Analysis of environmental impact assessment (EIA) system in Turkey

被引:11
|
作者
Coskun, Aynur Aydin [1 ]
Turker, Ozhan [1 ]
机构
[1] Istanbul Univ, Dept Environm & Forest Law, Fac Forestry, TR-34473 Istanbul, Turkey
关键词
Turkey; EIA system; Environment; Prevention principle; European Union Council;
D O I
10.1007/s10661-010-1507-3
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) System, which embodies the "prevention principle" of the environmental law, is an important tool for environmental protection. This tool has a private importance for Turkey since it is a developing country, and it entered the Turkish law in 1983 with the Environmental Law. Besides, the EIA Regulation, which shows the application principles, became effective in 1993. Because Turkey is a candidate for European Union (EU), the EIA Regulation has been changed due to the EU compliance procedure, and its latest version became valid in 2008. This study aims to emphasize The EIA system in Turkey to supervise the efficiency of this procedure and point the success level. In the introduction part, general EIA concept, its importance, and some notations are mentioned. Following that, the legislation, which builds the EIA system, has been analyzed starting from the 1982 Turkish Constitution. Then, the legislation rules are explained due to the basic steps of the EIA procedure. In order to shed light upon the application, the EIA final decisions given until today, the results, and their distributions to the industries are assessed. In the final part of the study, a SWOT analysis is made to mention the weaknesses, strengths, opportunities, and threats of the EIA system in Turkey.
引用
收藏
页码:213 / 226
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] 'Better Regulation' in Environmental Impact Assessment: The Amended EIA Directive
    Arabadjieva, Kalina
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, 2016, 28 (01) : 159 - 168
  • [32] Walking the sustainability assessment talk - Progressing the practice of environmental impact assessment (EIA)
    Morrison-Saunders, Angus
    Retief, Francois
    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW, 2012, 36 : 34 - 41
  • [33] Evaluation of project-level environmental impact assessment and SWOT analysis of EIA process in India
    Rathi, A. K. A.
    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW, 2017, 67 : 31 - 39
  • [34] Analysis of three gaps in the teaching system of environmental impact assessment (EIA) and the improvement based on application-oriented talent training
    Tian, Dayong
    Wang, Tao
    Su, Wenhui
    Yang, Shuang
    Zheng, Yong
    Zhao, Menglei
    Cheng, Sisi
    Niu, Yongshen
    Liu, Xiaotao
    2020 6TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT AND MATERIALS SCIENCE, 2020, 585
  • [35] Comparison of China’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Law with the European Union (EU) EIA Directive
    Qiaoling Chen
    Yuanzhi Zhang
    Ari Ekroos
    Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2007, 132 : 53 - 65
  • [36] ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA): AN EYE WASH OR AN EFFECTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT TOOL IN PAKISTAN
    Saeed, Rashid
    Sattar, Ayesha
    SCIENTIFIC PAPERS-SERIES MANAGEMENT ECONOMIC ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, 2011, 11 (01) : 185 - 192
  • [37] Comparison of china's environmental impact assessment (EIA) law with the european union (EU) EIA directive
    Chen, Qiaoling
    Zhang, Yuanzhi
    Ekroos, Ari
    ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT, 2007, 132 (1-3) : 53 - 65
  • [38] THE APPLICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) TO UK MINERAL PLANNING
    TOMLINSON, P
    MINERALS AND THE ENVIRONMENT, 1981, 3 (03): : 86 - 92
  • [39] Is there room for environmental impact assessment (EIA) in southern African geopolitical entities
    Tserere, MM
    Osagie, JE
    Akande, D
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, 2004, 39 (5-6) : 372 - 372
  • [40] Environmental impact assessment (EIA): an overlooked instrument for sustainable development in Pakistan
    Rashid Saeed
    Ayesha Sattar
    Zafar Iqbal
    Muhammad Imran
    Raziya Nadeem
    Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2012, 184 : 1909 - 1919