Environmental Impact Assessment in Turkish Dam Planning

Abstract

By supplying water and generating hydroelectricity, dams play a prominent role in Turkey’s economic and social development. Hydroelectric energy generation, for instance, enjoys high priority in the domestic energy mix, and it factors as one of the core elements in Turkey’s climate mitigation strategy because it compares favourably with fossil energies in terms of carbon emissions. As the General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works (DSI) reasons: “(…) hydroelectric power is environment-friendly, clean, renewable, able to meet peak demands, highly efficient (over 90 percent), involves no fuel cost, is a balancer of energy prices, has a long life-span (200 years), its cost recovery is short-run (5-10 years) its operational costs are low (approximately 0.2 cent/kWh), and it is an indigenous source of energy which is (…) natural.” However, the praise for (hydropower) dams is not shared by everybody despite their potential for development (Caspary 2007). While all political parties, Turkish society, and even non-governmental organisations are more or less supportive of the government’s endeavours to close the demand-supply gap, electricity as well as water, by means of dams. Criticism has arisen because of their harmful effects on the environment and, in particular, on the populace affected. Turkey’s dam politics have harboured the headlines of international and national media, lately. The Ilisu Dam for example, from which international consortia withdrew financial services because local opposition supported by international non-governmental organizations (NGO) has pointed to harmful resettlement and environmental practices amongst others. In March 2009, at the Fifth World Water Forum in Istanbul, the former General Director of DSI, Dogan Altinbilek, took a stand in the ongoing debate on large dams: “The answer on the worldwide discussion on dams is not ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ but wise planning and implementation.” Given that large dams interrupt river flows, affect wetlands and wildlife habitats and cause thousands of people to leave their land and houses and settle elsewhere, this statement might also be subscribed to by dam opponents if environmental and social concerns are given thorough consideration in the planning, constructing and operating stages of dam projects. This article investigates to what extent environmental aspects have been integrated in a dam project’s planning process. It looks into changes over the last decades related to the environmental clearance process and in particular to the use of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in decision-making of indi- vidual dam projects located in different regions of Turkey. It inquires whether EIAs were issued or not; whether the public could participate throughout the decision-making process of the EIA; whether EIA was conducive towards protecting nature conservation areas; finally whether the EIAs approved deter- mined conditional mitigation means to be implemented by project developers and on how compliance is monitored. (...)