The Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government has started building a third bridge over the Bosporus complete with a highway. There are also plans to build a major airport in İstanbul's last remaining forested area and another project that is the personal brainchild of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, to create a new waterway between the Black Sea and the Sea of Marmara, an alternative route to the Bosporus strait. Scientists, environmentalists and ecological groups have raised serious concerns regarding all these projects, but the authorities have dismissed these worries, saying they know what they are doing. Critics of the projects also claim that such construction projects can be realized with minimal risk to the environment, if only those carrying them out worked together with ecologists. But the government has persistently claimed that those who publicly voice such concerns only look to dismiss the government.
Today's Zaman directed about 14 technical questions -- mainly about the third bridge project but also about other environmental issues -- to the two ministries on Oct. 22. After much phoning imploring the ministries to answer Today's Zaman's questions, the Urban Development and Environment Ministry replied to only two of the questions through its public relations agency. The Ministry of Forestry did not respond at all. Today's Zaman wasn't surprised as this is not the first time it has sought answers for questions the public wants to know, but this time Today's Zaman made it clear to the ministries that the questions would be made public.
Ministries don't want to talk
Even more unfortunately, in its quest to get some simple information about the planned mega-projects that experts say will deal irreparable damage to the environment and have irreversible effects on ecology and climate, Today's Zaman also found that it is not alone in being snubbed. This is important, as a Sunday's Zaman article published on Oct. 20 on the destruction caused by the ongoing third bridge construction had been rebuked on social media by a prime ministerial aide for not doing enough to reflect the ministries' views and explanations on the projects, although no ministry had sent a notice denying anything the report was saying.
Today's Zaman's questions are not the only ones that went unanswered. Most environmental organizations have the same belief: The ministries simply do not want to talk about the projects.
Çare Olgun Çalışkan from the Northern Forests Defense Platform, a group bringing together dozens of civil society organizations and professional chambers to fight the destruction of İstanbul forests, said he and other civil society organizations have been trying to contact the İstanbul AK Party branch, Mayor Kadir Topbaş, the Prime Minister's Office, the governor's office, headquarters of political parties, local branches of political parties and relevant ministries to talk about the projects and present their reports. “We have had no more luck than you,” he told Today's Zaman. He said countless attempts to schedule an appointment with Mayor Topbaş and other city officials have gone unanswered.
Greenpeace policy expert Deniz Gümüşel said she has not queried any of the ministries directly through the Right to Information Act, but said her previous work in other civil society organizations that late responses to official queries and too often getting answers that do not match the questions are common.
Aarhus and Right to Information
Gümüşel also noted that Turkey has been extremely unwilling to sign the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, usually abbreviated as the Aarhus Convention, which states that governments have to be accountable about environment projects and ensures the rights of the public to be included in environment-related projects. It grants citizens wider rights of access to information, including commercial data concerning companies, she explained.
The İstanbul branch of the Chamber of City Planners (ŞPO) has prepared a detailed report. ŞPO's Tayfun Kahraman told Today's Zaman: “We sent this report, available on our website both in English and Turkish, to the relevant agencies. Nobody has returned our calls about the report.” Kahraman agrees that the “general attitude” of public agencies, including ministries, is to ignore questions, pointing out to general problems in Turkey's transparency laws and issues with the Right to Information Act, and how it is applied.
Whether government officials like a newspaper, or a particular journalist, is irrelevant, and they ought to give answers to Today's Zaman's 14 simple questions. None of the environmentalist groups spoken to by Today's Zaman have information on these 14 questions, only two of which have been answered by the Environment Ministry. It should also be reminded to Today's Zaman's readers that environmental groups and the EU have criticized the government's move to separate the Environment and Forestry ministries, which used to be a single one prior to changes introduced by the AK Party government in 2011. The separation effectively makes it more difficult to hold the government's actions regarding the environment more accountable, as both ministries routinely say the information being demanded is the responsibility of the other. Possibly, the Urban Planning and Environment Ministry would say it answered only two questions because -- although it didn't offer an explanation -- the rest of the questions posed by Today's Zaman fall under the responsibility of the Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs. Today's Zaman, in an effort to avoid a complete refusal, had told the ministries that they can at least answer those questions that fall under the scope of their responsibilities.
Today's Zaman's questions on mega-projects
1) Was your ministry consulted when the tender specs for the third bridge were being prepared? Has your ministry approved the project?
2) Were alternative projects -- such as elevated roads or tunnels or other projects that will not harm the integrity of the forest -- considered during the project phase of the third bridge and its highway? Why were these rejected?
3) How many trees will be cut in total for the third bridge project, the highway project, the airport project and the waterway project combined?
4) Which legal and administrative measures have been taken to prevent -- or minimize, if that is not possible -- damage by these projects to the ecological integrity of the forest and biodiversity?
5) Questions about the trees that will be felled:
a. How many trees will be cut down for the third bridge and its highway alone?
b. How is the number of trees determined? Have the ministries concerned assigned numbers to the trees? How can you prove the statistics you offer?
c. How many saplings will be replanted to compensate for the trees cut down?
According to your ministry experts, how many saplings ought to be planted per tree felled to make sure that at least one grows into a tree?
d. In what area will reforestation efforts take place?
6) According to experts of your ministry, does forestation elsewhere instead of trees cut down at a different place count as the ecological substitute for the greenery destroyed? Do your ministry and the minister believe that cutting down existing trees to replant trees elsewhere is in line with the internationally accepted understanding of sustainable ecological conservation? (This question was answered by the Environment and Urban Planning Ministry.)
7) Which main environmental consequences are expected as a result of the third bridge construction?
8) Which main environmental consequences are expected as a result of the projects planned in the north of İstanbul (Kanal İstanbul, the third bridge and highway, and the airport)?
9) Do Mr. Minister and your ministry experts believe that there should not be any forests/greenery/large parks within cities? Do you believe that these have to be outside the city limits? (This question was answered by the Environment and Urban Planning Ministry.)
10) Do Mr. Minister and your ministry's experts believe that it wouldn't be possible for our country to develop if vigorous environmental assessment studies were to be conducted during such projects?
11) Does Mr. Minister believe that individuals who call for more environmentally sustainable projects are people who have ill-intent and who do not want our country to develop?
12) There is deep distrust and much doubt that the Ministry of Environment and Urban Planning will act carefully in these projects given the ease with which zoning laws are violated in our country, the impunity granted to violators and statements from relevant ministers that without the fast money that comes from development there cannot be development. Do you believe that your ministry deserves this distrust?
13) The latest EU progress report on Turkey criticized the practice of eliminating Environmental Impact Assessment procedures for megaprojects. The report criticized that the third bridge, the planned airport in İstanbul and the planned nuclear plants as well as various hydroelectric power plants were exempted from environmental impact assessment processes. Does Mr. Minister believe that Environmental Impact Assessment is necessary for such projects?
14) The government temporarily shelved the draft law on the protection of nature and biological diversity, which was opposed by those fighting for preserving the ecology and also criticized in the latest progress report, during the Gezi Park protests. Will there be a review of this draft given the strong opposition and criticism to it?
Answers from the ministry to two questions of Today's Zaman:
A translation of the answers given to two of Today's Zaman's questions by Mehmet Baş, the general manager of the Environment and Urban Planning Ministry's environmental management department. Today's Zaman thanks Mr. Baş for his responses:
Answer to the question on reforestation efforts: “I believe that the concept of sustainability should be understood correctly here. In 2012, in Rio de Janeiro, there was a summit attended by all world countries. This summit, attended also by our prime minister was about sustainable development. The main theme of this summit was that protecting the environment is an inseparable part of economic and social development. We should highlight that there should be an understanding of growth that watches the balance between protecting and using nature. For example, it is normal that there are trees or green spaces in an area where you invest. Now carrying these groups of trees to another place is one thing, but trying to make an investment by completely destroying an ecosystem is completely different. The bridge investment here will be carried out by causing minimal impact to the environment. The trees that will be transferred will be replanted in a new area. The moved trees will create their ecosystem within a few years. This is like moving a house. There will only be a change of address and it will take some time. This is how it is done around the world. The forest is a blessing for humans, as indispensable as roads and bridges. As such, that the fundamentals of environmental, economic and social sustainability are covered harmoniously will be assured.
Answer to the question on green spaces inside urban boundaries: “Certainly, there can be green areas and large parks in urban areas, and in fact this would be marvelously wonderful. Because a clean environment and green nature feed the human soul. How can we possibly expect people trapped among concrete blocks to be happy or healthy? Humans are the most important element of nature. And as you know, these trees ensure that people have clean air to breathe and at the same time absorb CO2 through photosynthesis and play an important role in fighting climate change. This is why green areas are good both inside city limits and outside. As you know, this is a very appropriate approach to the reason why our ministry was created. Because we have set out with the purpose of a liveable environment and creating a brand-name city.”
