In the second part of this interview, former co-spokesperson of the Mesopotamian Ecology Movement and ecology activist Güner Yanlıç spoke to ANF about  environmental destruction in Kurdistan, and whether the landscape preferences of local governments are ecologically sound.

The first part of the interview can be read here

Many people talk about adopting cats and stray animals. That’s of course important, but it also raises a problem: is there a kind of discrimination at play? On the one hand, people adopt street animals, while on the other hand, forests are being burned. If we focus specifically on Kurdistan, we see forest fires every year. But it's not just trees burning, entire ecosystems, entire living communities are being destroyed, and there's no outcry. How do you interpret this?

Particularly in Northern Kurdistan, and actually all the way from the north to the south, down to the Persian Gulf, there is an endemic species called the Euphrates softshell turtle. This species exists only in the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Despite the threat of extinction, no protection or conservation efforts are being made. Because the system can still exploit those areas, no action is taken even when extinction is a risk.

Recently, there’s been a boom in owning cats and dogs, supported by a large pet industry. There are pet shops that sell them, stores that sell their food, and clinics that provide healthcare. An industrial market has developed around them, so cats and dogs are protected.

But if we turn back to, say, the wild goats of Dersim, an endemic species, their habitats are regularly taken away each year due to conflict, war, and so-called “security” operations. Despite facing extinction, there’s no concern or action for these animals.

So we don’t accept or believe in the sincerity of a mindset that claims to care about polar bears while ignoring all others. If you only protect cats, dogs, and polar bears and ignore the millions of other species, then you’re practicing a particularly extreme form of speciesism.

If you build little houses in parks for cats and dogs, but remain silent while thousands of animals burn alive in Şırnak forest fires, and instead raise a fuss when cat or dog shelters aren't cleaned or refilled, you are participating in a huge deception. That’s not right. That is precisely speciesism.

From the perspective of social ecology, this is where we stand. If you make such distinctions, if the system supports cats, dogs, or other species, and you embrace only them, then you’re safe. You won’t be seen as an opponent. But if you fight for the lives of animals lost in forest fires in Şırnak or Dersim, then especially in Turkey, the state criminalizes you and obstructs your work.

We established an Ecology Union covering all of Turkey six years ago. Through the Ecology Union, we explained that there is no difference between a tree burned in Şırnak and one burned in the Kaz Mountains. And we did a good job of explaining this. We built solidarity from us to the Kaz Mountains, and from there to Şırnak, Cudi, and Dersim. We managed to clearly convey, at least to the environmental and ecological movements, that issues like the criminalization of trees in Şırnak or the terrorization of trees in Dersim due to conflict are political tactics.

Another topic I’d like to ask about is the alignment between local governments and social ecology, especially when they’re engaged in projects like landscaping or road construction. Let’s take sand quarries as an example. There are many sand quarries being built in Kurdistan. First, I’d like to hear your thoughts on that.

Amed has a history of at least 7,000 years. Its streets, avenues, and structures are all made from local and natural materials and have stood for thousands of years.

Now look at the Zerzevan Castle. It was built 2,000 years ago, using stones taken from a nearby quarry. So, when we have such local materials and resources, if you claim to oppose the deaths caused by these so-called death quarries, where 3 to 5 people die every day, and claim to be against sandpits that destroy wetlands and health areas, and if you say flora and fauna are disappearing, and when we add the labor and environmental exploitation on top of the dust caused by cement factories… then what’s the point of paving roads or parks with interlocking paving stones?

That’s a complete contradiction. You say you practice ecological municipalism and oppose sand quarries, yet, on the other hand, you use paving stones produced by dozens of those same quarries, even though they don't match the local texture of the city.

For years, we’ve worked with local governments. As the ecology movement and Ecology Union, we’ve been explaining for years what ecological municipalism means. We continue to explain. In every election cycle, we collaborate with strategic committees on this issue.

Yet somehow, before elections, all candidates seem to adopt an ecological consciousness. But once they come into local power, which, in the eyes of the state, is still a form of governance, there’s no actual ecological progress. Everything continues as before. There are no additions or subtractions related to ecology. Even if they do a few token things, it's superficial and goes nowhere.

We say we’re against fossil fuels. We argue for a lifestyle not centered around cars. We advocate using bicycles. But if everywhere is being paved with asphalt and interlocking stones are being laid, there’s no way to justify that from an ecological perspective. You can’t even justify it by saying it’s a public institution.

It might be an ugly example, but Rome built roads still in use today, 2,000 years ago. After all this time, money, resources, and labor, if you’re still laying paving stones in villages, either you lack ecological awareness or you’re just throwing water into a mill with a bucket.

If a municipality has good intentions and is working on this, I don’t know, because they haven’t communicated it. But from what we see in the media, for instance, pine trees native to Bursa were recently planted in Şırnak.

Yes, on the one hand, forests are being burned and nature destroyed. This is a long-standing and deliberate policy by the state. On the other hand, trees are  planted by local governments, but they are usually pine trees. Or in landscaping projects, instead of local flowers native to Kurdistan, imported species are used. What are your thoughts on that?

For years, after forest fires, we collected and distributed acorns from native oak trees in the region to the burned areas. Not once. We did this at least 3–4 times. After every fire, as a large-scale effort, we planted oak seeds in Dersim, Şırnak, Wan, Amed, mass plantings.

What’s wrong with planting? What we can’t explain is the military or state mindset of bringing in invasive or foreign pine species to replant. If someone can justify that, let them. Either they’re incapable or they simply say “we didn’t know.” These local governments have been under our administration for over 10 years.

Of course, I don’t want to be unfair, considering the appointed trustees, but we’ve been actively campaigning, writing, informing, organizing meetings, and continuing awareness efforts in this field. The state appoints trustees, and they use landscaping projects to enrich their allies by planting flora completely incompatible with Kurdistan’s vegetation in cities and towns like Amed and Wan.

But even democratic local governments, despite all our education efforts, choose to plant pines instead of oaks without considering the region’s ecosystem. This is incomprehensible. Either no one listened to us, or they verbally accepted the ecological paradigm but did not prioritize it in practice.

There’s no ecological approach! I don’t want to speculate too much about intentions, but if you still “don’t know,” we’ve been explaining this for 10 years. As the Mesopotamia Ecology Movement and Ecology Union, we’ve probably sat down and explained this to at least 5 out of 100 municipalities. We've also explained it to many municipalities in Turkey. When other municipalities don’t follow through, we say, “Well, that’s a system municipality.” But when a municipality you’ve worked with for years behaves like a system municipality, it’s really difficult to understand. At least for me, it makes no sense.

Let me ask one last question. Recently, in addition to hydroelectric plants (HES), solar power plants (GES) are being built in Kurdistan. For example, there’s a GES project in Pasur, and there’s resistance against it. What do you think about these? How ecologically sound are they?

Actually, we are just as opposed to GES projects as we are to dams. If we oppose dams and sandpits but still lay interlocking paving stones, that’s not right. Similarly, if we oppose dams, we must also oppose GES projects. The reason we oppose solar plants is that their commercial lifespan is only 20 years. They contain dozens of toxic chemicals harmful to both human and non-human life. And after 20 years, in capitalist terms, they become “solid waste.” Even the costs of disposal or recycling after 20 years aren’t covered by their benefits.

But the state is using these projects as a way to reach areas it can’t directly access—allowing capital, especially energy capital, to take over mountains, hills, rivers, land, and village pastures. If energy is not produced communally, and if there’s exploitation of nature, people, women, and children, then it cannot be considered “green.”

In Kurdistan, especially in places where the state couldn’t previously enter, there’s been a rapid influx of capital, particularly through mining operations. More recently, through solar power plants, lands, plots, and pastures are being seized. And in the long run, this is a policy aimed at forcing local people to migrate from their lands.”