Istanbul Deputy Rızvanoğlu: “The Mining Law Proposal is Unconstitutional!”

Istanbul MP Evrim Rızvanoğlu criticized the omnibus bill, known as the "Super Permit Law," which has resumed debate, at a press conference held in the Turkish Grand National Assembly. Rızvanoğlu stated that the bill would bypass environmental protection mechanisms and called for its withdrawal, stating, "This is not only a threat to nature but also to the rule of law."

Rızvanoğlu stated that the omnibus proposal not only violates Articles 56 and 169 of the Constitution, but also Türkiye's national and international commitments, such as the 12th Development Plan, OECD targets, and the United Nations Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN).

“This is a Licensing Regime”

MP Rızvanoğlu described the regulation as a licensing regime, emphasizing that the proposal would open forests, olive groves, pastures, and water basins to mining without any scientific evaluation or public participation. He said, “Because this proposal aims to eliminate all control and protection mechanisms over nature and to open forests, olive groves, pastures, and water basins to mining projects with super speed and super ease. To put it briefly: this law does not protect the environment. This law facilitates the work of a handful of companies. And unfortunately, it does this without listening to the voices of the public, nature, and science. It contains regulations that riddle Türkiye's most fundamental environmental laws, such as the Forest Law, the Olive Law, the Pasture Law, and the Environmental Law. But the proposal text contains neither scientific evaluation nor public participation… Nor is there a single concrete measure taken against the climate crisis. This law suspends property rights under the guise of ‘energy transformation,’ and transforms protected areas into licensed areas under the guise of ‘development.’ By claiming international harmonization, it supposedly takes Europe as an example. But they are only aiming for renewable energy.” "He portrays his proposed regulation as including mining activities. In short, this proposal is not environmental reform, and certainly not legal reform... This proposal is a licensing regime. And we are here today to reject this licensing regime. Because this is not just an environmental issue; it is a matter of life that affects our land, our food, our water, and our future. Therefore, this meeting is not just an informational meeting; it is also a wake-up call."

Another striking point at the press conference was the timing of the omnibus bill. Rızvanoğlu noted that the proposal was introduced to Parliament just 24 hours after the Climate Law was passed, saying, “On one hand, there's a climate law that creates a deadlock, and on the other, an omnibus bill that directly exacerbates the crisis. Both regulations prioritize trade over nature.”

“The EIA Regulation is a Make-Up, the EU Justification is Misleading”

Rızvanoğlu also reacted to the fact that the removal of the phrase "EIA is not required" in the bill was presented as a positive move, describing the change as "just a cosmetic change that changes the signboard" and saying that the decisions of the Climate Council were not being acted upon. Rızvanoğlu asked, “How is this proposal being presented to the public? It's as if a major environmental victory has been achieved by removing the phrase ‘EIA Not Required,’ which has drawn the most criticism for years… No! This issue in the first article is not a correction, but a makeover. In other words, it's merely an illusion that changes the signage while maintaining the same internal order. Look, we have the data. In 2024: 3,436 projects received ‘EIA Not Required’ decisions, 641 received ‘EIA Positive’ decisions, and only 376 received ‘EIA Negative’ decisions. In other words, 92% of the total applications were approved. The system is no longer a filter that protects the environment, but an approval machine. And what's being done now? Only the name is being changed, and the content remains the same. There are no structural adjustments in the areas most criticized by the public and environmental organizations. And we're not the only ones receiving this warning.”

The 2022 Climate Council, organized by the Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change, states in its 22nd article: "The EIA legislation should be amended to ensure that the environmental, climatic, and social impacts of projects are measured according to international standards." So, does this proposal fulfill that call? No. And you haven't even heeded your own call, my friend! The Strategic Environmental Assessment process wasn't even underway when this proposal was being prepared. Yet, the Ministry of Environment's own 2018 guide clearly states this: energy and mining policies are subject to Strategic Environmental Assessment. Alternatives should be analyzed, and public participation should be ensured. So, what happened during this process? Which scientists were consulted?

What alternative scenarios were considered? Which citizens, NGOs, or professional chambers participated in the process? Answer: None. This proposal was not prepared through a transparent, scientific, or participatory process. And yet, the justification for the proposal cites the European Union as an example. They say, "Even Europe is expediting its permitting processes." Yes, the EU published a Renewable Energy Guide on May 13, 2024.

But it's crystal clear: This only applies to renewable energy projects and their infrastructure. Mining isn't included. But what are you doing? You've taken an EU guide and are citing the proposal as justification. Moreover, you're ignoring the guide's warnings. The EU guide states the following: the legal framework must be protected, the right to access information must not be violated, the public must participate in decision-making processes, bird migration routes, rare species, and sensitive ecosystems must be scientifically mapped, and institutional capacity must be strengthened. So, what does this proposal contain? Scientific mapping? None. Participation? None. Protection boundaries? None. Institutional capacity? None. If these fundamental conditions are missing, compliance with the EU guide is merely a window dressing.

“It Contradicts Türkiye's National and International Goals”

Rızvanoğlu, who addressed the proposal's critical provisions individually in his press release, stated that Article 3 could allow for the licensing of wetlands, national parks, and special environmental protection zones. "This is not development; it's the logic of transforming nature into investment," he said, noting that the proposal contradicted the 12th Development Plan, the OECD, and the UN Land Degradation Neutrality targets. He added, "Article 872 of the 12th Development Plan, covering the period between 2024 and 2028, is very clear: 'Terrestrial and marine protected areas will be increased, and carbon sink areas will be expanded.'" So how will we achieve this goal? By granting licenses for protected areas? You tell me. By opening pastures to mining and forests to industry? This isn't a development strategy; it's a market logic that deprives nature of being the guarantor of our future. On the one hand, you say, "We will protect," while on the other, you turn nature into an investment area. Isn't this a paradox? Last year and in previous budget discussions, the Minister of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change said, "We will increase Türkiye's protected area ratio to the OECD average of 17%." Last month, the same Ministry announced their aim to increase it to 30% by 2030. But this proposal is diametrically opposed to those goals. Words are one thing, laws are another. The goal is another, and implementation is another. And it's not over. Turkey is one of the first countries to commit to the United Nations Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) targets. A national report has even been prepared in this context.

According to this report, Turkey has adopted the following targets by 2030: afforestation of 1 million hectares, reclamation of 750,000 hectares of pastures, rehabilitation of 2 million hectares of agricultural land, and increasing forest coverage to 30%. But now I ask: Will you rehabilitate pastures by opening them to mining? Will you rehabilitate them by establishing industries on agricultural land? Will you reach 30% by opening forests to construction? While these targets are promising on paper, this law is dashing in practice. What's even more alarming is that the authority to dispose of these areas will no longer rest with the General Directorate of Forestry, but with institutions like MAPEG, which distribute permits. In other words, the institution responsible for protecting nature is being bypassed. Both permitting and oversight are now in MAPEG's hands. And if the relevant institutions fail to respond to permit applications within four months, the application will be deemed automatically approved. This is not a reflex to protect nature; it is a practice of bypassing nature.”

Rızvanoğlu concluded his remarks by emphasizing that the proposal clearly violates Article 169 of the Constitution. He stated that this licensing regime, implemented under the guise of public interest, excludes nature, rural areas, citizens, and the rule of law. He concluded the press conference by saying, "This is not just an administrative regulation; it is a clear violation of the constitution. This proposal not only targets nature but also the law. Its withdrawal is not a political choice; it is a constitutional obligation."