requested the EIA report from the Provincial Directorate of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change. The response confirmed that the report no longer exists, it was lost in the 2020 flood.

There is no report, and yet mining activities are being carried out based on a nonexistent EIA. But every aspect of a project, from its geographical coordinates to execution methods, engineering data, blasting documentation, must be defined within the EIA. Without an EIA report, no project should be allowed to proceed. That is why the court must urgently issue a stay of execution.

The Ministry should also launch an investigation into its own departments and stop this activity through its own initiative. There are many examples of irregular EIA processes. These reports are often prepared by private companies, and legal battles follow. But in this case, there is simply no EIA report at all.

What kind of assurance does this company have to proceed with operations under these conditions? How is it possible that the court has not issued a stay of execution? How can the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization declare a missing EIA report to be ‘valid’? This points to a web of corrupt and hidden relationships."

Locals to launch protest camp

Ahmet Inan also underlined that despite everything, the people continue to resist mining activities. He also commented on the draft law recently passed by a parliamentary commission, which includes provisions on mining: "The people are aware and conscious. The village head told us they would set up tents and begin a protest. The community is organized; which is why we know this issue cannot be reduced to a courtroom battle alone. Ecological resistance cannot be waged within four walls. But the legal violations here are so grave that even in a decayed and corrupted judicial system, this should not be allowed under any circumstance.

Yet we all know the current state of the judiciary. Without public pressure, they will do whatever they please. In that sense, we must build a dual mechanism of resistance, both legal and grassroots.

The draft law that recently passed through the parliamentary commission further undermines the status of pastures and forests, renders EIA reports meaningless, and paves the way for capital to implement its projects quickly and without obstacles.

We are also resisting renewable energy projects in Hesandin, particularly solar power plant (GES) initiatives. A legal arrangement that completely nullifies EIA processes for solar energy projects is a direct threat to society, to ecology, to humanity, and to life itself.

It is still unclear whether the law, if passed, will have a retroactive impact on the Hesandin case. But one thing is certain: it will create hundreds of similar situations, open the door to mass plunder, and likely make our struggle even more difficult."