the export of Caspian natural gas. Such projects have led to serious debate and
criticism, opposition and objections on environmental grounds due to their potentially dramatic impacts on the environment. Even though their economic and
geopolitical benefits are also acknowledged, when designing and implementing
energy, transport and infrastructure projects it is essential to establish a balance
between environmental concerns and profit-orientated development, and those
investments should not be contrary to nature protection obligations.
There are also several cases being challenged in the courts and decisions being
given regarding EIA regulations, such as the decisions of the Constitutional Court
in Paragraph 3/Article 10, Environment Act (excluding activities relating to petrol,
geothermal, and mining seeking activities from the scope of EIA),
24 and in
Provisional Article 3, Environment Act (providing exemptions);
25 and the decisions
of the Council of State in Provisional Article 3, By-Law on EIA,
26 on the Gebze
Orhangazi İzmir Highway
27 and on the Ilısu Dam Hydroelectric Plant Project.
28
These exemptions are still maintained in the latest amendment (Provisional Articles
2–3, By-Law on EIA, adopted in 2014, OJ No. 29186).
Moreover, there are crucial challenges in the phase of implementation of all the
above-mentioned documents adopted by Turkey. For example, despite the necessity
of the cooperation of all stakeholders in line with the principle of governance more
or less expressed in all those documents, it is clear from practical observation that,
“an actual multi-actor process did not take place” in that field (Şahin, 2016: 126).
29
In the last regular progress report of Turkey, this is clearly stated: “In all areas, more
attention needs to be given to enforce legislation whilst many areas require further
significant progress to achieve legislative alignment with the EU acquis” (European
Commission, 2016: 8, 86–88). This situation emphasizes the necessity of instilling
environmental awareness in everyone, in particular legislators, policy-makers and
executives, to overcome the image of Turkey as a country engaging with environmental issues solely because of international diplomacy and a desire to be
recognized and accepted, rather than because it genuinely wants to address the
challenges and find effective domestic responses to them (Uzelgun and Şahin,
2016).
24
See decision of the Constitutional Court (15 January 2009), Docket No. 2006/99, Decision
No. 2009/9, in: OJ (8 July 2009), No. 27282.
25
See decision of the Constitutional Court (3 July 2014), Docket No. 2013/89, Decision No. 2014/
116, in: OJ (4 July 2015), No. 29406.
26
See decisions of the Council of State – Sixth Chamber (2 February 2011), Docket No. 2008/
8999, Decision No. 2011/165. Council of State – Fourteenth Chamber (10 January 2013), Docket
No. 2008/13522, Decision No. 2013/4 and Docket No. 2011/11139, Decision No. 2013/9.
27
See decision of the Council of State – Fourteenth Chamber (28 December 2011), Docket
No. 2011/15826.
28
See decision of the Council of State – Fourteenth Chamber (18 October 2012), Docket No. 2012/
3269.
29
For details of the different actors working on different aspects of climate change in Turkey see
Şahin (2014). For detailed information on climate change movement in Turkey see Baykan (2013).
2 The Development Process of Environmental Law in Turkey: …
21
criticism, opposition and objections on environmental grounds due to their potentially dramatic impacts on the environment. Even though their economic and
geopolitical benefits are also acknowledged, when designing and implementing
energy, transport and infrastructure projects it is essential to establish a balance
between environmental concerns and profit-orientated development, and those
investments should not be contrary to nature protection obligations.
There are also several cases being challenged in the courts and decisions being
given regarding EIA regulations, such as the decisions of the Constitutional Court
in Paragraph 3/Article 10, Environment Act (excluding activities relating to petrol,
geothermal, and mining seeking activities from the scope of EIA),
24 and in
Provisional Article 3, Environment Act (providing exemptions);
25 and the decisions
of the Council of State in Provisional Article 3, By-Law on EIA,
26 on the Gebze
Orhangazi İzmir Highway
27 and on the Ilısu Dam Hydroelectric Plant Project.
28
These exemptions are still maintained in the latest amendment (Provisional Articles
2–3, By-Law on EIA, adopted in 2014, OJ No. 29186).
Moreover, there are crucial challenges in the phase of implementation of all the
above-mentioned documents adopted by Turkey. For example, despite the necessity
of the cooperation of all stakeholders in line with the principle of governance more
or less expressed in all those documents, it is clear from practical observation that,
“an actual multi-actor process did not take place” in that field (Şahin, 2016: 126).
29
In the last regular progress report of Turkey, this is clearly stated: “In all areas, more
attention needs to be given to enforce legislation whilst many areas require further
significant progress to achieve legislative alignment with the EU acquis” (European
Commission, 2016: 8, 86–88). This situation emphasizes the necessity of instilling
environmental awareness in everyone, in particular legislators, policy-makers and
executives, to overcome the image of Turkey as a country engaging with environmental issues solely because of international diplomacy and a desire to be
recognized and accepted, rather than because it genuinely wants to address the
challenges and find effective domestic responses to them (Uzelgun and Şahin,
2016).
24
See decision of the Constitutional Court (15 January 2009), Docket No. 2006/99, Decision
No. 2009/9, in: OJ (8 July 2009), No. 27282.
25
See decision of the Constitutional Court (3 July 2014), Docket No. 2013/89, Decision No. 2014/
116, in: OJ (4 July 2015), No. 29406.
26
See decisions of the Council of State – Sixth Chamber (2 February 2011), Docket No. 2008/
8999, Decision No. 2011/165. Council of State – Fourteenth Chamber (10 January 2013), Docket
No. 2008/13522, Decision No. 2013/4 and Docket No. 2011/11139, Decision No. 2013/9.
27
See decision of the Council of State – Fourteenth Chamber (28 December 2011), Docket
No. 2011/15826.
28
See decision of the Council of State – Fourteenth Chamber (18 October 2012), Docket No. 2012/
3269.
29
For details of the different actors working on different aspects of climate change in Turkey see
Şahin (2014). For detailed information on climate change movement in Turkey see Baykan (2013).
2 The Development Process of Environmental Law in Turkey: …
21