Environmental Justice Struggles in Mount Ida: Local and Transnational Environmental Advocacy through the Lens of the Boomerang Model

Abstract

Struggles for environmental justice are carried out at local, national and international scales with social persuasion and pressure from both inside and below, as well as from outside and above. These movements aim to discourage states and companies from risky projects, by strengthening their local resistance through transnational solidarity and multi-actor and multi-scale pressure mechanisms. In the case of the Kazdağı Association for the Protection of Natural and Cultural Assets, this study examines the relationships that local environmental NGOs fighting for environmental justice in Türkiye have established with transnational advocacy networks, together with other activists and national NGOs, and how these efforts are received by the state, the mining sector and companies. Transnational NGOs can change the balance of power of local actors with the resources they have; this allows previously ineffective social groups to contend against stronger opponents. The study attempts to explain the multi-actor and multi-scale nature of environmental conflicts between coalitions of market, state, national and transnational civil society actors, and the functioning of transnational support mechanisms. The Kazdağları protests against a multinational corporation exemplify both the search for foreign support by local NGOs and the attempts of governments and corporations to limit and neutralize these foreign support channels. The findings show that the boomerang effect strategy is perceived as a threat in Turkey, especially in anti-mining struggles, and environmental NGOs are often targeted with the discourse of “activities against national interests”.

Keywords

• Political Ecology
• Local Environmental Movements in Türkiye
• Environmental Ngos
• Transnational Advocacy Networks (Tans)
• Boomerang Effect Model.

Project Number

Yok

Kazdağları’nda Çevresel Adalet Mücadelesi: Bumerang Modeli Işığında Yerel ve Ulusötesi Çevre Savunuculuğu

Abstract

Çevresel adalet mücadeleleri yerel, ulusal ve uluslararası ölçeklerde hem içeriden aşağıdan hem de dışarıdan ve yukarıdan toplumsal ikna ve baskı ile yürütülür. Bu hareketler, yerel direnişlerini ulusaşırı dayanışma, çok aktörlü ve çok ölçekli baskı mekanizmalarıyla güçlendirerek devlet ve şirketleri riskli projelerden vazgeçirmeyi hedefler. Bu çalışma, Kazdağı Doğal ve Kültürel Varlıkları Koruma Derneği örneğinde, Türkiye’de çevresel adalet mücadelesi yürüten yerel çevreci STK’ların diğer aktivistler ve ulusal STK’larla birlikte ulusötesi savunuculuk ağlarıyla kurduğu ilişkileri ve bu çabaların devlet, madencilik sektörü ve şirketler tarafından nasıl karşılandığını incelemektedir. Ulusötesi STK’lar, sahip oldukları kaynaklarla yerel aktörlerin güç dengelerini değiştirebilir; bu da daha önce etkisiz kalan toplumsal grupların daha güçlü rakiplere karşı mücadele etmesine olanak tanır. Çalışma piyasa, devlet, ulusal ve ulusötesi sivil toplum aktörleri koalisyonları arasındaki çevresel ihtilafların çok aktörlü ve çok ölçekli yapısını ve ulusaşırı destek mekanizmalarının işleyişini açıklamaya çalışmaktadır. Çok uluslu bir şirkete karşı Kazdağları protestoları hem yerel STK’ların dış destek arayışlarını hem de hükümet ve şirketlerin bu dış destek kanallarını sınırlama ve bertaraf etme girişimlerini örneklemektedir. Bulgular, Türkiye’de özellikle madencilik karşıtı mücadelelerde bumerang etkisi stratejisinin bir tehdit olarak algılandığını ve çevreci STK’ların sıklıkla “milli menfaatler aleyhine faaliyetler” söylemleriyle hedef alındığını göstermektedir.

Keywords

• Politik Ekoloji
• Türkiye’de Yerel Çevre Hareketleri
• Çevreci STK’lar
• Ulusaşırı Savunuculuk Ağları (TAN)
• Bumerang Etki Modeli.

Project Number

Yok

References

1. Adaman, F., Arsel, M. (2005). Environmentalism in Turkey: Between democracy and development, Aldershot: Ashgate.
2. Akdemir, Ö. (2011). Kuyudaki taş: Alman vakıfları ve Bergama gerçeği, İstanbul: Evrensel Basım ve Yayım.
3. Akdemir, Ö. (2016). Hablemitoğlu ve Bergama köylü direnişi. https://www.izgazete.net/hablemitoglu-ve-bergama-koylu-direnisi (Erişim: 20.08.2025).
4. Aksu, C., Korkut, R. (2017). Ekoloji Almanağı 2005-2016, İstanbul: Yeni İnsan Yayınevi.
5. Alamos Gold. (2021, Temmuz 2). Alamos Gold announces US$1 billion investment treaty claim against the Republic of Turkey. Alamos Gold. https://www.alamosgold.com/news-and-events/news/news-details/2021/Alamos-Gold-Announces-US1-Billion-Investment-Treaty-Claim-Against-the-Republic-of-Turkey/default.aspx (Erişim: 20.08.2025).
6. Alemdar, Z. (2011). Sarmal model yarı sarmak: Türkiye’de insan hakları kurumları-devlet-AB ilişkisi, Uluslararası İlişkiler, 7(28), 111-128.
7. Alger, J., Dauvergne, P. (2020). The translocal politics of environmental norm diffusion, Environmental Communication, 14(2), 155-167. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2019.1665567
8. Altiparmak, C. (Hazırlayan). (2010). Çevreci sivil toplum kuruluşları için savunuculuk el kitabı, İzmir: Ege Derneği.

9. Anyidoho, N. A., Crawford, G. (2014). Leveraging national and global links for local rights advocacy: WACAM's challenge to the power of transnational gold mining in Ghana, Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 35(4), 483-502. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2014.936369
10. Arts, B. (2004). The global–local nexus: NGOs and the articulation of scale, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 95(5), 498-510. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0040-747X.2004.00335.x
11. Avcı, D. (2018). Transformative politics in environmental struggles: A comparative analysis of the mining conflicts in Intag, Ecuador and Mount Ida, Turkey, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Rotterdam: Erasmus University.
12. Bassano, D. (2014). The boomerang pattern: Verification and modification, Peace and Change, 39(1), 23-48. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/pech.12051
13. Berny, N., Rootes, C. (2018). Environmental NGOs at a crossroads?, Environmental Politics, 27(6), 947-972. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2018.1536293
14. Boillat, S., Martin, A., Adams, T. vd. (2020). Why telecoupling research needs to account for environmental justice, Journal of Land Use Science, 15(1), 1-10. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2020.1737257
15. Brock, A. (2020). ‘Frack off’: Towards an anarchist political ecology critique of corporate and state responses to anti-fracking resistance in the UK, Political Geography, 82, 102246. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2020.102246
16. Cangı, A. A. (2016). Bergama ve diğer ekoloji hareketlerini itibarsızlaştırma operasyonu. https://yesilgazete.org/bergama-ve-diger-ekoloji-hareketlerini-itibarsizlastirma-operasyonu-arif-ali-cangi/ (Erişim: 20.08.2025).
17. Cengiz, P. (2019). Mücadele yeni başlıyor: Çanakkaleliler, Alamos Gold’u Kanada, ABD ve Hollanda’ya şikâyet edecek. https://www.artigercek.com/yazarlar/pelincengiz/mucadele-yeni-basliyor-canakkaleliler-alamos-gold-u-kanada-abd-ve-hollanda-ya-sikayet-edecek (Erişim: 20.08.2025).
18. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Strateji ve Bütçe Başkanlığı (2023). 12. Kalkınma Planı (2024-2028) Maden Politikaları Özel İhtisas Komisyonu Raporu, Ankara.
19. Çoban, A. (2002). International Arbitration, Sovereignty and Environmental Protection: The Turkish Case. Biermann, Rainer Brohm and Klaus Dingwerth, (eds.) 2002. Proceedings of the 2001 Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change “Global Environmental Change and the Nation State” içinde (217-225), Potsdam: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
20. Çoban, A. (2004). Community-based ecological resistance: The Bergama movement in Turkey, Environmental Politics, 13(2), 438-460. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/0964401042000209658
21. Çoban, A. (2018). Ekoloji mücadelesinde strateji tartışması: 'Yine dene yine yenil' nereye kadar?. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326740956 (Erişim: 20.08.2025).
22. De Almagro, M. M. (2018). Lost boomerangs, the rebound effect and transnational advocacy networks: A discursive approach to norm diffusion, Review of International Studies, 44(4), 672-693. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210518000086.
23. Dupuy, K. E., Ron, J. ve Prakash, A. (2016). Hands off my regime! Governments’ restrictions on foreign aid to non-governmental organizations in poor and middle income countries, World Development, 84, 299-311. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.02.001
24. Geenen, S., Verweijen, J. (2017) Explaining fragmented and fluid mobilization in gold mining concessions in eastern DRC, Extractive Industries ve Society, 4(4), 758-765. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2017.07.006.
25. Global Witness. (2019). Enemies of the state? How governments and businesses silence land and environmental defenders. https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/ environmental-activists/enemies-state/ (Erişim: 20.08.2025).
26. Hablemitoğlu, N. (2001). Alman vakıfları ve Bergama dosyası, İstanbul: Otopsi Yayınevi.
27. Hochstetler, K. (2002). After the boomerang: Environmental movements and politics in the La Plata River Basin, Global Environmental Politics, 2(4), 35-57. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/152638002320980614
28. Hurley, P. T., Arı, Y. (2011). Mining (dis)amenity: The political ecology of mining opposition in the Kaz (Ida) Mountain region of Western Turkey, Development and Change, 42(6), 1393-1415. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2011.01737.x
29. ICSID-International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. (2021). Alamos Gold Holdings Coöperatief U.A. and Alamos Gold Holdings B.V. v. Republic of Turkey (ICSID Case No. ARB/21/33). World Bank. https://icsid.worldbank.org/cases/case-database/case-detail?CaseNo=ARB/21/33 (Erişim: 20.08.2025).
30. Ignatow, G. (2005). Economic dependency and environmental attitudes in Turkey, Environmental Politics, 14(5), 648-666. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010500257946
31. Irvine, J. A. (2013). Leveraging change, International Feminist Journal of Politics, 15(1), 20-38. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2012.699779
32. İnal, O., Turhan, E. (2019). Transforming socio-natures in Turkey: Landscapes, state and environmental movements, London: Routledge.
33. Jamasmie, C. (2021, 20 Nisan). Alamos Gold, Türkiye'den durdurulan proje nedeniyle 1 milyar dolar talep ediyor. https://www.mining.com/alamos-gold-seeks-1bn-from-turkey-linked-to-stalled-project/ (Erişim: 20.08.2025).
34. Kadirbeyoğlu, Z. (2016). The transnational dimension of the Bergama campaign against Eurogold, T. Faist ve E. Özveren (Eds.), Transnational social spaces: Agents, networks and institutions içinde, New York: Routledge.
35. Kazdağı Doğal ve Kültürel Varlıkları Koruma Derneği. (2017). Kaz Dağı ve çevresi çevre STK’lar için savunuculuk el rehberi, Çanakkale.
36. Keck, M. E., Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
37. Keck, M. E., Sikkink, K. (1999). Transnational advocacy networks in international and regional politics, International Social Science Journal, 51(159), 89-101. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2451.00179
38. Kıvrak, E. (2025). Türkiye’de Yeni Toplumsal Hareketlerin Yükselişi: Neoliberal Dönüşüm ve Alternatif Siyasal Katılım, İmgelem (16), 409-440. Doi: https://doi.org/10.53791/imgelem.1637259
39. Kirsch, S. (2014). Mining capitalism: The relationship between corporations and their critics, Oakland: University of California Press.
40. Koçer, B. A. (2007). Eight karats of justice: Analysis of the grassroots resistance movement against goldmining in the villages of Bergama, Turkey, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, University of Tennessee.
41. Köse, M. (2019). Yaşam için maden, Ankara: Başak Matbaacılık.
42. Köse, M., Oygür, V. (2009). Türkiyede altın madenciliğini engellemeye yönelik asılsız iddialar ve gerçekler. http://altinmadencileri.org.tr/asilsiz-iddialar-ve-gercekler/ (Erişim: 20.08.2025).
43. Kraemer, R., Whiteman, G. ve Banerjee, B. (2013). Conflict and astroturfing in Niyamgiri: The importance of national advocacy networks in anti-corporate social movements, Organization Studies, 34(5-6), 823-852. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840613479240
44. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
45. Luthfa, S. (2019). Transnational ties and reciprocal tenacity: Resisting mining in Bangladesh with transnational coalition, Sociology, 51(1), 127-145. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038516668132
46. MAD- Mekânda Adalet Derneği. (2020). Kaz Dağları- Kirli altın, İstanbul: Mekânda Adalet Derneği.
47. Matejova, M., Parker, S. ve Dauvergne, P. (2018). The politics of repressing environmentalists as agents of foreign influence, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 72(2), 145-162. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2017.1421141 McAteer, E., Pulver, S. (2009). The corporate boomerang: Shareholder transnational advocacy networks targeting oil companies in the Ecuadorian Amazon, Global Environmental Politics, 9(1), 1-30.
48. Nougayrede, D. (2022). After the Panama Papers: A Private Law Critique of Shell Companies, The International Lawyer, 52(2), 328-367.
49. Orhan, G. (2006). The politics of risk perception in Turkey: Discourse coalitions in the case of the Bergama gold mine dispute, Policy and Politics, 34(4), 691-710. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1332/030557306778553123
50. Özen, H. (2009). Located locally, disseminated nationally: The Bergama movement, Environmental Politics, 18(3), 408-423. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010902823766
51. Özen, H., Doğu, B. (2020). Mobilizing in a hybrid political system: The Artvin case in Turkey, Democratization, 27(4), 624-642. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2019.1711372
52. Özler, Ş. İ., Obach, B. K. (2019). Cultural barriers to environmental mobilization in the Republic of Turkey, Sociological Perspectives, 62(5), 773-793. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121419866810
53. Reinart, Ü. B. (2003). Biz toprağı bilirik, İstanbul: Metis Yayıncılık.
54. Risse, T., Sikkink, K. (1999). The socialization of international human rights norms into domestic practices: Introduction, T. Risse, S. Ropp ve K. Sikkink (Eds.), The power of human rights: International norms and domestic change içinde (1-38), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55. Robbins, P. (2012). Political ecology: A critical introduction, Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
56. Sakaryalı, M. (2011). Kışladağ’dan Mektup Var…, İstanbul: Yeni İnsan Yayınları.
57. Scheidel, A., Bene, D. D., Liu, J. vd. (2020). Environmental conflicts and defenders: A global overview, Global Environmental Change, 63, 102104. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102104.
58. Schlembach, R. (2018). Undercover policing and the spectre of ‘domestic extremism’: The covert surveillance of environmental activism in Britain, Social Movement Studies, 17(5), 491-506. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2018.1480934
59. Sheoin, M. T. (2012). Power imbalances and claiming credit in coalition campaigns: Greenpeace and Bhopal, Interface, 4(2), 490-511.
60. Sheoin, M. T. (2014). Transnational anti-corporate campaigns: Fail often, fail better, Social Justice, 41(1/2), 198-226.
61. Smith, N. (1984). Uneven development: Nature, capital and the production of space, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
62. Smith, N. (1996). Spaces of vulnerability: The spaces of flows and the politics of scale, Critique of Anthropology, 16, 63-77. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275X9601600107
63. Şahin, B., Yıldız, M. (2009). Ulusaşırı yandaşlık ağbağları perspektifinden Türkiye'de demokratikleşme, insan hakları ve sivil toplum kuruluşları, Uluslararası İlişkiler, 6(21), 41-65.
64. Tarrow, S. (2005). The new transnational activism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
65. Taşkın, S. (1998). Siyanürcü ahtapot, İstanbul: Sel Yayıncılık.
66. TBB-Türkiye Barolar Birliği. (2013). Kaz Dağları ve siyanürlü altın madenciliği, Ankara: Türkiye Barolar Birliği Yayınları. TEMA-Türkiye Erozyonla Mücadele Vakfı. (2020). Kaz Dağları yöresi'nde madencilik. https://cdn-tema.mncdn.com/Uploads/Cms/kaz-daglari-raporu_1_1.pdf/ (Erişim: 20.08.2025).
67. Temper, L. (2019). From boomerangs to minefields and catapults: Dynamics of trans-local resistance to land-grabs, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 46(1), 188-216. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2017.1398144
68. Toker, Ç. (2021). Alamos tahkim sürecini başlattı. https://www.sozcu.com.tr/2021/yazarlar/cigdem-toker/alamos-tahkim-surecini-baslatti-6476192/ (Erişim: 24.06.2021).
69. Tsing, A. L. (2005). Friction: An ethnography of global connection, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
70. TTB-Türk Tabipler Birliği. (2019). TTB’den Kanada Tabipler Birliği’ne Kaz Dağları için mektup. https://www.ttb.org.tr/userfiles/files/abis0012.pdf (Erişim: 20.08.2025).
71. Uncu, B. A. (2012). Within borders, beyond borders: The Bergama movement at the junction of local, national and transnational practice, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, London School of Economics and Political Science.
72. Üner, B. (2023). Defending Nature: Transformation of the space through grassroots activism against the threat of extractivism, Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal 6(2), 171-196, Doi: https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v6i2.1037
73. Verweijen, J., Dunlap, A. (2021). The evolving techniques of the social engineering of extraction: Introducing political (re)actions ‘from above’ in large-scale mining and energy projects, Political Geography, 88, 102342. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2021.102342.
74. Yaşar, C. G. (2020). Alamos Gold Kirazlı, Ağı Dağı ve Çamyurt Maden Ruhsat Sahalarının Mekânsal Planlama ve Coğrafi Etkiler Açısından Değerlendirilmesi, Ankara: Ekoloji Kolektifi.