Our rights and responsibilities against mining disasters! Written by Attorney Münevver Bilir

In our country, every few years, 'accidents' involving loss of life occur in our mines, which are claimed to have successfully passed all inspections. It is a fact that, beyond the loss of life resulting from these accidents, they also cause great long-term damage to the environment.

Most of these mines are licensed. However, it is not possible to trust these licenses. As seen in the recent February 6 earthquakes, almost all of the buildings that became graves for thousands of our citizens also had licenses and documents stating that they were earthquake-resistant and had successfully passed all inspections!

1. WHAT DOES CYANIDE LEAKAGE MEAN, AND WHAT CONSEQUENCES CAN IT HAVE?

Cyanide is a substance powerful enough to cause a person's death within minutes if exposed, and once inhaled, there is no turning back. Despite this, its use in gold mines is very widespread and is a substance that authorities defend the use of.

The fact that it is one of the cheapest methods used in gold extraction and provides definitive results is one of the biggest reasons that push mine managers to use cyanide. However, the value placed on human life has no monetary equivalent.

The relationship between gold and cyanide can be explained as follows: in order to separate the gold found in small forms within soil and rocks, this mass of soil and rock is kept in cyanide to ensure it dissolves.

As a result of this waiting period, substances other than gold in the pool cannot show resistance to cyanide and are destroyed, leaving only gold particles behind. The remaining cyanide waste is then stored for reuse. The fact that gold mines are always located near bodies of water like rivers also stems from the need to keep the water requirement for purifying the residues in the cyanide pool where the filtering process is performed cheap.

Although the Baia Mare disaster that occurred in Romania in the recent past is called a cyanide leak resulting from natural conditions, it cannot be expected that one of the world's greatest environmental disasters would be believed to be a natural disaster in the face of evidence regarding negligence and lack of supervision.

The disaster in question in the 2000s affected not only Romania but also neighboring countries by mixing into the Danube River. After this disaster, Greenpeace stated, "Mining companies must provide guarantees for all risks to people and the environment, mining should be banned in special protection areas and densely populated places, and certain standards should be set for mining operations," but even though this suggestion is not sufficient, not even this much is being taken into account.

2. LEGAL RECOURSES UNDER DOMESTIC LAW

Environmental protection in our law is primarily provided by the Turkish Penal Code and the Environmental Law. In addition to this, the Mining Law No. 3213 regarding mining activities and regulations auxiliary to these laws find application.

In particular, ILO Convention No. 176 on Safety and Health in Mines also protects the work and safety rights of mine workers.

First of all, Article 8 of the Environmental Law No. 2872 states, "It is prohibited to release, store, transport, dispose of, or engage in similar activities involving any kind of waste and residue into the receiving environment, directly or indirectly, in a manner that harms the environment and contrary to the standards and methods determined in the relevant regulations.

In cases where there is a possibility of pollution, the relevant parties are obliged to prevent pollution; in cases where pollution has occurred, the polluter is obliged to take the necessary measures to stop the pollution and to eliminate or reduce the effects of the pollution," thereby prohibiting environmental pollution, but casting doubt on its enforceability by not providing for sanctions.

According to the Turkish Penal Code, environmental pollution can occur intentionally or through negligence, and a person who releases waste or residues into the soil, water, or air in a manner contrary to technical procedures and in a way that harms the environment intentionally is punished with imprisonment from 6 months to 2 years.

The sentence of a person who causes permanent damage to the environment as a result of this act is increased by two-fold, and in cases where it causes serious biological damage to animals or humans, a prison sentence of at least 5 years and a judicial fine are imposed.

A person who commits the same crime through negligence is only sentenced to prison if it leaves permanent damage or causes serious biological harm to humans and animals; otherwise, only a judicial fine comes into question.

However, the law approaches the consequences of environmental pollution quite narrowly.

As can be seen in the Erzincan mining disaster or similar events, while it is not clear how a trial will be conducted in cases resulting in death, it would be contrary to equity if it is not determined whether the act subject to the crime constitutes crimes that can be committed against bodily integrity under the TPC solely due to imprudence and carelessness.

Article 4 of the Mining Law No. 3213, by stating "Mines are under the disposition and possession of the State and are not subject to the ownership of the land in which they are located," continues to indirectly assume the responsibility of ensuring the safety of mines and the environment along with ownership, even if they are operated by private individuals.

In the landslide event that occurred on February 13, 2024, and the allegations of cyanide leakage, it has not been determined whether the state's absolute responsibility and the operator's duty of care were complied with, and whether this result was reached despite this.

Moreover, even if the landslide occurred entirely due to natural causes, the use of cyanide in mining continues to be used within certain conditions, even if its use is rejected by environmental and community associations.

Of course, in a geography where legal security is damaged, simply relying on whether the legislation is followed or relying on the legislation itself and withdrawing will not ensure that we reach days when such events do not occur.

Indeed, the scale of the disaster was considered noteworthy in Parliament, and an investigation commission was established. At this point, the local people and relevant parties, in particular, should not give up their legal struggle, and as a society, we must stand against illegal environmental activities.

To give an example; in activities resulting in injury, which are among the crimes whose investigation and prosecution depend on a complaint, complaints should not be withdrawn, and those who have suffered from the same act should act collectively; our future should not be jeopardized by individually withdrawing complaints in exchange for daily compensation.

Apart from this, as citizens, we can file complaints for events that have not yet come before judicial authorities, and the authority to take action ex officio against witnessed illegalities should be used by investigative authorities.

Because the negligence in question is capable of destroying not only the people living in the region or our country but also people beyond borders, as well as the Earth we live on and will leave as a legacy to the future. In fact, considering the location and impact of the Euphrates River, it will lead to destructive consequences comparable to the Chernobyl explosion.

News Source: 12punto