Examination of administrative jurisdiction decisions opened to final reports of environmental impact assessment (EIA) of projects in different sectors in Kastamonu province

For projects that are subject to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulation, the EIA decision is a priority and mandatory decision to be taken before starting the investment; According to the content of the planned project, the ongoing EIA Processes take 1-2 years in some cases and are subjected to a detailed examination and evaluation process. Despite this, it is seen that the administrative lawsuits filed against the finalized EIA Reports were concluded against the EIA Positive Decisions and the EIA Positive Decisions were cancelled. Canceled decisions cause loss of time and financial losses for all institutions/organizations that spend time in the EIA process together with the investor. In this study, the stages of the projects that are subject to the Annex-1 list of the EIA Regulation currently in force have been revealed and determinations have been made about how the content of the EIA Report should be filled. Regarding the projects within the borders of Kastamonu Province, which is the main subject of our study; By showing the sectoral distribution of the EIA Reports within the borders of Kastamonu Province and the EIA decisions made regarding these reports, the EIA decisions that were canceled for any reason (due to the legislation, court decision) were determined. Regarding the administrative judicial processes opened for the projects within the borders of Kastamonu Province; The first application petitions, the responses of the allegations in the petitions in the final EIA Reports, the expert reports of the experts appointed by the court and the final decisions of the courts were examined. Based on the reasons for the cancellation of the canceled EIA decisions, suggestions were put forward to increase the content, quality and effectiveness of the EIA Reports. As a result of the findings, it has been determined that the determinations in the expert reports appointed during the court process directly affect the court decision as the reason for the cancellation of the EIA Decision, therefore, impartial experts should be involved in the EIA processes. In addition, it has been determined that there are national parks, national park buffer areas, eco-tourism areas, wildlife protection/development centers, etc. close to the canceled EIA Decisions or in the impact area, and it has been revealed that the existence of these areas can constitute a direct reason for cancellation. Based on this determination, it has been suggested that the EIA process impact area studies should be carried out meticulously for the projects planned to be built in close distances to the protected areas, and if it is determined that these special areas will be affected, other place/site alternatives should be evaluated for investment.