Resources Policy 67 (2020) 101681

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources Policy
journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/resourpol

The impacts of EIA procedure on the mining sector in the permit process of
mining operating activities & Turkey analysis
Taşkın Deniz Yıldız
Adana Alparslan Türkeş Science and Technology University, Department of Mining Engineering, Adana, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Mining operations are activities that require large investments with high risks at all stages and have a long
Business process of return on the investment. In addition to the production and investment criteria, environmental criteria
EIA also have an impact on making the decision on whether to carry out these activities or not. Accordingly, the
Environment
decision to whether to carry out the mining projects or not is made based on the Environmental Impact
Investments
Legislation
Assessment (EIA). All the legislation and application issues that are determined in Turkey regarding the EIA also
Mining have resulted in the number of times EIA procedure is required from the mining sector to be quite a lot compared
to the other sectors. The frequency of EIA being requested from the mining sector does not only create a bu­
reaucracy that is only applied to the mining sector, but also creates investment losses in this sector. The result
clearly shows that tens of mining enterprises lose a significant amount of their investments because of the EIA. In
other words, this has happened due to EIA process times being lengthened out and process completion time being
unpredictable because of reasons that emerge from the assessment during the process of EIA in Turkey. These
circumstances also cause the investors who want to invest in the mining sector to back down on the investments
they were planning to make.
The answers that are given to the survey questionnaire which was asked to the mining enterprises in order to
see how long it takes to be granted the EIA and the other permits that are taken under rules to be completed
within three months during the EIA process in the mining sector in Turkey, show that the other permits (like the
“Land ownership Permit” and “Business License and Work Permit”) are usually given to the mining enterprises
within 3–34 months time during the EIA process in Turkey. In order to shorten this license assessment process;
the procedures that request the opinions of other institutions during the EIA procedure after the application was
made and even after the EIA license is granted, need to be abolished. Furthermore, through a Commission that
could be established within the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources (MENR) that constitutes of the rep­
resentatives of EIA and other units the opinions of which are requested will make the EIA and other permits to be
granted, managed and the decisions during the permit process to be made faster.

1. Introduction
Environmental issues; are associated with ecologically sustainable
development issues which include resource utilization, protection of the
ecosystems, and the biodiversity and the physical and social health of
the people (Brown et al., 1991). Mineral and metal resources have
critical importance for modern life. However, it is imperative to develop
these in a way that they will make a positive contribution to sustain­
ability (Gibson and Robinson, 2014). There are a few matters in the
production and utilization of the resources. For example, some of it is the
fact that the mining industry being a long term thing for both aspects,
the time that is needed to open a mine and start production there and
mining regions being active for tens of years (Bastida, 2014). The eco­
nomic benefits in mining decrease in the later stages of the mine’s life
and all mines are eventually closed in a time that is shorter than
approximately 20–40 years (Boerchers et al., 2018). Generally, the
mining industry in the world has a historical reputation that is largely
negative which causes almost all of its activities to be perceived
apprehensively by most of its stakeholders. However, especially in the
past 30 years, with environmental regulations being put into force all
over the world, as a result of the strictly applied audits, and with the
developing technology, mining has started to be performed in a more
environmentally conscious way.
Mining operations are activities that do not have a location

E-mail addresses: tdyildiz@atu.edu.tr, yildizta@itu.edu.tr.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101681
Received 25 December 2019; Received in revised form 6 March 2020; Accepted 31 March 2020
Available online 18 April 2020
0301-4207/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T.D. Yıldız
alternative and require high costs. In order to make a decision on mining
activity, investment factors like reserves, grade, sale price, costs are
taken into consideration. However, today, the decrease in forestlands
and greenery areas as a result of rapid and unplanned urbanization
which started with the development of industrialization, avert the
mining activities to be executed on site. Therefore, in addition to pa­
rameters related to production and investment, environmental param­
eters have also become influential in making the decision to execute
mining activities and sometimes the environmental parameters are
applied more frequently and dominantly compared to the other pa­
rameters. In common with the other sectors, the abovementioned rea­
sons have also revealed the necessity to predetermine the environmental
issues and the obligation to take the precautions that are required to
move on to the investment phase in mining activities. Therefore, mining
activities associated with environmental law.
EIA; is a process where the potential environmental impacts of a
suggested development are evaluated at an early phase of making the
decision for encouraging healthy environmental management (Glasson
et al., 2005). Therefore, today, in order to abide the legal requirements,
minimizing the environmental impacts is a standard procedure in min­
ing operation (Falck, 2016). A government has to determine the value it
gives protecting the environment and how tolerable and acceptable
environmental damage is (Smith and Naito, 1998). In line with this,
when the mining rights management agencies are evaluating the ap­
plications for mining rights, they should review the mining plans and the
environmental impact statements. At the same time, an inspection that
aims to provide the protection of the ecological environment while
encouraging the mining springs to be exploited in a rational and effec­
tive way (Ziran, 1999). Environmental management is the key in sus­
tainability in mining and industry. Although environmental suitability
looks costly at first, it actually ensures a competitive advantage for a
mining company. Various regulations have been made as a tool for
overcoming the impacts of mining on the environment and thus, an
environment that provides an opportunity for sustainable development
(Zvarivadza, 2018).
Nonetheless; if the environmental regulations are too strict and are
not practical or applicable, this could hamper development or could
cause negative impacts to continue. In both cases, sustainable develop­
ment cannot be encouraged. Successful environmental management
requires the suitable policies, regulations, management, application and
organization coordination of everyone involved (Intarapravich and
Clark, 1994). In many countries, the projects are postponed or are sus­
pended because of the environmental authorities’ resistance towards the
developments in mining (De Sa, 2019). As for Turkey, the EIA process is
lengthened out due to the evaluations of various institutions, and the
mining enterprises are losing their investments (Yıldız, 2018b). Un­
doubtedly that, environmental performance is crucial for the competi­
tion between the mining companies because the mining companies are
mainly competing over the costs (Bomsel et al., 1996).
The past mining experiences in the world emphasized the intercon­
nection between the commercial and economic benefits and the legal
changes regarding the environmental impact. In determining where to
place the right balance, the thing that must be considered is creating the
balance which must try to provide sustainable management of the nat­
ural resources with the tendency to create the minimum negative results
on the environment (Elvan, 2013). Sustainable development is needed
for the creation of this balance. Particularly in the late 1990s, under the
increasing pressure from the civil society, the mining sector started a
process of change to embrace sustainable development (Boscio, 2016).
Therefore, the mining industry plays a role in the responsible develop­
ment of the natural resources of Earth, given the significant and direct
social, environmental and economic impacts that its operations can
make (Ghorbani and Kuan, 2017). The value of metal and mine pro­
duction at the mining stage is described as the percentage of GDP. This
number gives an idea about the scale of value of production based on the
size of economy (Ericsson and Lo €f, 2019). According to the data of 2016,
2
Resources Policy 67 (2020) 101681
mining takes a share of 1.2% in the total global GDP. In the same year,
Turkey took a share of 0.82% (MAPEG, 2019; TurkStat, 2019). Today,
despite having rich mineral reserves1, the share that mining in Turkey
takes in GDP is at the level of %1. Today, the shares in GDP in developed
countries are: %4.5 in USA, %4 in Germany, 7.5% in Canada, 8.7% in
Australia, 14% in Russia, 13% in China, and 15% in India. Following the
researches conducted at the level of investors operating in the mining
sector in Turkey, it is detected that license/permits being concluded too
late and the uncertainties in permits are in the first place for the cause of
this decrease. This situation does not only prevent new entrepreneurs
from entering the sector, but also leads the current mining activities to
decrease (TMA, 2019).
In the literature, many researches and studies have been conducted
explaining the environmental impact of mining activities, or the EIA
process. However, there are almost no studies in the literature regarding
the effects of EIA process on mining sector. The environmental permit
process has three important properties (that can be analyzed academi­
cally): (a) the predictability and currency of the decision making process
of the regulators form the perspective of the investors; (b) the required
pollution abatement precautions and the compatibility sufficiency in
terms of the time that is given to abide by them; and (c) the frequency of
these permit conditions (So €derholm et al., 2015). In this study, it is
aimed to determine the impacts of the environmental permit process in
Turkey for the mining investments and to suggest solutions for pre­
venting this process to create investment losses.
1.1. The scope and the methodology
A survey was conducted on the mining enterprises through “Survey
Monkey” application in May, June, and July of 2018 with the intent to
determine the regulation issues process of obtaining an EIA permit
which is a legal obligation for the mining sector in Turkey and to analyze
the findings and generate solutions. The questions of the survey were
answered by the relative departments of the mining enterprises. The
answers were collectively uploaded to the survey application without
knowing which companies filled the questionnaire and which answers
were given. The companies that answered the survey are not known
however; all the answers of each mining company can be seen on the
system of the survey program.
Some of the mining enterprises preferred not to answer some of the
questions. In the Study the “The investment loss which occurs due to
EIA” question was answered by 29 mining enterprises; therefore, all
evaluations have not been reduced to these 29 enterprises. Otherwise,
the number of answers taken from the mining enterprises would
decrease; thus, the evaluations that would be made based on different
mining groups would get weaker. This is especially taken into consid­
eration, and the answers of different number of mining enterprises are
analyzed for different survey questions.
In this study, the degree to which the EIA process, which is important
for mining operation activities in our country, affects mining in­
vestments in terms of time is analyzed. At the same time, the effects of
the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization and other institutions
that this ministry asked for opinion were examined in the EIA process.
Thus, solutions were proposed by examining the effects of the problems
experienced in the legislation on the mining sector and investments.
� First of all, brief information is presented regarding the permit pro­
cess for mining operation activities in Turkey.
1
Today, 77 of the 99 mines that are traded in the world are confirmed to
exist in Turkey. Currently, there are about 60 different mines and minerals
produced. Approximately, 0.4% of global metal&mineral reserves, 2.5% of in­
dustrial raw material reserves, 1.0% of coal reserves and 0.8% of geothermal
potential are in Turkey (TMA, 2019).
T.D. Yıldız
� Subsequently, the subject of “impacts of EIA permit process on the
mining sector” is discussed. In the introduction part of this title, the
worldwide research that the Fraser Industry made is mentioned, and
the decline of Turkey in the worldwide list is highlighted, and the
reasons for this decline were endeavored to be presented. Within this
scope, first of all, “the impacts of EIA regulation on the mining
sector” is presented. After that, “the number of times the EIA pro­
cedure is requested from the mining sector” is shown in comparison
to the other sectors. In the last part of this subject “the mining in­
vestments that are lost as a result of the evaluations during the EIA
process” are examined based on different mining groups propor­
tioning the total amount of the investment.
The main factor that effect the mining enterprises in the EIA process
is the EIA permit and the process times of giving these permits. There­
fore, in section 4; the mining enterprises were asked the time it took
them to obtain their EIA permits and other permits. Afterwards, the
permit process time proposals of the mining enterprises are given in
order for these process times not to affect the mining investments in a
negative way.
Lastly, “the factors that affect the EIA assessment time” are pre­
sented. The primary factor of all these factors is “the procedure of asking
the opinion of other institutions during the EIA process. “The proposal of
an authorized body during the EIA process” is presented in order for the
mining investments not to be affected negatively and the subject was
discussed in depth.
2. The permit process of the mining operating activities
To conduct mining operation activities in Turkey, as a rule, first an
operating license and then an operation permit must be obtained. After
obtaining the operating license, a second area, called the production li­
cense area (operation permit area), is determined and is where the ac­
tivities in the mining operating project are conducted. This area is
always smaller than the operating license area (Gunay, 2016).
The mining operation permit indicates that all permits have been
obtained for the mines within the operating license area and that there
are no obstacles to the production of the mine. That is, obtaining the
operation permit required for a mining operation can be realized by first
reducing the operating license areas to proven reserves, namely, by
narrowing these areas. In the same manner, mining operations can be
conducted in the area permitted by the forestry administration, in the
field permitted by the EIA, except for short/medium range watershed
protection zones, and in the full production license area (Yıldız et al.,
2016) (Fig. 1).
In Fig. 1, the EIA permit area is not the same as the operation permit
area. Thus, no operation permit is issued for that area because no proven
reserve is found in a part of the EIA permit area after the operating li­
cense and EIA permit applications. To obtain an operation permit li­
cense, the operating license holder is obliged to obtain all the following
permissions within 3 years (Fig. 2).
As it is shown in the figure, the owner of the operating license is only
given an operation permit after obtaining all these permits -including
the EIA-. The EIA permits are also one of the permits, like the other
permits, that are required in order to move on to the mining operation
activities in other words for obtaining a mining operation permit.
3. Impacts of the EIA process on the mining sector
The role of the stability in the legal regulations is emphasized more
clearly in the Fraser Institute’s annual worldwide assessment which
evaluates the investment attractiveness of the various mining countries
in the world. In these surveys, the mining investors who want to make
investments in different countries are asked to evaluate the uncertainty
regarding the environmental regulations (for example, subjects like the
stability of the regulations; the consistency and timeliness of the
3
Resources Policy 67 (2020) 101681
regulation processes; whether the regulation is based on science or not;
regulation conflicts; the uncertainty about the management, interpre­
tation or application of the current regulations).
According to the assessment and the analysis that was conducted by
the Fraser Institute; in 2018, Turkey was in 59th place among 83
countries in respect to the investment attractiveness index (Stedman and
Green, 2019). Turkey has dropped to this place in the list from being in
the 14th place in 2012 because of the mining and mining law policies
that were followed for the past 4 – 5 years (Topaloglu, 2018). Turkey’s
place in the World Ranking in terms of some index is given Table 1.
The “Investment Attractiveness Index” is a composite index that
combines the results that are obtained from both the “Policy Perception
Index” and the “The Best Mining Potential Applications Index.” The
mining enterprises who participated in the survey consistently indicate
that while 40% of their investment decisions are determined by the
policy factors, 60% of it is based on the assessment of the mineral po­
tential that is made by an administration/management of the jurisdic­
tion. In order to clearly understand which global investment fields, to
attract their investments, both the mining potential and the policy
perception have to be taken into consideration (Stedman and Green,
2018). In line with this, if we look at the “Policy Perception Index”,
while Turkey is in the 44th place in 2013, in 2018, it went down to the
64th place. In “Uncertainty Concerning Environmental Regulations”
category, in 2013, Turkey’s rank 33rd, declined in 2018 to 80th. In
addition, Turkey has gone down on 76th place among the countries of
the world in terms of the mining law system in 2018. As for 2013, Turkey
was in 43rd place (Table 1). The decrease in the placement also in terms
of the these categories has caused foreign mining investments to leave
Turkey.
Before showing the impacts of the EIA procedure on the mining
sector, it is beneficial to show the approximate distribution of the mining
enterprises which are subjected to EIA in Turkey. 88 mining enterprises
have answered the survey question that asks; “Is your mining company
subjected to the EIA? If it is subjected to the EIA, which one of the procedures
is it subjected to, the Annex–1 or Annex–22 procedure?” These answers are
shown below on the basis of mineral groups3 (Fig. 3).
As can be seen, the operating licenses of 36% of the mining enter­
prises who answered the survey question are not subjected to EIA.
However, with a 64% ratio, the majority of them are subjected to the
EIA. Also, it is notable that 58% of the ones that are subjected to EIA are
subjected to the Annex–1 procedure. The impact of both of the EIA
procedures on the mining sector is analyzed below.
3.1. Impacts of the regulations
With the condition that the environment is protected, and no damage
is caused to the environment, the legal regulations can support the
resolution of conflicts that limit the accessibility for extracting the
mineral springs (Nie�c et al., 2014). In this context, in Turkey, the
environmental regulations related to the mining sector are seen below
(Table 2).
The association of the activities that will be carried out with the
environment is regulated with the Regulation on Mining. In this regu­
lation, the subject of the environment is emphasized by referring to the
“EIA Regulation,” and many activities are associated with the mentioned
2
If considered in terms of when to open-pit mining, according to the EIA
Regulation for mines in Turkey; two separate EIA procedures are implemented
as “mines other than coal” and “coal mines.” If an EIA application has been
made for an area over 25 ha in “mines other than coal”, Annex-1 list; If an
application is made under an area of 25 ha, it is necessary to prepare an EIA
report under the list of Annex-2 In the coal mines, the area in question is
implemented as 150 ha.
3
See the mineral groups stipulated by the Turkish mining legislation (Yıldız,
2019).
T.D. Yıldız Resources Policy 67 (2020) 101681

Fig. 1. Mining operating/production license area (representative) (Yıldız et al., 2016).

Fig. 2. Operating license process (representation) (TUMMER, 2017).

Table 1
Turkey’s place in the World Ranking in terms of some index (Fraser Institute, 2019).
Index Years 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

“Investment Attractiveness Index” Turkey/ 28th/ 73rd/ 52nd/ 63rd/ 69th/91 59th/
World 112 122 109 104 83
“Policy Perception Index” 44th/ 55th/ 45th/ 78th/ 72nd/ 64th/
112 122 109 104 91 83
“Legal System” 43rd/ 54th/ 61st/109 78th/ 69th/91 76th/
112 122 106 83
“Uncertainty Concerning Environmental Regulations” 33rd/ 56th/ 43rd/ 64th/ 79th/91 80th/
112 122 109 104 83
“Uncertainty Concerning the Administration, Interpretation and Enforcement of 50th/ 52nd/ 35th/ 73rd/ 76th/91 46th/
Existing Regulations” 112 122 109 104 83
“Regulatory Duplication and Inconsistencies” 68th/ 60th/ 71st/109 78th/ 74th/91 56th/
112 122 104 83

regulation (Degerli and Guner, 2015). According to this, while the
mining activities are being conducted, it is mandatory to prepare the EIA
reports as a legal obligation (Gunay, 2016). As per the regulation in
effect, the operation permit, forest permit, pasture permit, and envi­
ronmental permits and incentive for mining investments are not granted
without an EIA permit.
In Turkey, the issues that are faced in relation to the EIA regulations
still continue. These issues can be summarized as follows:
� The frequency of the changes that are made on the EIA Regulations
and the insufficiency of the regulations,
� Difficulty to obtain information from the institutes,
� Different applications that are faced in the districts,
� Problems that are faced in the opinions of the institutions,
� The EIA decision-making time being lengthened out,
� Being face to face with more than 50 regulations and notices during
the “environmental permits” phase, which involves the other per­
mits, including the EIA permit (Ko €murder, 2016).
Thus, the issues of the time for the permit that is required to be ob­
tained within the frame of the EIA Regulation being lengthened out, the
existence of unnecessary bureaucracy and the applications are not being

4
T.D. Yıldız Resources Policy 67 (2020) 101681

Fig. 3. The EIA procedure to which the mining enterprises are subjected.

experiencing any serious problems - compared to the years before

Table 2
Turkey. In the EU, there can be a limitation to be put on the use of land in
The environmental legislation concerning the mining sector in Turkey.
industrial areas other than the mining sector. However, it is not intended
Legislation Effective date Last modification to impose such a restriction on the mining sector, as it is obligatory to
date
extract the mines at the site. (TMA, 2011). For example In Sweden, a
Environment Law 11/08/1983 10/12/2018 desire to stimulate exploitation has had a strong influence on minerals
EIA Regulation 25/11/2014 08/07/2019
legislation (Johnson, 2001). The Swedish Mining Law is examined, the
National Parks Law and Regulations 11/08/ 15/07/2005 – 18/
1983–12/12/ 03/2014 following assessment is made: If a mine is given the opinion of ‘“EIA is
1986 Approve” (EIA (þ)) environmental regulations can no longer prevent the
Regulation on Water Pollution Control 31/12/2004 30/11/2012 production of the mine. This idea is generally valid in the EU. If a
Regulation on the Recovery of Lands 23/01/2010 – company fulfills the requirements, the prevention of the project on the
Degraded as a Result of Mining
Activities
land where the mine is located is out of question (TMA, 2011).
Regulation on Soil Pollution Control and 08/06/2010 11/07/2013 On the other hand, in Europe, where has completed industrialization
Point-Source Contaminated Areas and continued its mining activities for many years, and whose resources
Mining Law/Mining Regulation 15/06/1985 – 28/02/2019 - are scarce, the mineral resources have decreased, and the environmental
21/09/2017
projects have been implemented more precisely in the developed
Regulation on the Purchase, Operation, 08/12/2007 –
and Control of Sand, Gravel, and countries. There are “protected areas” in the EU. But, actually, these
Similar Substances areas are “managed areas.” In other words, instead of restraining, they
The Regulation on the Assessment and 04/10/2010 18/11/2015 still continue to maintain the concept in which mining can be done
Management of Environmental Noise anywhere (TMA, 2011).
Industrial Air Pollution Control 03/07/2009 20/12/2014
As stated in the Euromines Environmental Group meetings, the
Regulation
Regulation on Mining Waste 15/07/2015 16/07/2016 mines being operated in a significant part of the EU member states do
Regulation on Control of Solid Wastes 14/03/1991 05/04/2005 not have many problems with the current regulation. However, this
Regulation on Control of Hazardous 14/03/2005 05/11/2013 situation should not be interpreted as the mines in operation fulfill all
Wastes
the regulatory obligations. On the other hand, a great majority of ap­
Regulation on Principles and Procedures 27/10/2010 02/02/2019
in Determining Tariffs of Sewer Water plications made for the new enterprises within the EU are for the raw
Infrastructure and Household Waste materials of construction industry such as sand-aggregate. Therefore,
Disposal Facilities scarcely any ‘’new business license application’’ is made regarding new
Regulation on Control of Waste Oils 30/07/2008 05/11/2013 mineral deposits sought out in EU member states, especially for metallic
Regulation on the Protection of Wetlands 04/04/2014 23/10/2019
ores. As the possible cause, the existence of current and new restrictions
Regulation on Wildlife Protection and 08/11/2004 –
Wildlife Development Areas to be made in the environmental legislation of the EU (excluding the
Environmental Plans and Plan Notes 11/11/2008 17/02/2009 mining laws of a state) are shown to be important factors in this regard.
The excessive loss of time and the administrative difficulties in obtaining
permission during the EIA process are shown as the major ones of these
in coordination with each other, in other words different applications problems and restrictions (Zanbak, 2019).4
are made in the 81 different districts of Turkey are indicated in the ac­
tion plan of the Coordination Committee For The Improvement Of The
Investment Environment (http://www.yoikk.gov.tr). 3.2. The number of times that the EIA procedure is requested in the mining
As a matter of fact, there are legal regulations that will protect in­ sector
vestors against such risks even in the EU countries which have the most
environmentally conscious legislations and practices, because there are All the regulation and application issues that are mentioned above
similar problems in many EU countries. Incorrect assessments emerged also bring along the result of the number of times the EIA procedure is
as a result of certain gaps in legal regulations or gaps in rigid practices requested from the mining sector is considerably too much compared to
have been an obstacle to most branches of industry across Europe.
However, even in the European countries where environmental con­
sciences are at the maximum level compared to the other countries of 4
Of course, it is known that all of the Environmental Group of Euromines
world; for example gold mines were able to start production without disagree in these opinions stated by the author.

5
T.D. Yıldız
the other sectors. First of all, it would be good to analyze the number of
the “EIA Decisions” that are given to all the sectors from 1993 when the
first “EIA Regulation” was issued in Turkey to the end of 2017 (Fig. 4).
Even though, within the EIA decisions that are given to all the sec­
tors, the “EIA is Required” (EIAR) decision is in the rate of 1.5%, and
“the sum of the “EIA (þ)” and the “EIA is Not Approved” (EIA (-) de­
cisions)” are in the rate of 7.7% in total, the rate that the EIA decisions
that are given to the mining sector is considerably high within all sectors
(Fig. 5).
This shows the numbers of the “EIAR”, and “EIA Not Required”
(EIANR) that are given in each sector (Table 3).
As can be seen, the total number of EIAR requested from the mining
sector is approximately 25% of the amount of EIAR required from all
sectors between 1998 and 2012; and the total number of EIANR given to
the mining sector constitutes about 51% of the total. The mining sector
in the form of the sum of EIAR and EIANR; The total number of reports
requested from the sector is about 50% in all sectors (Fig. 6).
However, for the industrial sector, the sum of EIAR þ EIANR is
11.7% of all sectors. In the “tourism sector,” this rate is 7%. In these
sectors, fewer EIA reports are required to be prepared than the mining
sector and to a lesser extent, be subject to this procedure. However, it is
noteworthy that these sectors do not have suitable activities compared
to the mining sector in terms of the environment. The mining sector is
forced to EIA permit in order to obtain the mine operating right and start
mining operations. Accordingly, the question of whether the mining
industry is faced with a situation that it does not deserve in this fact
comes to mind. Particularly, this situation arises more clearly when the
ratio of sectors to GDP is compared (Fig. 7).
Within the ratios of all sectors to GDP, it stands out that the share of
mining in the years of 2012 and 2018 is lower compared to the other
sectors with its relatively 1.1% and 1% values. Despite its low rate,
however, it corresponding to half of the total of all sectors in terms of the
number of EIA reports required from mining sector (EIAR þ EIANR) is
noteworthy.
3.3. Mining investments that are lost as a result of the evaluations during
the EIA process
When the literature on the relationship between the environmental
regulations and the competitive power in the mining sector is taken into
consideration, the efforts that the countries make in order to attract
investments in the mining activities cause this competition to increase.
Therefore, the key question is that to what extent the environmental
regulations (for example, including the requirements of the permits)
effect the expected costs and the revenues of the mining investments.
And, this also shows the desire to make investments into the new mining
initiatives all over the world (Tole and Koop, 2011; R�emy, 2003; Wil­
kerson, 2010). Mostly, the focus actually shows that it is on the
Fig. 4. EIA Decisions from 1993 to the end of 2017 (https://ced.csb.gov.tr/).
6
Resources Policy 67 (2020) 101681
significant differences between developing and developed countries
(So€derholm et al., 2015). Although this situation shows differences
based on small, medium, or large-scale mining, the most important thing
is the investment losses that emerge as a result of uncertainties in the
environmental permit process.
According to a research that was conducted outside Turkey, the
majority of the companies indicated that the environmental approval
process should be considered as an important determinant of the in­
vestment strategy. The first reaction to these numbers is that the ma­
jority of the mining enterprises that participated in the research that was
conducted believe that the environmental approval process creates a
negative effect. For example, a study was conducted to analyze the ef­
fects of environmental constraints on mining performance in Australia.
It turned out that most of the mining enterprises involved in this
research thought that the costs associated with environmental processes
and important factors that limit mineral production (Annandale and
Taplin, 2003; Trewin et al., 1992).
In addition to the increasing social and environmental hardships for
mining, another focus point for concern is that these costs may sub­
stantially vary in different regions of the world and may have an un­
balanced effect on the miners in some countries (Humphreys, 2001).
This situation creates a higher degree of impact on the mining enter­
prises in Turkey. Thus, the frequency of requesting EIA from the mining
sector in Turkey is not only a bureaucracy that is applied to the mining
sector, but also creates investment losses in this sector. This situation is
clearly seen in a survey question that was asked to the mining enter­
prises: 29 enterprises answered the “Are there any investments that you lost
Because of the EIA process due to the “EIA (-) decision” until today? If there
are any, what is the amount of these investments in Turkish Liras (TL)5?”
question. According to this, the distribution of the mining investments
that these companies which answered the survey question lost are
shown below based on the mineral groups (Fig. 8).
First of all, among these investments, the investments of the mining
enterprises who have investment losses between 0 to 500 thousand TL
due to the “EIA not Approved” decision are proportioned6 to their own
investment amounts and the following results are obtained (Table 4).
As can be seen, the five mining enterprises that are analyzed as an
example in Turkey; went through investment losses over 500 thousand
TL which is between 2.5% to 100% of their mining investment amounts
due to the “EIA (-) decision”. This shows that the mining investors lose a
significant amount of their investments before they can start the mining
operation activities because of reasons that emerge from the evaluations
during the EIA process. This picture dissuades the entrepreneurs who
want to invest in the mining sector from the investments they intend to
make.
4. The impact of the EIA permit times on the mining sector
One of the factors that are taken into consideration for stability in the
legal regulations is the average time that is required to obtain a permit
decision. According to Wyatt and McCurdy, the delays in the permit
process is a global issue. For example, demands like public consultation,
opposing court cases, and interference of various stakeholder groups and
NGOs will be affected. For instance, the delays in the permit processes in
some regions of the USA created a significant risk for the mining en­
terprises and 7–10 years delays are common for the new mine springs to
start operation (Wyatt and McCurdy, 2014; So €derholm et al., 2015). It is
important to state that, undoubtfully in Turkey, the EIA permit times can
get lengthened out because of the abovementioned reasons. However,
the extension of time happens due to reasons that mostly emerge from
5
1 USD ¼ 4.84 TL (16th July 2018) (Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey).
6
In this ratio “0–500 thousand TL” range value is 250,000 TL; and similarly,
the investment amounts of the mining enterprises were included in the charts as
the average of the response range.
T.D. Yıldız Resources Policy 67 (2020) 101681

Fig. 5. Sectoral distribution of EIA decisions in the 1993–2017 period ((https://ced.csb.gov.tr/).

Table 3
The number of EIAR and EIANR that are given to all sectors between 1998 – 2012 (https://csb.gov.tr/).
Sectors

Industry Energy Mining Waste-chemical Agriculture-food Transportation- coastal Tourism-constructing Total

YIL EIAR EIANR EIAR EIANR EIAR EIANR EIAR EIANR EIAR EIANR EIAR EIANR EIAR EIANR EIAR EIANR

1998 70 312 14 25 157 1903 36 188 23 292 26 98 54 171 380 2989

1999 15 32 13 4 9 336 5 26 4 87 7 13 7 26 60 524
2000 12 42 23 4 32 516 7 38 6 101 6 18 22 45 108 764
2001 21 58 24 9 23 513 24 77 5 112 4 21 18 69 119 859
2002 24 66 16 20 24 600 23 136 5 146 5 21 18 79 115 1068
2003 4 215 14 28 18 877 23 196 6 223 13 37 1 139 79 1715
2004 3 248 18 68 17 1155 23 230 8 238 12 49 5 134 86 2122
2005 10 204 17 117 16 1305 26 338 8 237 14 57 12 200 103 2458
2006 14 210 16 180 21 1806 40 526 4 400 17 72 10 247 122 3441
2007 35 426 43 233 40 2068 34 436 14 573 28 75 18 403 212 4214
2008 24 454 59 248 46 1734 33 347 14 562 24 74 17 238 217 3657
2009 18 413 58 648 49 1717 35 200 25 345 17 29 2 197 204 3549
2010 42 655 82 285 57 1754 24 241 21 662 24 45 0 290 250 3932
2011 29 770 77 300 74 2136 30 305 57 737 26 87 4 257 297 4592
2012*a 11 193 32 89 35 623 11 121 15 185 1 12 1 79 106 1302
TOTAL 332 4298 506 2258 618 19043 374 3405 215 4900 224 708 189 2574 2458 37186
a
The data in the Table above are (*) data until June 2012.

Fig. 6. The sum of EIAR and EIANR gave to all sectors in 1998–2012.

7
T.D. Yıldız Resources Policy 67 (2020) 101681

Fig. 7. Ratio of sectors to GDP by the end of 2012 and 2018.

The names of the sectors in both figures do not exactly match due to the fact that the data in Fig. 6 are obtained from the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization,
while the data in Fig. 7 are obtained from TurkStat,. However, –in order to compare the EIA Decision numbers of the sectors with their ratios to GDP- all of these data
have been taken into consideration due to the approximate overlapping of the sector names/scopes with each other.

Fig. 8. The investments that the mining companies lost because of the “EIA (-) decision”.

the authorized permit authorities.
Especially in small and medium scale mining operation projects, it
would be beneficial to evaluate and complete the technical aspects of the
EIA process in a short period of time. Nonetheless, the EIA process times
of the mining enterprises that are large scale or small/medium scale,
which have the potential to have a negative impact on the environment
can be longer compared to the others. However, this process time being
predictable by the mining company is important in order to prevent
mining investment losses.
In a Group IV mining company project in Turkey which is used as an
example, after the EIA process resulted in a positive decision, and after
the forest permit, business and operating license and all required permits
are obtained, it was planned to go into production after the preparatory
works. The planned timetable of this company regarding the activity,
which is the subject of the project is given below (Fig. 9).
However, in general, the permit process in the mining operation
projects are not completed in a short time for each mining company in
Turkey like it is shown in the example above. Therefore, the mining
investors cannot foresee the permit times, and they lose their
investments.
Thus, in order to see how long it takes for the EIA process and the
other permits that are required to be completed as a requirement under
the rule to be granted, a survey question was asked to the mining en­
terprises: the question of “In your opinion, is the rule that states that within
at the latest three months the EIA processes are completed by the Ministry Of
Environment And Urbanization and the processes related to the other permits
are completed within the EIA process time by the relevant ministries and other
public institutions and organizations, functioning? (In your opinion, what are
the issues in the application?)” was answered by 72 mining enterprises
(Fig. 10).

8
T.D. Yıldız Resources Policy 67 (2020) 101681

Table 4 there were no problems in the application. However, 66.7% of them

The mining investments that are lost due to the EIA. answered: “No. Because all the permits that are mentioned are given after "
Mineral groups Investments lost Investment The share of lost ….." moths, we were aggrieved” and indicated the existence of a serious
of mining due to the “EIA (-) amounts (TL) investments in problem in the application. Rather than becoming aggrieved, the
enterprises decision” (TL) investment amount due mentioned permit process time to exceed three months actually caused
to “EIA (-) decision” (%)
the investment processes to get longer and difficulties in complying with
2 (a) Group 250,000 7,500,000 3.33 the project plan as a result of the operation activity delays that occur.
2 (a) Group 250,000 15,000,000 1.67 The various answers that are given to the space that is indicated with
2 (a) Group 250,000 3,000,000 8.33
2 (a) Group 250,000 250,000 100.00
“ …..” to the question that is mentioned above indicate that these pro­
2 (a) Group 250,000 3,000,000 8.33 cess times are much longer than three months (Fig. 11). Thus, because
2 (a) Group 250,000 250,000 100.00 the opinion of so many institutions are asked, and there are no sanctions
2 (a) Group 250,000 3,000,000 8.33 for the institutions and the persons who cannot give the permits within
2 (a) Group 250,000 7,500,000 3.33
three months, these process times are lengthened out more than it is
2 (b) Group 250,000 35,000,000 0.71
2 (b) Group 250,000 750,000 33.33 necessary depending on the institution and the person.
2 (b) Group 250,000 15,000,000 1.67 These answers that were given to the survey question show that in
2 (b) Group 250,000 35,000,000 0.71 Turkey the other permits (like the “landownership permit”, “business
2 (b) Group 250,000 7,500,000 3.33 license and work permit”) within the EIA process are granted to the
4 (a) Group 250,000 750,000,000 0.03
4 (b) Group 250,000 75,000,000 0.33
mining enterprises within times that differ between 3 months to 34
4 (b) Group 250,000 3,000,000 8.33 months. This indicates that the rule of “other permits are completed
4 (b) Group 250,000 15,000,000 1.67 within 3 months at the least within the EIA process” is not working in
4 (b) Group 250,000 750,000,000 0.03 Turkey, even the EIA processes (excluding the time for getting EIA
4 (b) Group 250,000 750,000,000 0.03
projects prepared by the authorized firms) take more than three months.
4 (b) Group 250,000 750,000,000 0.03
4 (c) Group 250,000 75,000,000 0.33 As it is seen, a decision cannot be made by taking these three months
period of time into consideration. Therefore, in this case, the mentioned
However, the investment losses that are over 500 thousand TL can be considered
Law article has to be made functional.
as a higher loss in mining investment. The investment losses of each mining
Especially in order to determine the role of the Ministry of Envi­
company that answered the survey questions in this category are seen below
ronment and Urbanization in the permitting process, it is also beneficial
(Table 5).
to see how long the EIA process is given. In order to determine this, the
mining enterprises were asked the question, “If your mining project is
Table 5 subject to EIA, how many days after the EIA application is “required/not
The investment losses over 500 thousand TL that are lost due to the EIA. required” and how many months later “EIA (þ) decision” was sent to you?”
Mineral groups Investments lost Investment The share of lost
The distribution of answers is shown below (Table 6).
of mining due to “EIA (-) amounts (TL) investment in As it can be seen, the mining enterprises were given EIAR/EIANR
enterprises decision” (TL) investment amount due decisions for all mineral groups in an average of 3.4 months, and “EIA
to the “EIA (-) decision” (þ) decisions” were given in an average of 14.3 months. Particularly, it
(%)
is remarkable that in the 4 (c) group, a mineral group that is more
2 (a) Group 750,000 3,000,000 2.5 valuable compared to other mineral groups, both EIA decisions were
2 (b) Group 3,000,000 7,500,000 40.0 given in a longer period. Likewise, 4 (b) group was also given “EIA (þ)
2 (b) Group 750,000 15,000,000 5.0
2 (b) Group 750,000 750,000 100.0
decisions” in a longer time on average. This situation may be an indi­
4 (a) Group 7,500,000 175,000,000 4.3 cation that the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization is more sen­
sitive to the operating activities of these mineral groups that have a
higher potential for environmental pollution. However, it should be
As can be seen, 33.3% of the mining enterprises which answered this noted that each delayed permitting process increases costs in mining
question gave the answer: “Yes. Because the permits that are mentioned enterprises.
were granted within three months, we were not aggrieved” and states that

Fig. 9. Timetable for the operation activities (Koza, 2013).

9
T.D. Yıldız Resources Policy 67 (2020) 101681

Fig. 10. Whether the other permits are completed within 3 months or not during the EIA process.

10
T.D. Yıldız Resources Policy 67 (2020) 101681

Fig. 11. The grant times of the EIA and the other permits during the EIA process.

Table 6
Periods in which EIA Decisions are given according to the mineral groups.
Mineral “EIAR/EIANR Decision” “EIA (þ) Decision”
Groups
Number of the mining enterprises that Average of the period in which Number of the mining enterprises that Average of the period in which “EIA
answered the survey question “EIAR/EIANR is given (month) answered the survey question (þ) Decision” is given (month)

2 (a) Group 6 3.0 10 13.6

2 (b) Group 12 3.7 11 12.1
4 (a) Group 3 3.7 5 12.2
4 (b) Group 4 2.5 3 17.0
4 (c) Group 2 4.0 5 16.6
For all mineral 27 3.4 34 14.3
groups

In order for the mining enterprises not to be aggrieved and by taking
the problems and the financial damages that occur due to the long EIA
assessment times in the authorized administrative institutions in Turkey,
another survey question was asked to the mining enterprises regarding
the ideal time to complete the EIA process. The question is: “In the EIA
Annex–2 procedure, making the “EIANR decision” is completed within a time
period between 3 to 8 months in Turkey. And in the Annex–1 procedure it is
completed within a time period between 8 months to 1.5 years. These long
time periods cause significant damage to the mining investors who plan to
make an investment. In your opinion, how long should the time period be for
making the “EIANR decision” and the “EIA (þ) decision” respectively in
order to not cause any harm to mining and mining investments? (This should
be answered by taking the response times of the Ministry Of Environment And
Urbanization and the other institutions they ask opinions from)”. The dis­
tribution of the answers given to this question by the mining companies
are given below (Fig. 12).
As it is shown in the figure, the mining enterprises mostly want the
“EIANR decision” to be made within a one-month period and the “EIA
(þ) decision” within a three-month period and EIA process to be
completed within these times.
5. Factors that affect the EIA assessment time
5.1. Asking the opinion of other institutions in the EIA process
In Turkey, for the EIA Annex-2 procedure, a “Project Introduction
File” is prepared, and an application is submitted to the “Provincial
Directorate The Environment and Urbanization.” After this directorate
checks the activity field, it asks an opinion from the relevant institutions.
These institutions are institutions like the General Directorate of Mining
and Petroleum Affairs (MAPEG), Provincial Directorate of Agriculture,
General Directorate of SHW (State Hydraulic Works), Regional Direc­
torate of Forestry, Special Provincial Directorate of Administration.
Opinions of other institutions may be requested by taking the activity
status into consideration. These institutions are institutions like the City
Centre Gendarmerie Command, Directorate of Land Registry, General
Directorate of Cultural and Natural Heritage, Provincial Directorate of
Health, Metropolitan Municipality, Town Mayorship, General Direc­
torate For Highways. After obtaining the opinion of the institutions, the
“EIANR decision” is given based on Article 17 of the EIA Regulation
(Yesilyurt, 2013). The flow chart of the EIA Regulation Annex-2, which
contains a shorter and easier procedure than the Annex-1 procedure, is
given below (Fig. 13).
The annex-1 procedure is applied for the projects given in the list of
Annex-1 of the EIA Regulation and which are decided as EIAR as a result
of the evaluation made while in the Annex-2 list (Fig. 14).

11
T.D. Yıldız
Fig. 12. Time proposals of the mining enterprises for the EIA decision making.
Fig. 13. EIA regulation Annex-2 flow chart.
The figure was drawn by adapting the data of (Guner, 2017).
The opinions and suggestions of the public are taken according to the
Annex-1. The prepared EIA report is evaluated by the Review-Evaluation
Commission, which is established by all relevant public institutions and
organizations. For a mining project subject to the Annex-1 procedure,
the “EIA (þ) decision” can be made if an investment is made. However,
in case the decision of at “EIA (-) decision” is given, this investment of
the mine is no longer possible in the area applied.
In the current application; for the discussion of a project that was
12
Resources Policy 67 (2020) 101681
prepared within the scope of the format that is given by the General
Directorate of the EIA, The General Directorate of EIA invites all the
institutions, organizations and the experts to the EIA meeting regarding
the project. The experts who participate in the EIA meeting on behalf of
the relevant ministries and the institutions do not give a “positive
opinion” when there is a deficiency or error in the project in terms of
their legal regulations. After the required precautions are taken, and the
changes are made on the project in line with the suggestions of the
T.D. Yıldız
Fig. 14. EIA regulation Annex-1 flow chart.
The figure was drawn by adapting the data of (Guner, 2017).
experts, if the precautions taken are determined to be sufficient in terms
of environmental and human health, an “approved” opinion is given to
the project that was submitted for the EIA (Ko €se, 2011).
While making regulations on the law and regulations, the persons
who are specialized in the field of application should be included in the
work, and the potential conflicts that might emerge should be deter­
mined in advance. However, in the transactions that are carried out
within the scope of the EIA Regulation and on the basis of the provinces,
applications that are unique to each province emerge. This seriously
brings the mining sector face to face with different applications in the
case that the opinion of the institutions is requested. For example, while
some of the Provincial Directorates ask the opinion of up to three in­
stitutions, the Provincial Directorates are able to request the opinion of
up to eight institutions. Therefore, each provincial directorate executing
a different application creates problems. Thus, for example, the Pro­
vincial Directorate of Environment and Urbanization Specialist asks the
opinion of the Provincial Directorate of Agriculture and Forest related to
the project but does not ask to give an opinion from the General
Directorate of SHW. Despite this application, the Provincial Directorate
of Agriculture and Forestry can request the opinion of the General
Directorate of SHW and Special Provincial Administration within the
scope of the opinion they will present. In this case, with the increasing
correspondence between the institutions, the EIA process time is
considerably lengthened out.
Whereas, the application instructions or the notifications that are
created within the scope of the EIA Regulation should be clear, and
comprehensible and the required information should be given to the
Provincial Directorates meticulously. In addition, in order to solve the
problem in this situation, public institutions and organizations should
give their opinions within the framework of their own legislation.
Moreover, in order to ensure consistency in implementation, it would be
appropriate to clarify who will be sectoral in commissions with Imple­
mentation Instructions (Ko €murder, 2016).
In addition to this situation in the EIA process, in Turkey, the investor
is put into the position of reobtaining permits from each institution the
mentioned experts are inhered in even after obtaining the “EIA (þ)
opinion”. Thus, a project that is approved by the experts who participate
in the EIA meeting; goes to the relevant ministries and institutions again
and approval is obtained from each of them one more time (K€ ose, 2011).
As a matter of fact, for a project that has received an “EIA (þ)
opinion”, in the subsequent recurring permit, nine out of ten permits
have to be taken, and even if one has not been obtained, a mining in­
vestment cannot be made. Thus, all expenditures made both in the
search phase and in obtaining permission for the enterprise are wasted.
13
Resources Policy 67 (2020) 101681
Investors reapplying to the relevant ministries and institutions who
participated in the EIA meeting and reobtaining approvals and permits
for the same matters again after the experts of the institutions and the
organizations give their positive opinions create a repetition. This pic­
ture causes the investments to be delayed for months and sometimes
even years. Because, before giving a permit that concerns their own
legislation, each ministry questions whether the approval of the other
ministries was obtained, and the investors are forced to go from door to
door. For a solutions o this situation, it is stated that a legal regulation
that will enable the positive opinion of the expert who participated in
the EIA meeting on behalf of the relevant ministry to be substituted for
the permit that is required to be granted for the ministry (Ko €se, 2011).
Although it is not directly within this scope, lately a positive change
was made in the EIA Regulation: the paragraph that indicates: “The
opinion of the institution/organization that does not submit an opinion
within thirty calendar days is considered positive” is added to the
paragraph that states “In the case it is considered necessary during the
process of review and evaluation the opinion of the authorized in­
stitutions/organizations can be requested” which is in the 1st paragraph
of Article 17 of the “Regulation on Making Amendments on the EIA
Regulation” which was issued in the Official Gazette dated 26th May
2017 and numbered 30077.
Addition of this statement is favorable in terms of accelerating the
transactions. However, unfortunately, it is not possible to say that this is
applied in all provinces. Therefore, the validity of this article in appli­
cation can be discussed (Demirkan, 2017). Thus, lately, the applications
are still not replied on time. In all provinces of Turkey, the minimum
number of requesting “opinions” from other institutions during the EIA
process is approximately 11, and this number can reach numbers up to
20 to 25. In the phase of the opinions of institutions, the institutions
generally present their opinions a short time before the Review and
Assessment Committee meeting. This makes the permit assessment
process longer. The institutions need to work more functionally and
make their reviews and assessments and leave investors room for ma­
neuver time. It is beneficial to ask for opinions of the required in­
stitutions through a system where especially the limited areas and the
areas with special permits are registered regularly that are open to the
units of all ministries. In addition to lightning the load of the public
institutions, with a system where the current areas are shown, the pro­
cessing time will be shortened.
For example, the opinion of the municipalities should not be
requested in the EIA process. Because, when the opinion of this kind of
institutions which do not have a technical staff or the required knowl­
edge about mining are requested, they give a logical or illogical negative
T.D. Yıldız
opinion to almost all of the mining projects not based on a scientific
knowledge but by thinking with a political logic and thinking the po­
tential of losing votes. Instead of this, for the issues that may occur re­
ports from the universities or accredited institutions can be requested
and measurements can be made when necessary, and the decision on the
technical and scientific suitability of the project must be made by
making measurements when necessary. At this point, in the EIA process
if “requesting the opinion” of other institutions is done through coor­
dination with MAPEG can shorten the permit processes.
5.2. Authorized authority proposal in EIA permit process
Due to the lack of coordination of ministries and institutions, au­
thority confusion arises. This situation triggers the factors that increase
the cost of the license holders (such as labor force and time loss) and
manifests itself as a corrosive force to investment initiatives that will
create employment. In the direction of ending this confusion of au­
thority, it is considered that it will be in the interest of the country to
grant all permissions related to mining by a single authority. Accord­
ingly, it is necessary to reduce bureaucratic procedures, reduce the
permit periods to reasonable limits, and to minimize the problems that
occur in the permit processes given by various institutions. For this
purpose, it is recommended that all permits to be taken, excluding
operating license and operating permit (such as business license, work
permit, and agriculture, forest, pasture, and site permits), are included
in the scope of the EIA (TGNA, 2010).
The current situation is that the EIA is not a permit but a ministerial
opinion. EIA is implemented by making research, analysis and modeling
to minimize the environmental impacts of the investment before the
investment and by making commitments by the investor. Thus, the EIA
is a phase in which these studies are evaluated within the specified scope
by the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization.
Moreover, based on the EIA Decision, the “Environmental Permit and
License” phase is applied by the Ministry of Environment and Urbani­
zation after the investment is made and before the operation starts. The
“Environmental Permit and License” is granted by periodically moni­
toring whether the undertakings that are given are being applied, and
this control mechanism is applied throughout the time that the business
is operational. Although these phases look like they do not have a
common ground with the operating license, all these processes and as­
sessments can be done under the MENR.
Therefore, without taking the initiative under the Ministry of Envi­
ronment and Urbanization, inconstancies occur between the General
Directorate of EIA and the Provincial Directorates of the relevant Min­
istries regarding the EIA decision. One of the situations that the mining
enterprises that answered the “Survey Monkey” survey were com­
plaining about is that the environmental engineers in some of the pro­
vincial directorates make the issues personal and get into the effort of
managing them.
Indeed, the decisions that the representatives of the relevant in­
stitutions make is one of the obstacles within the scope of the EIA
application and assessments. These representatives should not express
the contexts of their institutions as their personal opinions. Although
there is no compulsory decision regarding this situation, the uncertainty
of the situation is a threat of the system (Coskun and Turker, 2011). It
should not be forgotten that in general, the power of the legal and
institutional structure will make the system stronger as a whole.
Also, huge investments cannot be made as a result of the fact that
even only one member of the Commission, which is composed of the
representatives of state institutions and organizations, expresses a
negative opinion on an issue that is not important to be considered
during the EIA process. In order to solve this issue, the negative opinion
should be allowed to be scientifically and technically re-evaluated at a
higher authority (TMA, 2019).
According to Necati Yıldız; after the operating license is obtained
(including the EIA), a committee consists of the representatives of the
14
Resources Policy 67 (2020) 101681
relevant institutions that should go to the mining sites for assessment in
order for all the required permits to be obtained. This committee should
review the whole site, and each staff should prepare a report according
to their own legislation in terms of the areas that show differences in the
license area; therefore the rules for the mining activities that will be
carried out in this area should be set (Yıldız, 2018a).
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), as evident from its name, is
the study of the elimination or minimization of investment by examining
its environmental impact. For this reason, there is a perception that the
coordinator ministry should be the Ministry of Environment and Ur­
banization in the EIA process for investments to be made regarding
mining. At this point, in the current system has experience in the field of
the mining operation from MENR; even help by graduates of engineering
faculties such as mining, geology, to the Ministry of Environment and
Urbanization will not be able to improve the situation in the permit
process. In addition, in the process of obtaining a mining operating li­
cense, the other institutions of which the Ministry of Environment and
Urbanization request the opinions are lengthening the transactions
amongst themselves eliminates the predictability in the permit process.
In another question that was asked to the mining operations In order
to generate solutions and to be able to make proposal in this negative
situation: the idea of “The EIA in mining investments should be given by a
higher authority under the MENR that consists of engineers from the Ministry
of Environment and Urbanization” was mentioned by the majority of the
mining enterprises (Fig. 15).
In the name of reducing the risks of the companies that invest/will
invest on mining, this situation can bring a positive outcome in terms of
the development of environmentally conscious mining in Turkey by
presenting an EIA assessment process under the MENR. Therefore, this
unit that will be established can present their opinion in the phase of
operating license application by being assigned with the committee that
will be assigned by the MENR during the mining operating license
application and can provide the required operation permit to be pre­
pared in a very short time. Thus, it will almost be like giving the
applicant the operation permits simultaneously with the operating li­
cense in a very short time.
Actually, rather than which administrative body will give the permit
the main issue here is that predictable criteria to be established and
before anything else the arbitrariness to be eliminated in the application
process. However, in any case, it is mandatory to establish a “Mining
Permit Committee”. Establishing such a committee under the MENR
which is objective, competent, effective will enable the representatives
of the EIA and the other units the opinions of which are requested to be
able to make faster decision in the permit processes. Therefore the in­
vestment risks of the mining investors will be decreased.7 This function
can be provided by a provincial mining organization being established
by the MENR and by increasing the technical staff of this organization.
Otherwise, it does not seem possible for the permit process to be
shortened.
Especially, carrying out the permit process from one center and with
a common representative committee, the inter-ministerial opinion and
authorization will be eliminated. Therefore, an inter-ministerial coor­
dination would be established, and the bureaucracy will be reduced;
thus, the mining permit process will be accelerated. Because this will
7
It is useful to look at the legislation and practices in Sweden. The Depart­
ment of Mines and Petroleum has several roles in relation to the environment.
Environmental officers are appointed to set and ensure compliance with envi­
ronmental conditions, according to the Mining Act, on granted tenements for
exploration and mining. Sweden Mining Act also provides for an environmental
inspection regime where the environmental officers within the Department may
enter and inspect operations for the protection of the environment. The
Department of Mines and Petroleum works to improve the transparency, cer­
tainty, and timeliness of its approval processes connected to mining tenure
applications and mining environmental approvals (Johnson, 2010).
T.D. Yıldız
Fig. 15. The idea of which institution should give the EIA.
minimize the investment losses, it will bring along efficient mining.
6. Conclusion and suggestions
In Turkey, all of the legislative and application issues that are forseen
regarding the EIA; emerged as a result of lengthening out the permit
processes due to institutional assessments in the EIA process and the
completion time of the process being unpredictable. The frequency of
requesting EIA from the mining sector is not only a bureaucracy that is
only applied to the mining sector but also causes investment losses in
this sector. As a result, it is seen that tens of mining enterprises in Turkey
lose their investments between 2.5% to 100% of their mining investment
amounts due to the EIA assessment processes of the administrative in­
stitutions. This picture dissuades the entrepreneurs who want to invest
in the mining sector from the investments they intend to make. The fact
that Turkey falls to 4th place from the last in its worldwide rank,
especially in the “Uncertainty Concerning Environmental Regulations”
category in the study by the Fraser Institute indicates that mining
legislation makers and policymaker administrations should revise the
status quo urgently.
The answers that are given to the survey question which was asked to
the mining enterprises in order to see how long it takes the EIA and the
other permits that are taken under rules to be completed within three
months during the EIA process to be given in the mining sector in Turkey
show that the other permits (like the landownership permit and business
license and work permit) in the EIA process are usually given to the
mining enterprises 3–34 months time during the EIA process in Turkey.
15
Resources Policy 67 (2020) 101681
The fact that only EIA Decisions (EIAR/EIANR decisions for all mining
groups on average in 3.4 months and “EIA (þ) decisions” on average are
14.3 months) shows that it is not possible for this rule to be practiced in
periods exceeding 3 months. However, the mining enterprises want the
“EIANR decision” in one month, and the “EIA (þ) decision” within the
“first three-month” period and the EIA process to be completed.
The fact that only the period in which EIA decisions are given overly
exceeds the 3-month period makes reviewing the permit evaluation
policies essential for the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization,
which is the key authority in terms of shortening this permit process.
Accordingly, in order to shorten the permit assessment process; the
procedures that request the opinions of other institutions after the
application was made during the EIA procedure and even after the EIA
license is granted needs to be abolished. Furthermore, through a Com­
mission that could be established within the MENR which constitutes of
the representatives of EIA and other units that opinions of which are
requested will make the EIA and other permits to be given, managed and
the decisions during the permit process to be accelerated.
First and foremost, when making amendments and regulations on the
environmental legislation the opinion and the suggestions of the MENR
on mining matters and the conditions in Turkey should be taken into
consideration, and these should be reflected in the legislation that will
be established or revised. Reflecting the policies especially on the mat­
ters of environment and planning and energy and mining to the legis­
lation that is established by the other Ministries and establishing a unit
regarding coordination between the ministries, shall contribute to
accelerating the permit process for the mining sector in the medium and
T.D. Yıldız
long term in Turkey.
Author statement
During the preparation of this article, I have made all the study
alone.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101681.
References
Annandale, D., Taplin, R., 2003. Is environmental impact assessment regulation A
‘burden’ to private firms? Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 23, 383–397. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0195-9255(03)00002-7.
Bastida, A.E., 2014. From extractive to transformative industries: paths for linkages and
diversification for resource-driven development. Min. Econ. 27 (2–3), 73–87.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13563-014-0062-8.
Boerchers, M., Sinclair, A.J., Gibson, R.B., Halden, N.M., 2018. “Sustainability is finding
the next mine”: the complicated relationships among legacies, sustainability, and EA.
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 71, 84–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eiar.2018.01.002.
Bomsel, O., B€orkey, P., Glachant, M., Leveque, F., 1996. Is there room for environmental
self-regulation in the mining sector? Resour. Pol. 22 (1–2), 79–86. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0301-4207(96)00030-X.
Boscio, N.D., 2016. Daniel Franks’ B Mountain movers—mining, sustainability and the
agents of change. Min. Econ. 29 (1), 41–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13563-016-
0079-2.
Brown, A.L., Hindmarsh, R.A., Mcdonald, G.T., 1991. Environmental assessment
procedures and issues in the Pacific basin-Southeast Asia region. Environ. Impact
Assess. Rev. 11, 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/0195-9255(91)90029-J.
Coskun, A.A., Turker, O., 2011. Analysis of environmental impact assessment (EIA)
system in Turkey. Environ. Monit. Assess. 175 (1–4), 213–226. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10661-010-1507-3.
De Sa, P., 2019. Mining and sustainable development: territorializing the mining
industry. Min. Econ. 32 (2), 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13563-018-0149-8.
Degerli, E., Guner, M.O., 2015. Environmental legislation in mining and EIA regulation
applications. In: Mineral Law Proceedings Book (3-4 October 2015). Astana
Publications, Afyon, pp. 323–412.
Demirkan, H., 2017. Mining Regulatory Changes and Restructuring in Turkey. Our Life is
Mine. Meeting Booklet, Antalya, p. 31.
Elvan, O.D., 2013. The legal environmental risk analysis (LERA) sample of mining and
the environment in Turkish legislation. Resour. Pol. 38, 252–257. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resourpol.2013.03.008.
Ericsson, M., L€of, O., 2019. Mining’s contribution to national economies between 1996
and 2016. Min. Econ. 32, 223–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13563-019-00191-6.
Falck, W.E., 2016. Social was licensing in mining—between ethical dilemmas and
economic risk management. Min. Econ. 29 (2–3), 97–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13563-016-0089-0.
Fraser Institute, 2019. Annual survey of mining companies: 2018. Available via. http
s://www.fraserinstitute.org/resource-file?nid¼12730&fid¼11530.
Ghorbani, Y., Kuan, S.H., 2017. A review of sustainable development in the Chilean
mining sector: past, present and future. Int. J. Min. Reclamat. Environ. 31 (2),
137–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/17480930.2015.1128799.
Gibson, R.B., Robinson, A.V., 2014. Mining and sustainability: a local and regional legacy
effects framework for planning, assessment, and related applications. In: Mining and
Sustainability: A Local and Regional Legacy Effects Framework for Planning,
Assessment and Related Applications, vol. 18. University of Waterloo. Available via.
https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid¼2-s2.0-85046105136&o
rigin¼inward.
Glasson, J., Therivel, R., Chadwick, A., 2005. Introduction to Environmental Impact
Assessment. (Natural and Built Environment Series), third ed. Spon Press, London,
p. 423. Available via. https://books.google.com.tr/books/about/Introduction_to_En
vironmental_Impact_Ass.html?id¼7cZ6Sxd9gR4C&redir_esc¼y.
Gunay, O.,
€ 2016. Mining Law Concepts - Principles - Definitions. Seckin Publishing
House, p. 194.
http://www.yoikk.gov.tr/detay.cfm?ID¼312&MID¼31&startRow¼1&currentPage¼1.
(Accessed 26 December 2018).
https://ced.csb.gov.tr/ced-uygulamalari-i-85396. (Accessed 11 January 2019).
https://csb.gov.tr/. (Accessed 18 January 2019).
Guner, M.O., 2017. Mining and EIA. Presentation of the Training Seminar of the Country
Mining Development Foundation, 30 - 31 October.
Humphreys, D., 2001. Sustainable development: can the mining industry afford it?
Resour. Pol. 27, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4207(01)00003-4.
16
Resources Policy 67 (2020) 101681
Intarapravich, D., Clark, A.L., 1994. Performance guarantee schemes in the minerals
industry for sustainable development. Resour. Pol. 20 (1), 59–69. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0301-4207(94)90041-8.
Johnson, E.L., 2001. Rights to minerals in Sweden: current situation from an historical
perspective. J. Energy Nat. Resour. Law 19 (3), 278–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02646811.2001.11433236.
Johnson, E.L., 2010. Mineral Rights Legal Systems Governing Exploration and
Exploitation. Doctoral Thesis, Department of Real Estate and Construction
Management School of Architecture and the Built Environment Royal Institute of
Technology, Sweden, p. 284. Available via. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/ge
t/diva2:300248/FULLTEXT01.pdf.
K€omurder, 2016. Problems Encountered in Mining and Solutions. Coal Producers
Association (K€ omurder), Sahin Mining Engineering Inc., p. 75
K€ose, M., 2011. Taking the permits in the EIA process. Turkey Mining J. 17, 40. Available
via. https://issuu.com/madencilikturkiye/docs/_say__17_k.
Koza, 2013. Karıncadag Mining Enterprise IV. Group Minerals (Copper, Lead, Zinc,
Silver) Final EIA Report. Koza Gold Operations Inc., p. 167
MAPEG, 2019. Mining statistics. Ministry of energy and natural resources of Turkey,
general directorate of mining and Petroleum Affairs (MAPEG). Available via. http://
www.mapeg.gov.tr/maden_istatistik.aspx.
Nie�c, M., Galos, K., Szamałek, K., 2014. Main challenges of mineral resources policy of
Poland. Resour. Pol. 42, 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2014.10.010.
R�emy, F., 2003. Mining Reform and the World Bank: Providing a Policy Framework for
Development. International Finance Corporation, Washington, DC. Available via. htt
p://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/511531468782172927/pdf/31375
0mining0reform0and0the0wb.pdf.
Smith, D., Naito, K., 1998. Asian mining legislation: policy issues and recent
developments. Resour. Pol. 24 (2), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4207
(98)00021-X.
S€
oderholm, K., S€ oderholm, P., Helenius, H., Pettersson, M., Viklund, R., Masloboev, V.,
Mingaleva, T., Petrov, V., 2015. Environmental regulation and competitiveness in
the mining industry: permitting processes with special focus on Finland, Sweden,
and Russia. Resour. Pol. 43, 130–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resourpol.2014.11.008.
Stedman, A., Green, K.P., 2018. Survey of Mining Companies 2017. Fraser Institute,
p. 72. Available via. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/survey
-of-mining-companies-2017.pdf.
Stedman, A., Green, K.P., 2019. Survey of Mining Companies 2018. Fraser Institute,
p. 82. Available via. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/annual-su
rvey-of-mining-companies-2018.pdf.
TGNA, 2010. Report of the Parliamentary Research Commission established to determine
the measures to be taken to investigate the problems in the mining sector. Turkish
Grand National Assembly (TGNA), Period 23, Legislative year: 4, 754 p. Available
via. https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/sirasayi/donem23/yil01/ss544.pdf.
TMA, 2011. Mining, environment, and critical raw materials in the European union.
Turkey miners association (TMA), Istanbul, 170 p. Available via. http://www.turki
yemadencilerdernegi.org.tr/content/docs/ab-madencilik-rpt.pdf.
TMA, 2019. Office calls from representatives of the sector. TMA 77, 56–61. Available via.
https://www.tmder.org.tr/modules/faq/datafiles/FILE_4D28D6-481656-5DE706
-D9B611-C83C97-47EFF5.pdf. https://www.tmder.org.tr/blog/sektor-stk-baskan
larinin-ziyaretlerinde-sunulan-ra/.
Tole, L., Koop, G., 2011. Do environmental regulations affect the location decisions of
multinational gold mining firms? J. Econ. Geogr. 11 (1), 151–177. https://doi.org/
10.1093/jeg/lbp064.
Topaloglu, M., 2018. Global trends in mining regulations and application of Turkey.
Special issue Sci. Mining J. 143–152. Available via. http://www.madencilik.org.
tr/detail-article.php?articlekod¼7028.
Trewin, R., Vincent, D., Dee, P., 1992. Effects of environmental constraints on mining
performance and community living standards. Canberra: national Centre for
development studies. Available via. https://books.google.com.tr/books/about/Effec
ts_of_environmental_constraints_on.html?id¼QYS1AAAAIAAJ&redir_esc¼y.
TUMMER, 2017. Mining Operations Permission Processes (Presentation). TUMMER
(Turkey Marble Natural Stone and Machinery Manufacturers Association).
TurkStat, 2019. Gross domestic product by kind of economic activity, income approach,
2009-2018. Available via. www.tuik.gov.tr/UstMenu.do?metod¼temelist.
Wilkerson, J., 2010. Competition and Regulation in the Gold Industry: an American
Perspective, vol. 11. University of Botswana Law Journal, pp. 117–129. Available
via. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/studentpubs/15/.
Wyatt, C., McCurdy, T., 2014. 2013 Ranking of Countries for Mining Investment: "Where
Not to Invest". Behre Dolbear, Minerals Industry Advisors. Available via. https://tr.
scribd.com/document/265170782/2014-Ranking-of-Countries-for-Mining-Invest
ment-pdf.
Yesilyurt, C., 2013. Mandatory permits obtained in mining law. J. Mining Turkey 28,
96–98. Available via. https://issuu.com/madencilikturkiye/docs/_say__28_k.
Yıldız, N., 2018a. The problems of mining. Turkey Mining J. 72, 120–128. Available via.
http://madencilikturkiye.com/madencilik-turkiye-dergisinin-72-sayisi-cikti/.
Yıldız, T.D., 2018b. The Survey Research Done to 97 Mining Enterprises from the Online
Survey Monkey. Survey Monkey (unpublished).
T.D. Yıldız
Yıldız, T.D., 2019. The share of required costs in investment amounts for mining
operating activities in pasture lands in Turkey. J. Eng. Sci. Adiyaman Univ. 6 (10),
23–31. Available via. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/736499.
Yıldız, T.D., Samsunlu, A., Kural, O., 2016. Urban development and mining in Istanbul –
a�gaçli coal field and its rehabilitation. SWEMP 2016, 5-7 October 2016, Istanbul, 29,
1-11, Available via. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329962585_Urba
n_Development_and_Mining_in_Istanbul_-_Agacli_Coal_Field_and_Its_Rehabilitation.
Zanbak, C., 2019. On the development in the EU agenda on the environmental matters
regarding the mining sector, 74, 84-86. Available via. https://www.tmder.org.tr/
17
Resources Policy 67 (2020) 101681
modules/faq/datafiles/FILE_E141EB-EDCD2F-F4C7D5-A0128C-95EB50-1C5C09.pd
f.
Ziran, Z., 1999. Natural resources planning, management, and sustainable use in China.
Resour. Pol. 25 (4), 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4207(99)00028-8.
Zvarivadza, T., 2018. Sustainability in the mining industry: an evaluation of the National
Planning Commission’s diagnostic overview. Resour. Pol. 56, 70–77. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.01.008.
https://www.tcmb.gov.tr/kurlar/kurlar_tr.html. (Accessed 15 November 2019).