TÜBİTAK Channel Istanbul Report

CHP leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu made a reference to TÜBİTAK's Kanal Istanbul report in his speech at the Kanal Istanbul Workshop organized by the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality. 'You can not help but if you wanted the Canal Istanbul will be held, "he referencing the TÜBİTAK report on the project's President Erdogan Kılıçdaroğlu," we TUBITAK in Turkey the pupil of an institution, Article 14 case wrote that the project is how much is wrong, "he said. The details of the TÜBİTAK report mentioned by the CHP leader were explained by CHP Deputy Chairperson of Nature Rights Gülizar Biçer Karaca.

CHP Deputy Chairman Responsible for Nature Rights Denizli Deputy Gülizar Biçer Karaca, the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization of the TUBITAK Marmara Research Center (MAM) about the Channel Istanbul project has shared the opinion of the EIA report with all details.

With the logic of “I did it”, Gülizar Biçer Karaca has no luxury to implement the Kanal Istanbul project, which is contrary to reason and science. There are objections in the opinion of TÜBİTAK MAM in the Kanal Istanbul EIA Report. The EIA report prepared by the non-specialist team of TÜBİTAK is not scientific. If the Canal Istanbul comes to life, the Marmara Sea ends and the Black Sea ecosystem collapses. ”

TUBITAK DETERMINATIONS

Request; The findings in the TÜBİTAK MAM Report, in which Karaca listed the item and which will directly affect the course of the Kanal Istanbul project:

* Information on prevention of environmental impacts of screening and casting is insufficient and not based on scientific basis.
90 Million m3 of material to be extracted from the sea and lake floor has not been detailed planning on how to apply sea fill and discharging options to the sea.

• The material to be discharged into the Marmara Sea is very high in sludge and organic carbon. Reactive organic matter and human / organic pollutants are at risk of damaging the sea and marine ecosystem.
• According to the TÜBİTAK analysis report, the wastes that need to be disposed on land are requested to be filled into the sea in the EIA Report.
• Bottom dredging sludge disposal has physical, chemical and biological risks
• Ecosystem will be destroyed in a larger area than expected at the seabed
• Turbidity caused by high amounts of sludge discharge will spread to larger areas. There is no information or suggestions on this subject.
• With its thousands of tons of organic matter load, it will negatively affect the oxygen balance of the Marmara Sea and will completely exhaust the oxygen in the areas with poor water circulation.
• The substance to be discharged is at risk of causing acute and chronic effects for the Marmara Sea water cone and bottom organisms.
• During the excavation of Küçükçekmece lake and canal, contaminated material will be contaminated by currents and wind and dissolved ions, metals and organic matter will cause pollution in Marmara Sea coastal
• As a result, it was found that the determination of the environmental / ecological impacts of the bottom survey activity in the EIA report was not based on scientific basis and was not carried out by expert marine scientists.
• In the model study in the EIA report, which will enter the Marmara from the Black Sea, it will be at least 2 times more than the estimated, and it has been determined that an average of 20 km3 / year will enter the Marmara Sea from the Black Sea. However, according to sources, this figure will be at least twice the 20 km3 / year.
• There will be a monolayer water flow from the Black Sea to Marmaray (different from the bilayer flow regime in the Bosporus).
  This is thought to disrupt the holistic ecosystem of the Sea of ​​Marmara.
• Sea water measurements in the EIA report are inadequate in measuring and understanding impacts. It needs to be done by marine scientists (chemical, physical, biological oceanographers) over longer term data.
• The Western Black Sea coastline should be protected by a private natural beach, and will be wasted for the disposal of material to be released after the excavations.
• While intensive efforts are underway to understand and protect deep ecosystems worldwide, it is strongly necessary to avoid the opposite ideas and arguments while it is only our responsibility to protect and maintain an inland sea that belongs to us.
• In the EIA report, measures to prevent the impact of marine wastes on marine ecosystem are not mentioned.
• The effect of the channel on taste water aquifers has not been investigated during the period when the increase in water demand and the effects of climate change are expected.
• The need for the canal is only linked to ship traffic and accidents. Lack of ecological, social and economic cost benefit research.
• Only a narrow area around the channel is shown as a social domain. However, the area of ​​influence is the entire Marmara Sea and the surrounding settlements. (Sözcü)