Hydropower in Turkey: Economical, social andenvironmental aspects and legal challenges

Elcin Kentel a,*, Emre Alp b,1

aDepartment of Civil Engineering, Water Resources Laboratory, Middle East Technical University, 06800 Ankara,

TurkeybDepartment of Environmental Engineering, Middle East Technical University, 06800 Ankara, Turkey

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 3 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 3 4 – 4 3

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 1 May 2012

Received in revised form

24 February 2013

Accepted 25 February 2013

Published on line 23 April 2013

Keywords:

Hydropower

Economical aspects

Social aspects

Environmental aspects

Integrated watershed management

Turkey

a b s t r a c t

Turkey, as a rapidly developing and industrializing country, is in need of reliable, inexpen-

sive, and high quality energy. The main energy sources of Turkey are coal, natural gas and

hydropower. However, almost all the natural gas and high quality coal is imported. Thus,

hydropower is the main domestic energy source. According to the State Hydraulic Works

(SHW), the primary executive state agency responsible for the planning, operation, and

management of water resources, Turkey has an economically viable hydroelectric potential

of 140,000 GWh/year. Currently, around 35% of this potential is utilized. Increasing the share

of hydropower in the energy budget of Turkey will reduce dependency on foreign energy

sources. However, development of the unused hydropower potential, especially through

run-of-river plants, has caused many problems in the country. Run-of-river plants are small

hydropower plants (SHPPs) usually with no storage. Electricity Market Law No. 4628 which

came into effect in February 2001 was a major step towards the privatization of the

electricity sector. The law enabled planning and construction of SHPPs by the private sector.

This created a big market for consulting firms which prepare feasibility reports, construction

companies, and companies that own and operate these SHPPs. However, due to inadequate

water resources management strategies, rivers are impaired; their natural flows are dis-

turbed to generate electricity without paying necessary attention to components of the

ecosystem and the needs and concerns of local residents. Thus, Turkey faces a challenging

problem: Maximizing the utilization of hydropower which is the main domestic energy

source while maintaining environmentally conscious and sustainable development. This

study aims to explain the change in the contribution of hydropower in the energy budget of

Turkey with time and current social and environmental problems associated particularly

with SHPPs. Issues requiring immediate attention to facilitate sustainable development of

hydropower potential are identified.

# 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

1. Introduction

Energy plays a critical role in economic growth and social

development. However, the International Atomic Energy

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 312 210 5412; fax: +90 312 210 7956.E-mail addresses: ekentel@metu.edu.tr (E. Kentel), emrealp@metu

1 Tel.: +90 312 210 5853; fax: +90 312 210 2646.1462-9011/$ – see front matter # 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reservehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.02.008

Agency (IAEA) (2005) states ‘‘But however essential it may

be for development, energy is only a means to an end. The end

is good health, high living standards, a sustainable economy

and a clean environment.’’ Thus, energy resources that serve

this end with relatively fewer adverse impacts on public

.edu.tr (E. Alp).

d.

0.0E+ 00

2.0E+ 04

4.0E+ 04

6.0E+ 04

8.0E+ 04

1.0E+ 05

1.2E+ 05

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

prod

uctio

n an

d co

nsum

ptio

n (1

000

toe)

year

production

consu mpt ion

Fig. 1 – Energy production and consumption in Turkey from 1970 to 2011.

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 3 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 3 4 – 4 3 35

health and the environment need to be preferred. Yet many

areas of the world have no reliable and secure energy supplies

which limit economic development while in other areas,

environmental degradation from energy production and use

inhibits sustainable development (UN and IAEA, 2006). In

these areas, governments are responsible for identifying and

promoting appropriate policies that will lead to sustainable

development. Turkey’s energy balance in the previous four

decades reflects that the share of foreign energy sources in the

total primary energy supply is very high and the main

domestic resource, hydropower, is not appropriately utilized.

Thus, Turkey is among those countries for which suitable

energy policies need to be immediately developed. This paper

presents the change in the energy budget of Turkey within the

past four decades, the role of hydropower, and social and

environmental problems associated especially with small

hydropower plants. Various suggestions which may provide

guidance in developing appropriate energy policies for Turkey,

are provided.

Turkey is a developing country and its energy consumption

has increased continuously in the last four decades. Many

researchers have evaluated Turkey’s energy policy and provided

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

cons

umpt

ion

(%)

natural gaspetroleumhardcoal

Fig. 2 – Contributions of hard coal, petroleum and natural gas in

future energy predictions (Toklu, 2013; Benli, 2013; Yuksel, 2013;

Akpinar, 2013; Melikoglu, 2013). For example, Melikoglu (2013)

states that electricity consumption of Turkey is expected to

reach 530,000 GWh at year 2023 and 30% of this demand will be

produced from renewable energy sources. Among all the

potential energy sources in Turkey, importance of hydroelectric

energy is going to increase due to high hydropower potential and

restrictions related to the carbon emissions.

The change in energy production and consumption of

Turkey from 1970 to 2011 is given in Fig. 1. The energy demand

of Turkey was 114 million tons of oil equivalent (toe) in 2011. In

terms of oil, natural gas and hard coal, over 90% of this

demand and around 80% of the total energy demand in 2008

was supplied through imports (MENR, 2013). The contributions

of ‘‘hard coal’’ (hard coal, asphaltite, secondary coal and

petrocoke), petroleum and natural gas in total energy

consumptions from 1970 to 2011 are given in Fig. 2. As can

be seen in Fig. 2, contribution of these three sources in the total

energy consumption of Turkey was around 60% in the 1970s

and increased to approximately 75% in 2011. Thus, currently

hard coal, petroleum and natural gas are main energy sources

for Turkey.

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

year

the total energy consumption from 1970 to 2011 in Turkey.

0102030405060708090

100110

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

P/C

(%)

year

hard co alpetrol eumnatura l gastotal

Fig. 3 – Energy production to consumption ratios for main energy sources from 1970 to 2011.

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 3 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 3 4 – 4 336

Hard coal, petroleum and natural gas resources of Turkey

are very limited. Although most of these resources are

imported from other countries (Yuksel, 2013; Benli, 2013),

these sources contributed more than 50% to the total

consumption since 1970 (see Fig. 2). The changes in the

production to consumption ratios (P/C) of natural gas,

petroleum and hard coal are given in Fig. 3.

As can be seen in Fig. 2, the contribution of natural gas in

the total energy consumption became apparent after the mid-

1980s and its P/C declined sharply around the same time (see

Fig. 3). These two figures indicate that in the last two decades,

utilization of imported natural gas has increased considerably

in Turkey. A similar situation is valid for petroleum. As can be

seen in Fig. 2, petroleum had a significant contribution (i.e. 40–

50%) to the total energy consumption until the mid-1980s, and

then introduction of imported natural gas into the market

caused this contribution to gradually decrease to around 30–

40%. Production to consumption ratio for petroleum was less

than 50% in the 1970s and it decreased to less than 10% in the

last decade. Compared to petroleum, hard coal always had a

smaller contribution in the total energy consumption but as

can be seen in Fig. 2, it consistently contributed around 15% of

the total consumption between 1970 and 2011. Similar to

natural gas and petroleum, P/C of hard coal also demonstrated

a decreasing trend in this time period (see Fig. 3). To

summarize, contribution of the sum of the three main energy

sources, namely natural gas, petroleum and hard coal in the

total energy consumption of Turkey increased from approxi-

mately 60% to around 75% from 1970 to 2011 while P/C of all

three sources decreased to less than 10% in the last 40 years.

It is worth investigating how contribution of domestic

resources of Turkey in the total consumption changed in this

same period. Contributions of ‘‘renewable resources’’ (includ-

ing biomass, geothermal, solar and wind), plant and animal

wastes, hydropower, wood and lignite to the total energy

consumption of Turkey from 1970 to 2011 are given in Fig. 4.

Energy P/C for these domestic sources are given in Fig. 5 for the

same period.

As can be seen in Fig. 4, contribution of domestic resources in

the total energy consumption of Turkey oscillated between 20%

and 40% in the last 40 years. However, it showed a decreasing

trend starting from the mid-1980s when natural gas was

introduced into the Turkish energy market as a primary energy

source. Domestic lignite is an important energy source for

Turkey. However high sulfur content of domestic lignite is a

major drawback since it contributes to air pollution (Kaygusuz,

2009). Compared to wood and lignite, hydropower and renew-

able resources cause less air pollution. As can be seen in Fig. 4,

contribution of animal and plant wastes in the total energy

consumption decreased from around 10% to almost none from

1970 to 2011. In 1970, the total energy consumption from

renewable resources was only 23,000 toe and it reached to

1,314,000 toe in 2011 which is less than 3% of the total

consumption. Contribution of hydraulic energy in the total

energy consumption of Turkey had oscillated through the years

but stayed below 6% in the last 40 years. Share of hydraulic

energy in the total electricity generation of Turkey is explained

in more detail in the following section.

Energy P/C for domestic energy sources, as expected,

stayed around 100% all the time (see Fig. 5). The total energy

P/C represented by the solid line in Fig. 5 is an indicator of the

dependency of Turkey on foreign energy sources. Total P/C

decreased from around 80% to less than 30% from 1970 to 2011

which indicates that in the past 40 years dependency of

Turkey on foreign energy sources approximately tripled.

Decreasing the dependency on imported sources can be

achieved by increasing the contribution of domestic sources

to the energy budget of Turkey. The government is well aware

of this fact and the following items are identified by the

Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources of Turkey among

primary energy policies and priorities (MENR, 2010): (i)

decreasing dependency on imported resources by prioritizing

utilization of domestic resources, (ii) increasing the share of

renewable energy resources in energy budget of Turkey;

(iii) minimization of adverse environmental impacts of

production and utilization of natural resources.

Fig. 4 – Contributions of renewable resources, hydraulic, wood and lignite to the total energy consumption of Turkey from

1970 to 2011.

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 3 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 3 4 – 4 3 37

2. Hydropower in Turkey

In accordance with Turkey’s energy policies and priorities, the

number of SHPPs planned and built by the private sector has

increased considerably, especially after the Electricity Market

Law No. 4628 was enacted in 2001. This law aims to facilitate

an energy reform to establish a more competitive structure

that involves private investments and to improve the

efficiency of energy production in Turkey (Ozkıvrak, 2005).

The need for the development of hydropower potential to

decrease the dependency on foreign energy sources was

explained in the Introduction section. Contribution of hydrau-

lic energy to electricity generation in the past four decades and

social and environmental problems associated with hydro-

electric power plants (HEPPs), especially SHPPs, in Turkey are

explained in the following sections.

0102030405060708090

100110120

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

P/C

(%)

y

wood hydrlignite re ne animal & plant wast es tota l

Fig. 5 – Energy production to consumption ratios for renewable

2.1. Economical aspects

SHW estimates the economically viable hydroelectric poten-

tial of Turkey as 140,000 GWh/year of which only around 35%

is currently utilized (SHW, 2009). The current installed

capacity of hydroelectric power plants in Turkey is around

13700 MW and the status of economically viable potential of

Turkey is provided in Table 1.

In 2011, the share of hydropower in the total electricity

generation of Turkey was around 20% (TETC, 2013). As can be

seen in Fig. 6, the share of hydropower in the total electricity

generation oscillated between 18% and 60% from 1970s to

today, reaching its lowest value in 2008. This contradicts with

the energy policy and priorities of the Ministry of Energy and

Natural Resources.

A more detailed graph of the development of electricity

generation from thermal and hydraulic sources between 1990

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

ear

aulicwable res.

resources, hydraulic, wood and lignite from 1970 to 2011.

Table 1 – Status of economically viable potential of Turkey (SHW, 2009).

Number of HEPPs Installed capacity [MW] Average annual generation [GWh/yr] Ratio [%]

In operation 172 13,700 48,000 35

(SHW) �57 �10,700

(Other) �115 �3000

Under construction 148 8600 20,000 14

(SHW) �23 �3600

(Other) �125 �5000

In program 1418 22,700 72,000 51

(Private sectora) �1401 �18,700

(Bilateral cooperationb) �17 �4000

Total 1738 45,000 140,000 100

a Laws No. 4628 or 3096.b Laws No. 4628 or 5625.

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 3 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 3 4 – 4 338

and 2011 for Turkey is given in Fig. 7. As can be seen in Fig. 7,

share of thermal power plants in electricity generation has

increased significantly in the last two decades. Consequently,

the share of hydropower has continuously decreased. As a

result, in 2011, more than 75% of the electricity was generated

from thermal sources.

According to SHW, Turkey has approximately 90,000 GWh

per year remaining economically viable hydroelectricity

generation capacity (SHW, 2009). In this article hydropower

plants with an installed capacity smaller than or equal to

10 MW are considered as SHPPs. The economically feasible

small hydropower potential for Turkey is identified as

19,300 GWh per year by Punys and Laguna (2005). According

to SHW the annual average electricity generation of SHPPs in

operation as of April 2010 is 722 GWh (SHW, 2010). Thus there

is an unused economically feasible small hydropower poten-

tial of around 18,578 GWh per year and the private sector is

willing to develop this potential. Although SHPPs which are

mostly run-of-river type have localized environmental

impacts compared to plants with reservoirs, they still may

adversely impact ecosystems. In a run-of-river hydropower

plant, water is diverted from its natural course into channels

or tunnels, carried to a turbine located at a lower elevation and

returned back into a downstream section of the river after

passing through the turbine(s). This results in a decrease in the

amount of flowing water between the points where it is

diverted from the river and released back to it. Environmental

impacts of SHPPS are explained later.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

Shar

e of

hyd

ropo

wer

in to

tal

elec

trici

ty g

ener

atio

n (%

)

Fig. 6 – Share of hydropower in the total el

Utilization of hydropower will reduce Turkey’s dependency

on imported energy sources. However planning, development

and operation of hydropower plants need to be realized in a

sustainable manner considering their environmental and

social impacts. Another improvement in reducing the depen-

dency may be achieved through renewing transmission and

distribution networks. Comparison of the total network loss to

the net electricity consumption from 1970 to 2011 is given in

Fig. 8. Ratios of network loss to gross generation (NL/GG) and

electricity supplied to the network (NL/ESN) are given in Fig. 9.

Between 1970 and 2011, at least 10% of the total electricity

supplied to the system was lost through transmission and

distribution networks and in 2011, NL/GG was around 14% (see

Fig. 9). This ratio is much smaller in developed countries. For

example, NL/GG for Germany, Belgium, France and the

Netherlands is 4.7%, 5.0%, 5.7% and 4.3%, respectively (IEA,

2011). As can be seen in Fig. 8, the total network loss increased

in years and reached 32,000 GWh per year in 2011 which is

more than the economically feasible small hydropower

potential of Turkey identified by Punys and Laguna (2005).

2.2. Social and environmental aspects and legalconsiderations

In a run-of-river hydropower plant some of the river’s flow is

diverted into a channel or a tunnel and returned back to the

river downstream of the turbine(s). Environmental impacts of

run-of-river type hydroelectric power plants have many

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

year

ectricity generation from 1970 to 2011.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Shar

e of

hyd

ro a

nd th

erm

al p

ower

pla

nts i

nin

tota

l ele

ctric

ity g

ener

atio

n (%

)

year

ther malhydro

Fig. 7 – Turkey’s electricity generation from thermal sources and hydropower from 1990 to 2011.

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 3 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 3 4 – 4 3 39

dimensions associated with both construction and operation-

al phases. The issues that are expected to occur during the

construction phase include dust emissions, air pollution,

noise, erosion, landslide, and excavation debris. Especially

dust and landslide are the major problems of the construction

phase that cause health and environmental degradation

problems. The topics related to the amount and the timing

of water to be released back to the river, efficiency of fish

passages, sediment passages, access roads and energy

transmission lines are the main considerations of the

operational phase.

Aquatic life may be adversely impacted in the diversion

reach if sufficient amount of water is not kept in the river for

sustaining a healthy aquatic habitat. Moreover, chemical

composition and physical characteristics of the water (pH,

temperature, suspended solids, etc.) might change and

migration of fish may also be disturbed.

Fig. 8 – Comparison of net electricity consumption

Run-of-river plants require either tunnels or channels – to

transport water from a higher upstream elevation to a

downstream location where the head difference is utilized

to generate electricity – which may damage the natural habitat

and spoil the scenery. If the route of the tunnels or channels

reside inside forests or agricultural areas then trees or farm

land will be destroyed. In addition to such ecological,

environmental and aesthetic impacts, run-of-river plants

have major social impacts on the local people. Local people

usually utilize rivers for their social and economic needs such

as irrigation, fishing, swimming, recreation, transportation,

etc. Amount of water diverted from the river has to be

identified such that all social and economic needs of local

people can be satisfied and aquatic life in the river can be

maintained with the remaining river flow. The amounts of

water required for demands other than electricity generation;

i.e. water supply, irrigation, recreational purposes, etc. and

to the total network loss from 1970 to 2011.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

ratio

of n

etw

ork

loss

(%)

year

network los s/gross gen era tion

network los s/electri city suppli ed to n etwork

Fig. 9 – Ratios of network loss to gross generation and to electricity supplied to the network from 1970 to 2011.

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 3 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 3 4 – 4 340

sustainability of ecosystems can only be determined through

Integrated Watershed Management (IWM), Cumulative Im-

pact Assessment (CIA) and Strategic Environmental Assess-

ment (SEA) approaches.

2.2.1. Integrated watershed managementSustainability of ecosystems can only be achieved through

IWM plans which consider physical, biological, chemical

components of the ecosystem and socio-economic constrains.

IWM approach which requires involvement of all stakeholders

is a guided tool explained in the European Union (EU) Water

Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EEC) to achieve good

ecological status in European Waters. Turkey being an EU

candidate country is currently in the harmonization process

with the European laws and regulations. Thus, Turkey is

expected to establish the necessary scientific and legal bases

to develop watershed management plans to compile with the

EU WFD. This tool will help decision makers in Turkey to

protect ecosystems and evaluate decisions related not only

with HEPPs but also with any other investment that may have

an impact on the environment. However, until the harmoni-

zation with the Water Framework Directive is completed,

decision makers can still use the current regulations to

develop watershed management plans.

A couple of international projects (i.e. ‘‘Implementation of

the Water Framework Directive in Turkey’’ (MAT01/TR/9/3)

and ‘‘Capacity Building Support to Turkey for the water sector’’

(TR 06 IB EN 01)) have been completed and under way (i.e.

‘‘Capacity Building on Water Quality Monitoring’’ (TR 09 EB EN

03)) for capacity building on the water sector and implemen-

tation of WFD in Turkey. Apart from these projects, The

Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey

announced two project calls in 2012. One of these projects

is related with developing methodologies for the identification

of environmental objectives for surface, coastal and transi-

tional waters. The other project aims to identify chemical and

quantitative status of groundwater bodies and measures

required to achieve and maintain good status for the

groundwater bodies. The Buyuk Menderes Basin is selected

as the pilot study area for both of these projects. Being the

beneficiary institution of both of these projects, the Ministry of

Environment and Urbanization has taken the leadership in

implementing the WFD. Within the scope of these two projects

human activities that may impact the quality and quantity of

surface and groundwater bodies will be investigated and

necessary measures to achieve and maintain good status will

be identified. Energy generation through small hydropower

plants is among the potential water uses of water resources of

Turkey. Thus, these two projects provide opportunities for the

evaluation of the impacts of SHPPs within an IWM framework.

Law No. 4856 about the organization and duties of the

Ministry of Environment and Urbanization assigns the duty of

conducting necessary studies related with the protection of

water resources, preparation of utilization plans and the

integrated management of land and inland waters at the

watershed level to the General Directorate of Environmental

Management. However, Water Pollution Control Regulation

No. 25687 which came into effect in 2004 states that the

Ministry of Environment and Forest, considering the sugges-

tions of SHW and related organizations, is responsible for

preparing watershed protection action plans. As can be seen,

Turkey’s current legal framework already establishes a base to

implement watershed management plans in order to protect

ecological balance. Accordingly, preparation of IWM plans for

eleven basins in Turkey has been initiated by the Ministry of

Environment and Urbanization very recently (Basin Protec-

tion, 2011) although they are not fully operational yet.

2.2.2. Strategic environmental assessment, cumulative impactassessment and environmental impact assessmentCumulative impacts are defined as impacts that result from

incremental changes caused by other past, present or

reasonably foreseeable actions together with the project (EC,

1999). For example: (i) combined effect of individual impacts of

hydroelectric power plants during the construction period, e.g.

noise, dust, landslide and erosion, or (ii) several developments

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 3 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 3 4 – 4 3 41

with insignificant impacts individually but which together

have a cumulative effect, e.g. several run-of-river type

hydroelectric power plants that are constructed on the same

river.

The combined influence on the environment of all projects

occurring in a single area should be evaluated through

cumulative impact assessment (Strimbu and Innes, 2011).

The CIA considers all the consequences of multiple projects,

each insignificant on its own, yet important when considered

collectively (Council on Environmental Quality, 1969). The

simultaneous occurrence of several projects impacts the

environment not only additively but also synergistically, as

supplementary effects can appear beyond the simple accu-

mulation of the effects of individual projects. Cooper (2004)

states that causes, pathways and consequences of these

impacts are essential parts of the CIA. Furthermore, cumula-

tive effects are best considered at plan or program levels,

where decisions about future developments are made. The

CIA may be undertaken as part of the Strategic Environmental

Assessment which is a systematic process of addressing the

environmental consequences of proposed policy, plans and

programs (Cooper, 2004). SEA can facilitate the analysis of

cumulative effects since the scope of the SEA is appropriate to

the temporal and geographical scales at which cumulative

effects occur (EU SEA Directive, European Parliament and

Council, 2001; Cooper, 2004). Although the private sector and

Turkish government are aware of the SEA and the CIA, they are

not regulated by the law yet. On the other hand, pilot scale

applications of both the SEA and the CIA are being carried out

for the projects for which international lenders are involved.

Moreover, studies are conducted for preparing draft regula-

tions for SEA and CIA. In Turkey, the environmental and social

impacts of individual projects are required to be assessed by

an environmental impact assessment study.

In Turkey, there is a legal requirement enforced by the

Ministry of the Environment and Urbanization (formerly

Ministry of Environment and Forestry) to complete an EIA

study for HEPP projects with installed capacities of 25 MW or

larger. Projects with installed capacities between 0.5 MW and

25 MW are subject to the Selection and Elimination Criteria.

The owner prepares a ‘‘Project Presentation File’’ and the

Ministry of Environment and Urbanization decides whether

an EIA is required or not (MOEU, 2008). Currently, around 2000

SHPPs are planned throughout Turkey (Ozalp et al., 2010).

Although planning, construction and operation of these

hydropower plants must be realized in accordance with the

submitted project presentation files or EIA reports, currently

appropriate auditing of these studies cannot be carried out by

the government since the necessary organizational infra-

structure is not fully established yet (Abay et al., 2010). This

has resulted in many lawsuits and suspension of executions

related with hydropower projects in Turkey. The Eastern Black

Sea Region is among the problematic areas in terms of the

development of small hydropower in Turkey.

The Eastern Black Sea Region has a large hydropower

potential due to high precipitation and existence of sharp

valleys and steep streams with considerable discharges and

heads (Dursun and Gokcol, 2011). This hydropower potential is

planned to be harnessed by a total of 181 SHPPs with a total

installed capacity of 860 MW (Uzlu et al., 2011). In Artvin

province alone, as of May 2009, a total of 116 run-of river

hydropower plants are planned. Many of these HEPPs are

planned as multiple run-of river plants on the same branch of

the river. For example, at District of Meydancık in the city of

S avsat, on approximately 20 km long section of Papart Creek, a

total of seven hydropower plants are planned (Ozalp et al.,

2010). However, local people and various environmental

groups oppose construction of these hydropower plants and

many projects have been taken to the court. More than 25

HEPPs have been suspended or cancelled by courts (CCEB,

2010; Evcimen, 2010).

As mentioned in the previous paragraph, there are tens of

lawsuits filed by the local residents against SHPPs. Local

residents realize that Turkey is in need of energy but at the

same time they have concerns about preservation of local

ecosystems. They believe that the construction of the SHPPs

will damage the integrity of these ecosystems. In addition,

they are concerned about the sufficiency of the amount of

water released to the river for supplying their current needs

(i.e. drinking water, irrigation, fishing, etc.) and the needs of

future generations considering the shifts in hydrologic

regimes due to climate change. Local residents believe that

decisions about SHPPs have to be made based on comprehen-

sive, site-specific scientific studies which investigate all

related economic, environmental and social issues. Local

residents’ awareness of the environment and desire to protect

ecosystems for future generations bring ethical and legal

considerations related with SHPP projects into the picture.

Ethical issues related with planning and construction of SHPPs

is explained in the following paragraphs.

According to Aldo Leopold who established the principles

of land/environmental ethics, ‘‘a thing is right when it tends to

preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic

community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise’’. Leopold

defines the boundary of the environment/ecosystem as: ‘‘soils,

waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land.’’ Leopold

also realizes that ‘‘a land ethic cannot prevent the alteration,

management, and use of these resources but it does affirm

their right to continued existence, and, at least in spots, their

continued existence in a natural state’’. The local residents’

approach to utilization of water through SHPPs is in agreement

with the principles of the land ethics. Local residents

essentially want to know the impact of HEPPs on the integrity

of the ecosystems. As Leopold correctly emphasized, land

ethics itself cannot assure the integrity of the ecosystems. For

this reason, environmental laws and regulations are required

to guarantee continued functional existence of ecosystems.

Law of Environment (MOEU, 2006) which was established in

1983 is the main law in Turkey that defines general principles

for the protection and improvement of the environment and

prevention of pollution. In this law, environment is defined as

‘‘biological, physical, social, economic and cultural media

where living things exist and mutually interact during the

course of their life spans’’. In the same law, pollution is defined

as ‘‘any negative impact that occurs on the environment and

may deteriorate the wellbeing of biological life, environmental

values and ecological balance’’. For example, a SHPP that

poses risk on the integrity of the ecosystem is considered as

‘‘pollution’’ according to the Turkish Law of Environment.

Turkish Law of Environment strongly follows the principles of

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 3 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 3 4 – 4 342

land ethics. Hence, according to the Law of Environment, a

decision based on ‘‘Selection and Elimination Criteria’’ of the

EIA Regulation should not conclude that there is no need to

complete an EIA study for a SHPP project unless a compre-

hensive feasibility study showing that the SHPP will not

damage the integrity of the biotic community has been

prepared. Effective laws, regulations and guidelines realize

and establish rules for protecting the integrity of the

environment and promoting sustainable development. On

the other hand, the necessity and urgency of developing the

hydropower potential of Turkey is well established and

accepted. Simultaneous achievement of these two conflicting

goals can only be achieved by the combined efforts of all the

stakeholders (i.e. the government, SHPP owners, local resi-

dents, researchers, and the public).

3. Conclusions

It is clear that Turkey is in need of developing its unused

hydropower potential to increase the share of its national

resources in its energy budget. This has been emphasized

strongly by the government and the passing of Electricity

Market Law No. 4628 in 2001 has triggered a reform in the

electricity sector. This resulted in planning and construction

of a large number of run-of-river SHPPs in Turkey in a short

period of time. However, in the planning phase, necessary

emphasis has not been placed on the evaluation of environ-

mental and social consequences of these SHPPs which has

caused strong opposition from the local people and environ-

mental groups. Many SHPP projects are taken to court and

some have been cancelled. This reveals that the current

system for the utilization of the hydropower potential of

Turkey especially through SHPPs planned and owned by the

private sector is not functioning properly. To maximize the

benefits of water resources the principles of sustainable water

management which includes risk and uncertainty anaysis,

life-cycle assessment, and environmental impact assessment

need to be satisfied through several mechanisms.

First of all, IWM plans need to be developed for each basin

in order to equitably allocate water resources among different

uses including drinking water, industrial and commercial

water, irrigation, recreational purposes, electricity generation,

etc. in an environmentally and ecologically safe manner. As a

part of the CIA strategy, the effects of the all SHHPs along a

river reach should be evaluated not only in the vicinity of the

SHHPs but at downstream locations to reflect the cumulative

impact of the projects planned to be implemented on the same

river system. SHPP licenses should be granted only after the

combined impacts of all proposed hydropower plants on a

basin are evaluated and appropriate environmental and socio-

economic assessment studies are carried out. In addition, CIA

should be incorporated into the SEA to evaluate the effects of a

policy, plan or program to the watershed over a long time

period, including the past and the future.

Local people need to be included in the decision making

process and their concerns and needs should be listened to

and valued. Finally, the government should follow and audit

the whole process (i.e. planning, construction and operation

stages of hydropower plants) through a legal framework

specifically designed for Turkey.

As a summary, although the development of hydropower

potential – the main domestic energy resource – is necessary

for Turkey, it will not be sufficient for maintaining the public

welfare unless the following factors are taken into consider-

ation: (i) protecting the environment, (ii) maintaining a

sustainable electricity generation scheme, (iii) including all

the stakeholders, especially local people, in the decision

making process.

r e f e r e n c e s

Abay, O., Baykan, N.O., Yasar, M., 2010. Evaluation of smallhydropower of Turkey (Kucuk Su Kuvvetlerinin Turkiye’dekiDurumu Uzerine Bir Degerlendirme). In: VIth NationalHdyrology Congress. 22–24 September 2010, PamukkaleUniversity, Denizli, Turkey 933–942 (in Turkish).

Akpinar, A., 2013. The contribution of hydropower in meetingelectric energy needs: the case of Turkey. Renewable Energy51, 206–219.

Basin Protection (Havza Koruma), 2011. http://www.havzakoruma.com (accessed 25.04.2011).

Benli, H., 2013. Potential of renewable energy in electricalenergy production and sustainable energy development ofTurkey: performance and policies. Renewable Energy 50,33–46.

Chamber of Civil Engineers Bulletin, 2010. Hydropower PlantsFile (Hidroelektrik Santral Dosyası), 20–37, November 2010(in Turkish).

Cooper, L.M., 2004. Guidelines for Cumulative EffectsAssessment in SEA of Plans, EPMG Occasional Paper 04/LMC/CEA, Imperial College London.

Council on Environmental Quality, 1969. The NationalEnvironmental Policy Act.

Dursun, B., Gokcol, C., 2011. The role of hydroelectric power andcontribution of small hydropower plants for sustainabledevelopment in Turkey. Renewable Energy 36, 1227–1235.

European Parliament and Council, 2000, Directive 2000/60/EC ofthe European Parliament and of the Council, establishing aframework for community action in the field of water policy,Water Framework Directive (WFD).

European Parliament and Council, 2001, Directive 2001/42/EC ofthe European Parliament and of the Council on theassessment of the effects of certain plans and programmeson the environment.

Europian Commision, 1999. Guidelines for the Assessment ofIndirect and Cumulative Impacts as well as ImpactInteractions, Office for Official Publications of the EuropeanCommunities.

Evcimen, T.U., 2010. Technical Power (Teknik Guc). Chamber ofCivil Engineers Publication, Ankara, 208 (in Turkish).

IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), 2005. EnergyIndicators for Sustainable Development: Guidelines andMethodologies. International Atomic Energy Agency, UnitedNations Department of Economic and Social Affairs,International Energy Agency, EUROSAT, and EuropeanEnvironment Agency, IAEA, Austria, Vienna.

IEA (International Energy Agency), 2011. http://www.iea,org(accessed 27.02.2011).

Kaygusuz, K., 2009. Energy and environmental issues relating togreenhouse gas emissions for sustainable development inTurkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13,253–270.

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 3 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 3 4 – 4 3 43

Leopold, A., 1949. A Sand County Almanac with Essays onConservation. Oxford University Press, New York, 226.

Melikoglu, M., 2013. Vision 2023: feasibility analysis of Turkey’srenewable energy projection. Renewable Energy 50, 570–575.

MENR (Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources), 2010. ActivityReport (2009 Faaliyet Raporu), Directorate of StrategyDevelopment (Strateji Gelistirme Baskanlıgı), April 2010, (inTurkish).

MENR (Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources), 2013. http://www.enerji.gov.tr (accessed 2.02.2013).

MOEU (Ministry of Environment and Urbanization of Turkey),2006. Environmental Law No. 2872. Official Gazette, Date: 11/8/1983, No: 18132. (This law was revised by Law No 5491 on26.04.2006).

MOEU (Ministry of Environment and Urbanization of Turkey),2008. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulation,Official Gazette, vol. 26939 (in Turkish).

Ozalp, M., Kurdoglu, O., Yuksel, E.E., Yıldırımer, S., 2010.Economic and Social Problems Associated with Run-of RiverType Hydropower Plants in Artvin (Artvin’de Nehir TipiHidroelektrik Santrallerin Neden Oldugu/Olacagi Ekonomikve Sosyal Sorunlar), 3rd National Black Sea ForestryCongress (III. Ulusal Karadeniz Ormancilik Kongresi), 20–22May 2010, Vol.: II, 677-687 (in Turkish).

Ozkıvrak, O., 2005. Electricity restructuring in Turkey. EnergyPolicy 33, 1339–1350.

Punys, P., Laguna, M., 2005. Small Hydropower Has Much toOffer: The Situation in the New Member States andCandidate Countries. Renewable Energy World, May–June,74–79.

SHW (State Hydraulic Works), 2009. Water and DSI. Ministry ofthe Environment and Forest, General Directorate of StateHydraulic Works. 5th World Water Forum, Istanbul.

SHW (State Hydraulic Works), 2010. http://www.dsi.gov.tr/skatablo/Tablo1.htm (accessed 25.09.2010).

Strimbu, B., Innes, J., 2011. An analytical platform forcumulative impact assessment based on multiple futures:the impact of petroleum drilling and forest harvesting onmoose (Alces alces) and marten (Martes americana) habitats innortheastern British Columbia. Journal of EnvironmentManagement 92, 1740–1752.

TETC (Turkish Electricity Transmission Company), 2013. http://www.teias.gov.tr (accessed 30.01.2013).

Toklu, E., 2013. Overview of potential and utilization ofrenewable energy sources in Turkey. Renewable Energy 50,456–463.

UN and IAEA (United Nations and International Atomic EnergyAgency), 2006. Energy Indicators for SustainableDevelopment: Country Studies on Brazil, Cuba, Lithuania,Mexico, Russian Federation, Slovakia and Thailand. UNDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs.

Uzlu, E., Akpınar, A., Komurcu, M.I., 2011. Restructuring ofTurkey’s electricity market and the share of hydropowerenergy: the case of the Eastern Black Sea Basin. RenewableEnergy 36, 676–688.

Yuksel, I., 2013. Renewable energy status of electricitygeneration and future prospect hydropower in Turkey.Renewable Energy 50, 1037–1043.

Elcin Kentel. Dr. Kentel’s main research topics include uncertaintymodeling, application of probabilistic and possibilistic methods indecision making for human health risk assessment, application ofheuristic models to water resources management problems, andapplication of fuzzy logic and fuzzy arithmetic in water resourcesengineering problems. After completing her PhD in the USA, shemoved back to Turkey in 2006 and she has been teaching andcarrying out research activities in the Department of Civil Engi-neering at Middle East Technical University (METU). Since 2007,she has taught water resources engineering, hydrosystems engi-neering and management, numerical methods, fluid mechanics,probability and statistics, and soft computing methods for waterresources management at METU. Dr. Kentel has been involved in alarge number of projects related to the environmental impactassessment and human health risk assessment in Turkey.

Emre Alp. Dr. Alp has 16 years of experience and has been involvedin extensive number of projects related to the water resourcesproblems in a watershed scale both in Turkey and the U.S. Whileworking on the projects related to the water quality problems ofthe Chicago River (2000–2008), he had the opportunity to interactand work closely with variety partners such as universities, localadministrators, policy makers, consulting agencies. The waterquality model he developed for Chicago Waterway System is stillbeing used by the local authorities to aid decision making process.Since he moved back to Turkey in 2008, he has been teaching andcarrying out research activities in the Environmental EngineeringDepartment at Middle East Technical University. Dr. Alp’s re-search focuses on investigation of the water quality problemsand development of water quality management alternatives tobe implemented as a part of watershed management plans. Healso conducts studies to develop economic tools to aid policymakers in different levels of water management.