Doğal Alanlara Mekansal Müdahalelerde Yerel Halkla Yaşanan İhtilafların Çevre Etiği Perspektifinden Yorumlanması: Kaz Dağları Örneği

Abstract

Türkiye'de doğal alanlara yapılan ve yapılması planlanan çeşitli termik santral, HES ya da madencilik projeleri yerel halkın itirazlarına ve bunun sonucunda yerel halk ile bu projeleri destekleyen planlama erkini temsil eden profesyonel ya da yatırımcılar arasındaki ihtilaflara şahit olmaktayız. Çevre etiği literatürü, planlama disiplinin öznesi olduğu mekânsal müdahalelerin insanmerkezli bir tutum gösterdiğine vurgu yapmaktadır. Bu tez kapsamında, çevrecilerin davranışlarını biçimlendiren çevreye atfettikleri değerin ne olduğu ve doğal çevreleriyle kurdukları pratik ilişkinin nasıl gerçekleştiği araştırılmış bunun üzerinden projeleri destekleyenler ile yaşanan ihtilafın çevre etiği bağlamında yorumlanması hedeflenmiştir. Bu amaçla, 2016 yılı Şubat ayında Kaz Dağları'nda yöredeki termik santral, HES ve madencilik projelerine muhalefet eden 16 çevreci ile derinlemesine mülakatlar yapılmıştır. Mülakatlar neticesinde, yöredeki çevrecilerin söylemleri ve davranışları değerlendirilerek gündelik pratikleri, çevreye karşı tutumları ve çevreye atfettikleri değerler üzerinden yorumlanmıştır. Yerelden kaynaklanan itirazlar ile projeleri destekleyenler arasındaki ihtilafın, değer teorisi bağlamında içkin-araçsal değer ikiliğine denk düşüp düşmediği sorgulanmıştır. Ancak, bu tür bir kategorik ayrımı ifade etmenin mümkün olmadığı sonucuna varılmıştır. Bununla birlikte, çevre literatürü kapsamında insanmerkezli ve çevremerkezli yaklaşım ikiliği takip edilmekle birlikte bu ikisi arasındaki sınırı net bir şekilde çizmek her zaman mümkün olmamaktadır. Her iki yaklaşımın pratiği zaman zaman benzeşmekte, ancak felsefi argümanları farklılaşmaktadır. Kaz Dağları ve yöresinde yapılan arazi çalışması bu durum ile paralellik göstermektedir. Yöredeki çevrecilerin davranışları dar bir insanmerkezli yaklaşımı reddeder nitelikte ancak gündelik pratiklerinin doğa ile kurduğu araçsal ilişkiyi de reddetmeyerek insanmerkezli bir tutum sergilemektedir. Bu çalışmanın en önemli çıktıları, yöredeki çevrecilerin, kimlik ve kökenlerine göre farklılaşan tutumlarıdır. Yöredeki çevreciler arasında, sonradan yöreye yerleşenler ile doğma büyüme yerli olanlar arasında yaklaşım farkı dikkat çekicidir. Bu iki grubun çevremerkezlilik-insanmerkezlilik ikiliğinin esnekliği içinde aldıkları pozisyonlar farklılaşmaktadır.

We are facing several stuggles and challenges between local people and planning professionals or investors during planned particular energy plants, hydroelectric plants and mining projects over natural areas. Literature of environmental ethics emphasizes that human interventions have a anthropocentric attitude where spatial planning is a leading dicipline of them. In scope of this thesis, what is framing the value of environment of local pro-environmetalist behaviour, and how is pro-environmentalist's practice over nature have been questioned. Consequently, It is aimed to interpret those struggles and challenges within context of environmental ethics. With this design, in February of 2016, 16 in-depth interviews was conducted with distinctive portraits of local pro-environmentalist of Mount Ida (Kaz Dağları). Those pro-environmentalist people are the subjects of several protests against hiydroelectric plant, coal plant and golden mining projects. Daily practice, environmental attitudes and environmental values of those people have been interpreted according to their daily practices and discources. Neverthless, it is not possible to state such a categoric distinction between two poles of the struggles. However, we can follow the duality between anthropocentrism and eco-centrism, it is not easy to draw a concrete distinctive border between them. It has a flexible and permanent space among them. The practice of both of them sometimes is in accord with each other. Although, practice of those two different approaches resemble each other, philosophical argumentations of them become distinct. The field study of Mount Ida presents parallelism with this statement. Local pro-environmentalist's practice related to nature include intrumentalisation of nature, on the other hand, they reject a narrow anthropo-centrism approach and appropriate eco-centric discourses. The main outcome of the study is defining differentiations of local people in themselves according to their identity and origins. The locals who have born there and who have settled later have been two distinctive groups with their approaches. This distinction is also located among flexible space between eco-centrism and anthropo-centrism. Morover, 8 characteristic distinction have been defined according to field studies among the local environmentalists. Those are: (1) the distinction between locals who have been born there and who have migrated later, (2) differed approaches according to consequences of projects impact on different environmental context, (3) hierarchy among natural assets have been defined , and priority of Mount Ida have been emphasized by local people, (4) "Beauty of Nature" have been emerged as local terminology when local people ground their behavior, (5) "Nature" as a dogmatic concept among local people, (6) Sustainability concept as a well-accepted methods of intervention over nature, (7) lack of participation which is highly criticized element of the project by local people, (8) Instrumental Value of nature is highly respected and facilitate human-nature interaction of local people. (1) It is possible mention about two differentiated groups of pro-environmentalist groups among local people who react spatial intervention over nature. Those are local people who have born in the location and who are migrated to the region. Most of the people who born there, are peasant. Moreover, their main source of income are agricultural related business. On the other hand, the people who migrated to this region are most fee-earning people or pensionaries. This distinction causes differentiated approach to nature and agricultural sectors. First group's opinion of nature is more subjective while second's groups are more objective. It is because of their economic relation determined relation with nature. Moreover, first groups regard their relation with earth more natural even they are facilitate the land. Economic dependency makes first group more subjective and less critical. Second groups able to criticize agricultural production and its impact over nature. (2) Maintaining the life style which is more communed with nature is a common argument against spatial intervention. Struggle and challenges are arouse from this concern of local people that indicate the instrumental relation with nature. Event they emphasize the integrity of nature, balance of nature and sustainability of ecological systems. (3) One of another common approach of local people is hierarchy of consequences of spatial intervention. They distinguish the level of impact when an intervention occurs. The daily practice of rural life or agricultural accepted as more light intervention when comparing interventions such as building factories, excavation or dam projects. This attitude does not indicate an categorical challenge. On the other hand, local people concern and recognize level of interventions. So, they interpret interventions according to level of its impact over nature. (4) One of the conspicuous concept during interviews was "beauty of nature". This abstract concept is one of the prominent argument for local people's behavior. It is expressed as an inherent value of people, on the other hand this concept remains as subjective approach to nature. (5) One of another conspicuous concept is "nature" itself as a dogma. Especially, local people who born there, express this concept and reject to criticize it. It is highly bounded with religious ideas. The status of dogma constituted by the benefaction of land. And, this economical and vital relation emerged nature itself as a dogma. It is also interpreted as a instrumental value of nature, even people express it as abstract concept. (6) One of the common subject of the local people is scientific argumentation. All local people express their objection of intervention by facilitating scientific approaches. They are highly respect the ecological solutions of energy production. They offer renewable energy as alternative. Therefore, this approach also shows better solution or environmental friendly spatial interventions would be pleased by local people. Mostly the local people trust in scientific and technological development to deal with nature. (7) Another element of the critics by local people is lack of participation. Local people is not involved in decision making process. It makes local people more reactional and mistrustful. It is clear that if the decision making process we Behavior Planning (8) re more participant and respect local people, the behavior of the local people would be changed. (9) Finally, In terms of ethical conception of human-nature relation: it is not possible to state that the challenge between local people and who planned those intervention, corresponds to categorical position.