Summary of EIA
From our review, we believe that the EIA was done solely to appease international investors. The government had strong economic incentives to make the dam as quickly as possible. This is coupled with their disregard for the other two elements in the triple bottom line, social and environmental issues. As such, the EIA was quickly made and poorly done.
In general, issues with the EIA were the justifications they made for their decisions, especially those that allowed them to avoid designating impacts. Naming persons responsible for the cost and monitoring during the dam's construction was absent in some cases. How the costs of monitoring were determined was also not explained.
Cumulative effects were absent from the EIA. This is crucial due to the presence of multiple other dams within the country and its neighbours.
International tensions are extremely high due to the EIA and project. Water is a contentious issue in the Middle East and countries must have extremely strict water standards to ensure the wellbeing of their citizens. Syria and Iraq have accused Turkey of reducing their water availability, while Turkey argues that their dam will benefit all countries. Furthermore, Syria and Iraq were not consulted before the EIA received funding, violating international law and now have their water flow reduced.
Therefore the project has been shown to violate the three main principles of a proper EIA: integrity, utility and sustainability. Public involvement was not taken into consideration at all, and at no point in the EIA were they consulted for providing knowledge about the area. There was not an option for alternatives to the project, especially the option of not proceeding.
In general, issues with the EIA were the justifications they made for their decisions, especially those that allowed them to avoid designating impacts. Naming persons responsible for the cost and monitoring during the dam's construction was absent in some cases. How the costs of monitoring were determined was also not explained.
Cumulative effects were absent from the EIA. This is crucial due to the presence of multiple other dams within the country and its neighbours.
International tensions are extremely high due to the EIA and project. Water is a contentious issue in the Middle East and countries must have extremely strict water standards to ensure the wellbeing of their citizens. Syria and Iraq have accused Turkey of reducing their water availability, while Turkey argues that their dam will benefit all countries. Furthermore, Syria and Iraq were not consulted before the EIA received funding, violating international law and now have their water flow reduced.
Therefore the project has been shown to violate the three main principles of a proper EIA: integrity, utility and sustainability. Public involvement was not taken into consideration at all, and at no point in the EIA were they consulted for providing knowledge about the area. There was not an option for alternatives to the project, especially the option of not proceeding.