projects subjected to a proper EIA process is relatively small, which makes
meaningful participation debatable in Turkey’s HEPP process.
Additionally, before companies start to construct power plants, the expropriation
process has to be conducted in the cases which require it. This process is governed
by the EPDK, while expenses and expropriation fees also have to be afforded by the
companies (interview with a company representative; see also Law No. 2942,
1983). To complete this process, the relevant permits for the HEPP construction
have to be issued by the governorates and local branches of the relevant state
institutions at local scale. Expropriation decisions do not particularly seek the
consent of landowners, especially when undertaken under “urgent expropriation”
(interview with a lawyer; see also Law No. 2942, 1983). According to Law
No. 2942 (1983), landowners do not have the right to challenge an expropriation
decision; they are only allowed to challenge the value of their property predetermined by the state/courts. Furthermore, if the lands or properties belong to the State,
the company can appropriate it without seeking public consent (see Leblebici,
2012).
After the completion of these bureaucratic steps and during construction of the
HEPP, the DSI or private companies assigned by the DSI conduct the monitoring
process. The DSI and the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources are also
supposed to undertake routine controls during HEPP operation, as indicated by a
DSI official. When it comes to the trading of the electricity produced in those power
plants, the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources offers incentives to companies
and purchases their electricity (EIE, 2014). This entire process is depicted in
Fig. 9.1, which also briefly demonstrates the responsibilities of the actors involved
in this process.
The examination of this general HEPP process (and Fig. 9.1) may reveal that
Turkey’s administrative traditions have been shaped by modernist notions. The
general HEPP process (Fig. 9.1) itself is governed in a highly centralized way, as
shown by the case study. For example, potential HEPP projects are prepared and
planned in the headquarters of the DSI and Ministry of Energy and Natural
Resources (and its affiliated institutions) in Ankara, where companies apply to them
and their applications are evaluated and approved (interview with a DSI official). It
is obvious that only a few actors are included actively in this process, namely the
DSI, the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources (EPDK and Directorate General
of Renewable Energy), Ministry of Environment and Urbanization, and the companies (corroborated by the interviewees cited above). Public participation only
becomes part of the process (after the completion of planning and tendering of the
projects) during the later stages of the process via the EIA process. However, as
demonstrated by the above cases, not every HEPP is subject to an EIA process,
which would ensure meaningful public participation. As the capacities of most of
Turkey’s HEPPs are below legal limits, companies can submit their project files to
the Ministry to get “EIA not required” status without engaging with locals,
implying the system is operated centrally, minimizing public participation.
DSI officials interviewed for this study confirmed these points in their narratives,
and reinforced the above-pictured HEPP process as being the norm. DSI officials
154
R. C. Sayan and A. Kibaroğlu
meaningful participation debatable in Turkey’s HEPP process.
Additionally, before companies start to construct power plants, the expropriation
process has to be conducted in the cases which require it. This process is governed
by the EPDK, while expenses and expropriation fees also have to be afforded by the
companies (interview with a company representative; see also Law No. 2942,
1983). To complete this process, the relevant permits for the HEPP construction
have to be issued by the governorates and local branches of the relevant state
institutions at local scale. Expropriation decisions do not particularly seek the
consent of landowners, especially when undertaken under “urgent expropriation”
(interview with a lawyer; see also Law No. 2942, 1983). According to Law
No. 2942 (1983), landowners do not have the right to challenge an expropriation
decision; they are only allowed to challenge the value of their property predetermined by the state/courts. Furthermore, if the lands or properties belong to the State,
the company can appropriate it without seeking public consent (see Leblebici,
2012).
After the completion of these bureaucratic steps and during construction of the
HEPP, the DSI or private companies assigned by the DSI conduct the monitoring
process. The DSI and the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources are also
supposed to undertake routine controls during HEPP operation, as indicated by a
DSI official. When it comes to the trading of the electricity produced in those power
plants, the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources offers incentives to companies
and purchases their electricity (EIE, 2014). This entire process is depicted in
Fig. 9.1, which also briefly demonstrates the responsibilities of the actors involved
in this process.
The examination of this general HEPP process (and Fig. 9.1) may reveal that
Turkey’s administrative traditions have been shaped by modernist notions. The
general HEPP process (Fig. 9.1) itself is governed in a highly centralized way, as
shown by the case study. For example, potential HEPP projects are prepared and
planned in the headquarters of the DSI and Ministry of Energy and Natural
Resources (and its affiliated institutions) in Ankara, where companies apply to them
and their applications are evaluated and approved (interview with a DSI official). It
is obvious that only a few actors are included actively in this process, namely the
DSI, the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources (EPDK and Directorate General
of Renewable Energy), Ministry of Environment and Urbanization, and the companies (corroborated by the interviewees cited above). Public participation only
becomes part of the process (after the completion of planning and tendering of the
projects) during the later stages of the process via the EIA process. However, as
demonstrated by the above cases, not every HEPP is subject to an EIA process,
which would ensure meaningful public participation. As the capacities of most of
Turkey’s HEPPs are below legal limits, companies can submit their project files to
the Ministry to get “EIA not required” status without engaging with locals,
implying the system is operated centrally, minimizing public participation.
DSI officials interviewed for this study confirmed these points in their narratives,
and reinforced the above-pictured HEPP process as being the norm. DSI officials
154
R. C. Sayan and A. Kibaroğlu