Turkey

Last year’s report made mention of Turkey’s then Minister of Environment, Urbanisation and Climate Change, Murat Kurum’s, announcement on the upcoming updated nationally determined contribution (NDC) at the twenty-seventh Conference of the Parties (COP-27) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), held in Egypt. On 13 April, Turkey submitted its updated NDC to the UNFCCC Secretariat ( ). As indicated by the minister’s announcement at COP-27, the updated NDC forecasts a 41 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to a ‘business as usual’ scenario provided under the previous NDC that identifies 2012 as the base year. The NDC states Turkey’s goal of reaching peak emissions by 2038 and achieving net zero emissions by 2053. Commenting on the updated NDC, Ümit Şahin, Senior Scholar and the Coordinator of Climate Change Studies at Sabancı University’s İstanbul Policy Center, noted that the goals of increasing solar power installed capacity to 33 gigawatts and wind power installed capacity to 18 gigawatts by 2030 are among the significant aspects of the document. However, Şahin stressed that the target regarding wind energy could have been more ambitious. Şahin also underlined that the emission targets in the NDC still amount to a 55 percent increase in emissions compared to 2012. Şahin argued that although the targets are relatively more improved than the previous NDC, they are still insufficient, indicating that achieving net zero emissions by 2053 is in fact impossible with the current lack of ambition ( ). Turkey’s efforts for resuming electricity generation from coal-fired power plants is another factor raising doubts about the country’s ambitions regarding emission mitigation pledges, as illustrated by the example of coal mine expansion efforts in Akbelen Forest in Southwestern Turkey, which will be discussed further below in this report. On 23 May, Turkey submitted its eighth National Communication and fifth Biennial Report under the UNFCCC ( ). The document contains chapters describing Turkey’s national circumstances, greenhouse gas emissions and sinks inventory, policies and measures on climate change, projections regarding potential impacts of these policies, an assessment on vulnerabilities and adaptation measures, and sections regarding capacity building, research, and education efforts. The European Commission 2023 progress report for Turkey, prepared in the context of Turkey’s accession negotiations with the European Union (EU), was published in November ( ). The report argues that Turkey has made limited progress on climate change by submitting an updated NDC under the Paris Agreement. However, the report finds Turkey’s emissions reduction target ‘critically insufficient’ (p 116), demanding a higher level of ambition in this field. The report stresses that while Turkey has a target of achieving net-zero emissions by 2053, the country does not have a concrete long-term decarbonization strategy supporting this objective. The report also argues that Turkey needs to further align its national legislation with the EU acquis in fields such as air quality and waste management. It underlines that in areas such as water quality, where Turkey’s legislation is relatively more aligned with EU acquis, the degree of implementation and enforcement nonetheless remains weak. Several bylaws on nuclear activities and safety regulations were published throughout the year. On 24 January, the Bylaw on Administrative Sanctions of Nuclear Regulatory Authority Administrative Sanctions was published in Resmî Gazete (No. 32083). The bylaw regulates the administrative sanctions to be imposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Authority in case of violations regarding authorization and safety requirements of radioactive activities. On 17 March, the Bylaw on Authorizations Regarding Nuclear Facilities, regulating the conditions on granting of authorizations about the activities towards ensuring safety of operation of nuclear facilities, was published in Resmî Gazete (No. 32135). With the publication of this bylaw, the Regulation on Licensing of Nuclear Facilities, in force since 1983, was repealed. On 5 May, the Bylaw on Fire Safety at Nuclear Facilities, regulating safety measures against fire risk at nuclear facilities and deployment of firefighting teams on nuclear power plant sites, was published in Resmî Gazete (No. 32181). On 16 June, the Bylaw on Management of Radiation Emergencies, containing principles on preparedness for radiation emergencies and steps to be taken if such circumstances nonetheless occur, was published in Resmî Gazete (No. 32223). On 11 August, the Bylaw on Monitoring and Onsite Inspection Regarding Nuclear Energy and Ionizing Radiation was published in Resmî Gazete (No. 32276). The bylaw regulates the scope, type, and method of monitoring activities conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Authority regarding operations involving nuclear energy and ionizing radiation. On 1 September, the Bylaw on Release and Emission of Radioactive Materials was published in Resmî Gazete (No. 32296). The bylaw identifies the principles and limits regarding the release and emission of radioactive materials from nuclear facilities during their operation and decommissioning. On 19 October, the Bylaw on Operation Procedures and Principles of Nuclear Insurance Pool and the Bylaw on Liability Insurance and Coverage Regarding Nuclear Risks, both regulating the insuring of potential risks emerging from nuclear facilities, were published in Resmî Gazete (No. 32344). On 28 October, the Bylaw on Authorizations Regarding Radiation Facilities and Radiation Operations was published in Resmî Gazete, while the Radiation Safety Regulation, which was in force since 1985, was repealed (No. 32353). On 7 November, the Bylaw on Radioactive Wastes and Management of Used Fuels was published in Resmî Gazete (No. 32362). The Turkey/Syria earthquakes in February revived controversies about the safety of the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant, which is under construction in a region near the western end of the East Anatolian Fault, which was associated with said earthquakes. Environmentalist groups in both Turkey and Cyprus expressed their concerns about the power plant, calling on Turkey’s government to terminate its construction. However, Turkey’s Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources stated that there was no intention to reevaluate the project, while Rosatom, Russia’s state-owned company constructing the power plant, claimed the project is designed to withstand even a magnitude 9 earthquake ( ). On 27 April, the first loading of nuclear fuel into the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant was completed ( ). The ecology platforms in Turkey criticized this step, stressing that the plant is still under construction and the delivery of fuel does not amount to the start of energy generation. They drew attention to the timing of the delivery, which was just before the presidential and parliamentary elections in Turkey held on 14 May, and argued that this was a ‘political move’ by Turkey’s government ( ). Last year’s report made mention of the newly published Bylaw on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (Resmî Gazete, No. 31907) and the criticisms it faced due to allegations of weakening the level of public participation in environmental decision-making ( ). On 16 February, the Sixth Chamber of Council of State issued a stay order regarding several provisions of the bylaw. The ruling affects provisions allowing a wide margin of discretion to the administration about the required forms of public announcement regarding the initiation of EIA processes. The provisions enabled the administration to exercise discretion in regard to whether or not to make announcements at the villages to be affected by proposed projects. The regulations also allowed announcements regarding potential public objections to the projects to be published only online. The Council of State found that expecting rural populations to be aware of EIA processes solely through announcements made at provincial directorates of Ministry of Environment, Urbanization, and Climate Change or through their official website is not realistic ( ). Several regulations introduced as part of the recovery and reconstruction efforts following earthquakes in Turkey and Syria raised concerns on the protection of protected areas, forests, and biodiversity. On 8 February, the presidential decision to declare a state of emergency for three months in the provinces affected by the earthquakes was published in Resmî Gazete (No. 32098). On 10 February, the parliamentary decision to approve said presidential decision was published in Resmî Gazete (No. 32100). Based on these decisions, several presidential decrees issued in a state of emergency were published in Resmî Gazete. One of these decrees, published on 24 February (Resmî Gazete, No. 32114), allows the Ministry for Environment, Urbanisation, and Climate Change to designate lands under the scope of Law (No. 4342) on pastures and lands that were excluded from the forest boundaries within the framework of Additional Article 16 of the Forest Law (No. 6831) for construction of new settlements and resettlement of individuals affected by the earthquakes. On 10 April, the Law (No. 7452) on Approval of Presidential Decree on Settlement and Reconstruction within the Scope of State of Emergency was published in Resmî Gazete (No: 32159). The law states that the announcement and objection procedures part of the Law (No. 3194) on Land Development Planning would not apply to the reconstruction plans prepared in the earthquake area. The law also allows the Ministry for Environment, Urbanisation, and Climate Change or Housing Development Administration (TOKİ) to acquire lands for reconstruction through urgent expropriation—an exceptional expedited procedure for expropriating immovables. Inhabitants of Hatay’s Dikmece village were affected by urgent expropriations as the decisions covered lands including olive groves, which are their main source of income. Some of the villagers protesting the decisions were taken into police custody ( ). Upon an application by the villagers, Hatay Third Administrative Court issued a stay order regarding the urgent expropriation decision. The Court also rejected an appeal to this interim decision by the Ministry for Environment, Urbanization, and Climate Change and Housing Development Administration. However, upon a second appeal, the stay order was lifted ( ). Lawyer Hüseyin Cihat Açıkalın, then head of Hatay Bar Association, claimed that the construction activities resumed even when the stay order was in force ( ). Another matter of concern regarding Turkey’s earthquake recovery efforts have been the alleged environmental and public health risks emerging from the clearing up of rubble. Accordingly, many of the buildings built before the ban on the use of asbestos contain said material, which is a carcinogen ( ). Local people and lawyers in Hatay complained of non-compliance with required measures on the cleanup of rubble, stressing that companies undertaking the efforts are not spraying water while breaking up rubble, even though this should be done to prevent the dust containing asbestos from becoming airborne. They also argued that the local authorities were allowing dumping of rubble in rivers, wildlife reserves, wetlands, olive groves, and areas close to camps for people displaced by the earthquakes, thus creating ecological harm and public health risks (ibid). On 15 February, the Bylaw Amending the Bylaw on Implementation of Forestry Law Article 17, paragraph 3, was published in Resmî Gazete (No. 32105). The amendment allows solar power plants to be built on forest lands that are de facto rocky, infertile, or devoid of tree cover. In their press release on the amendment, the Foresters’ Association of Türkiye stressed that the areas described in the text are not actually waste lands but rather part of the forest ecosystem as being habitats to some of the species within the forest. The association argued that when renewable energy projects are planned in a manner undermining biodiversity, these constitute instances of malmitigation. The association also indicated that by the end of 2021, 627,000 hectares of forest land were impacted by licenses granted under Forestry Law Article 17, paragraph 3, regarding construction of facilities such as airports, railways, and pipelines. The association stressed that the list of projects falling under this provision is constantly growing with new amendments year after year, urging the government against introducing legislation further diminishing forest ecosystems ( ). On 25 October, the Presidential Annual Program for 2024 was published in Resmî Gazete (No. 32350, repeated edition). The program includes evaluations about the outcomes of policies followed throughout recent years and projections about policies to be adopted through 2024. The program raised concerns among environmentalists as it mentioned plans about amendments to be introduced regarding mining legislation. Accordingly, the new legislation will classify mining activities as activities that are in the public interest, making it easier to issue licences for mining in agrarian and/or forest lands. Commenting on the proposed amendments, Doğanay Tolunay of Istanbul University - Cerrahpaşa Faculty of Forestry noted that mining licences were granted for 110,000 hectares of forest lands through the 2012–22 period. Tolunay stressed that ensuring water and food security should be Turkey’s main priority instead of mining ( ). On 9 November, Law no. 7471 amending several laws, including the Law on Transformation of Areas Under Disaster Risk (No. 6306), was published in Resmî Gazete (No. 32364). The amendment changes the definition of reserve building area under the Law on Transformation of Areas Under Disaster Risk, removing the phrase ‘as a new settlement area’ from the text. Thus, it becomes possible to declare not only the previously unsettled areas but also existing residential areas as reserve building areas. In the earlier version of the law, a qualified majority consisting of at least two thirds of apartment owners within a building was required to decide on its implementation. The amended text requires a simple majority for such decisions. Law no. 6306 has been already controversial since its enactment in 2012, with scholars such as Deniz Ay and Basak Demires Ozkul arguing that the legislation has resulted in the displacement of the working-class urban poor and redistribution of urban rent under the veil of an earthquake resilience narrative ( ). Elizabeth Angell, another researcher, underlines that many areas that were declared risk zones in Istanbul do not overlap with the seismic risk map prepared by the Japan International Cooperation Agency’s seismic risk assessment study in 2002. Angell stresses that the neighbourhoods in Istanbul identified for urban transformation under the scope of the Law no. 6306 are, instead, those that are deemed to be profitable for urban development ( ). When the new amendment started to be implemented in the earthquake-hit Hatay province with the declaration of 207 hectares of land, previously home to more than 50,000 people, as a reserve area, displaced residents became concerned about not being able to return to their neighbourhoods after redevelopment ( ), similar to the above mentioned malimplementations of urban transformation resulting in dispossession and gentrification. Lawyer Orhan Özen, from Hatay’s Samandağ district, stated that ‘the law violates property rights and does not specify how owners will be protected after their properties are handed over to the Treasury’ ( ). Residents of the city of Antakya (ancient Antioch), which is among the places affected by reserve area declaration, and which has been home to a cosmopolitan population consisting of diverse ethno-religious groups for centuries, fear that the city might lose this unique social fabric because of displacements caused by urban transformation ( ). Furthermore, the government’s urban transformation agenda raised concerns about impacts on pastures, forest lands, and other green spaces. In İstanbul, by the end of October, ‘78 recreational areas, 17 of which are parks and green areas and eight of which are military zones, have been opened for development on the grounds of earthquake’ ( ). Ülkü Sakalar, member of the Municipal Council of İstanbul, stressed that reserve area declarations around İstanbul’s Arnavutköy district are mostly associated with the Kanal İstanbul project and will increase population density in the region by drawing an additional 3 million residents to the city ( ). In December, Mehmet Özhaseki, the Minister of Environment, Urbanisation and Climate Change, announced that the ministry has identified twelve locations in Istanbul, consisting of ‘pasture lands that have lost their forest status,’ as reserve areas ( ). Commenting on this announcement, Pelin Pınar Giritlioğlu, the then chair of the İstanbul Branch of Chamber of City Planners, stressed that the areas referred to by the Ministry include forest lands, adding that common agricultural lands and pastures are also under risk ( ). Başar Alipaça, spokesperson for the Kuzey Ormanları Savunması (Northern Forests Defense), emphasized that ‘the natural and rural spaces in İstanbul’s north have been under heavy destruction and approximately one fifth of them have been lost within a short period of time, like a decade,’ calling for an absolute ban on any further construction that would damage the final remaining natural green spaces in Northern İstanbul (ibid). Last year’s report made mention of efforts to amend the Mining Bylaw to allow mining activities intended for electricity production to be carried on in lands that are registered as olive groves. It was also underlined that these efforts pertain to plans to expand coal mines at the expense of the Akbelen Forest in Southwestern Turkey’s Muğla province. Said coal mines are supplying fuel to Yeniköy and Kemerköy Coal Fired Power Plants that have been in operation since 1986 and 1993 respectively, and the earlier coal mine expansions for this purpose caused the entire clearance of eight villages, partial displacement of four villages, and destruction of over 55,000 decares of land, nearly half of it being forest land, in the region ( ). In lawsuits filed against the power plants, national courts ruled for their closure, but the judgments were not implemented by Turkey’s government (ibid). The issue then came before the European Court of Human Rights, who in the case of Okyay and others v Turkey (Application No. 36220/97) found that Turkey violated the right to fair trial by not implementing national court judgments about power plants ( ). However, even this ruling has not stopped the operation of power plants and further expansion of coal mines in the region. When it became clear that YK Energy, the company the power plants after their was to also clear the Akbelen Forest for further the villagers of a in to the ( ). The issue came to the when clearance into Akbelen Forest to the for mine expansion on 24 even though the the project was still ( ). The villagers, a in the area since to the clearance of but were by and by the clearance ( ). by against the forest clearance a forest area within eight the government’s the rights groups stressed that the of Turkey’s government to electricity from coal a of the country’s under the UNFCCC and the Paris Turkey’s to net zero emissions by 2053 ( ).

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.