Annex I and Annex II are important, as they define which projects have to go
through an EIA process, or a selection and elimination process, while unnamed
projects are exempted from an EIA process since their environmental impacts are
considered to be minor. In the case of small-scale HEPP developments, according
to the 2003 By-law on EIA, projects should go through an EIA process if their
capacities are above 50 MW, while those with capacities between 10 and 50 MW
fall under selection and elimination criteria. This implies that HEPPs below 10 MW
are not required to follow any of these procedures. According to the 2008 By-law,
the HEPPs with capacities above 25 MW are required to follow an EIA process,
while those between 0.5 and 25 MW have to follow the selection and elimination
criteria; the rest are exempted from the EIA. Each by-law overrules the previous
one and does not include the projects initiated before its issue, leading to complications in implementation.
These by-laws require compulsory public participation meetings for projects
going through the EIA process (Clause 9, 2014 By-law). In fact, the EIA process is
the only time when the public can participate in the policy process (including
HEPPs). According to the by-laws, the meeting content, date and place should be
announced at least ten days before the meeting in a local (or national) newspaper. In
addition, the meeting is supposed to be convened in the most convenient place for
the local people. The purpose of those meetings is indicated to be ‘receiving the
public’s opinions and recommendations regarding the projects’ (Clause 9,
Section 1). Accordingly, the recommendations and opinions of the public represented at the public participation meetings is one of the criteria through which the
Ministry evaluates the EIA process. If the company fails to provide evidence of the
meeting, the EIA process will end negatively, leading them to lose their license and
invalidating water use rights agreements, as stated in the template water use rights
agreements (2003 By-law).
However, when examining its implementation, it is seen that the framework fails
to achieve meaningful participation, confirming the claims of Interviewee 1 and the
participants of Group Interview 8. According to a statistical sheet published by the
Ministry of Environment and Urbanization (2015b), in the years between 1993 and
2014, 3736 projects under Annex I (not just HEPPs) were given “EIA is positive”
status (24% of which were energy projects), while only 33 were indicated as “EIA
is negative”. 47,314 projects analysed under Annex II resulted in the decision “EIA
not required” (6% of which were energy projects), and 638 were designated “EIA
required” for the same period. Another official source, a parliamentary inquiry
replied to in 2013 (Bayraktar, 2013), clearly indicates that out of 655 energy
projects (general), 274 HEPPs were given “EIA is positive” status, while out of
2588 energy projects (general), 1082 HEPPs were designated “EIA not required”.
This response, and other relevant sources, do not clearly indicate how many of the
HEPPs are granted the status of “EIA required” or “EIA is negative”. However, the
Union of Chambers of Turkish Engineers and Architects (TMMOB) [Türkiye
Mühendis ve Mimar Odalari Birliği] report (2011) indicated that ‘none’ of the
HEPPs were given “EIA is negative” status. This suggests that the number of
9 Exploring Environmental Justice: Meaningful Participation …
153
through an EIA process, or a selection and elimination process, while unnamed
projects are exempted from an EIA process since their environmental impacts are
considered to be minor. In the case of small-scale HEPP developments, according
to the 2003 By-law on EIA, projects should go through an EIA process if their
capacities are above 50 MW, while those with capacities between 10 and 50 MW
fall under selection and elimination criteria. This implies that HEPPs below 10 MW
are not required to follow any of these procedures. According to the 2008 By-law,
the HEPPs with capacities above 25 MW are required to follow an EIA process,
while those between 0.5 and 25 MW have to follow the selection and elimination
criteria; the rest are exempted from the EIA. Each by-law overrules the previous
one and does not include the projects initiated before its issue, leading to complications in implementation.
These by-laws require compulsory public participation meetings for projects
going through the EIA process (Clause 9, 2014 By-law). In fact, the EIA process is
the only time when the public can participate in the policy process (including
HEPPs). According to the by-laws, the meeting content, date and place should be
announced at least ten days before the meeting in a local (or national) newspaper. In
addition, the meeting is supposed to be convened in the most convenient place for
the local people. The purpose of those meetings is indicated to be ‘receiving the
public’s opinions and recommendations regarding the projects’ (Clause 9,
Section 1). Accordingly, the recommendations and opinions of the public represented at the public participation meetings is one of the criteria through which the
Ministry evaluates the EIA process. If the company fails to provide evidence of the
meeting, the EIA process will end negatively, leading them to lose their license and
invalidating water use rights agreements, as stated in the template water use rights
agreements (2003 By-law).
However, when examining its implementation, it is seen that the framework fails
to achieve meaningful participation, confirming the claims of Interviewee 1 and the
participants of Group Interview 8. According to a statistical sheet published by the
Ministry of Environment and Urbanization (2015b), in the years between 1993 and
2014, 3736 projects under Annex I (not just HEPPs) were given “EIA is positive”
status (24% of which were energy projects), while only 33 were indicated as “EIA
is negative”. 47,314 projects analysed under Annex II resulted in the decision “EIA
not required” (6% of which were energy projects), and 638 were designated “EIA
required” for the same period. Another official source, a parliamentary inquiry
replied to in 2013 (Bayraktar, 2013), clearly indicates that out of 655 energy
projects (general), 274 HEPPs were given “EIA is positive” status, while out of
2588 energy projects (general), 1082 HEPPs were designated “EIA not required”.
This response, and other relevant sources, do not clearly indicate how many of the
HEPPs are granted the status of “EIA required” or “EIA is negative”. However, the
Union of Chambers of Turkish Engineers and Architects (TMMOB) [Türkiye
Mühendis ve Mimar Odalari Birliği] report (2011) indicated that ‘none’ of the
HEPPs were given “EIA is negative” status. This suggests that the number of
9 Exploring Environmental Justice: Meaningful Participation …
153