Turkey and International Environmental Law

Draft working paper. Comments are welcome(∗)

Accessed at: USAK Çevre Araştırma Merkezi, http://www.usak.org.uk/

INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

AND TURKEY

by Dr. Kemal Başlar [email protected]

It would be pertinent at the outset to portray briefly the unique environment of the Anatolian peninsula to better assess the importance of efforts made in Turkey for the protection and preservation of the environment. Thereafter, the institutional structure of public administration will be sketched out with a view to understanding the follow-up of environmental treaties. Thereafter, it will be shed light on the factors that shape Turkish practice in international environmental law. Finally, light will be cast upon what Turkey has done so far(*) at international level to protect its flora and fauna, its surrounding seas, cultural heritages and the global commons. The article finishes addressing which treaties still wait for ratification and implementation.

Within the ambit of this article, space does not allow us to elaborate too much on the history and nicety of environmental treaties. We are not going to delve into the provisions of international treaties article by article. Accordingly, we shall only briefly look at treaties that have been ratified by Turkey and legal instruments adopted to implement them. We shall also endeavour to outline the general façade of Turkish environmental law and policy.

1. The State of the Environment

Turkey is situated in the northern hemisphere near the junction of the continents of

Europe, Asia and Africa between 36° and 42° north latitude and 25° 40′ and 44° 48′ east longitude. With a land area of 77,798, 000 ha (app. 778,071 km2), Turkey is the 34th largest country in the world. Total length of Turkey’s coastlines is 8333 km. Inland waters cover 6 % of the land area. The total area of natural lakes is 906,000 (∗) This essay was written in 2001. It was slightly updated in 2003. Due to a number legal

amendments made in 2003 and 2004 to harmonize Turkish legislation with the EU Acquis, some parts of this essay have become outdated and need updating. Comments and additional information are welcome and be taken into account when revising the essay in the months to come.

Kemal Başlar

hectares, and the total area of artificial lakes is 380,000 ha. Apart form Asi and Meriç Rivers, all rivers originating from Anatolia reach to four different regions (the Mediterranean, the Aegean, the Caspian Seas and the Indian Ocean (through the Gulf of Basra (Persian Gulf) via the famous Euphrates and Tigris rivers).

When looked at the geography of Turkey on a world map, it shall be seen that no other country in the world is so close equally to Asia, Europe and Africa. The Anatolian peninsula is where the Asian continent is too much adjacent to Europe and is situated 5° north of the African continent. In Western languages, Anatolia is called as ‘Minor Asia’, as there are great diversities in the climate of regions. These wide variations in temperature and precipitation affect the country’s flora and fauna, both in quantity and in range of species. Some parts of Turkey consist of arid highlands, whereas some others are dense forests; and differences such as these play a crucial role in the variance of wildlife around the country. The distribution of flora and fauna species along a north-south axis during the glacial periods shifted to an east-west axis during temperate intervals. This further increased biological richness.

The combination of all these factors has resulted in one of the highest diversities of indigenous plant and animal and species in the world so much so that these species include even those of the Oriental and Ethiopian regions. Hence, Turkey can be seen ‘as a center of diversity’1 and an axis of three major biogographical zones (the Euro-Siberian, Irano-Turanian and Mediterranean regions). There are five different “micro gene centers” in Turkey. Anatolia is one of the foremost world sources of plants cultivated for food for centuries. According to IUCN, the International Plant Genetic Resource Institute (IPGRI) and the WWF, there are four gene centres in the world for cultivated plants used in agriculture. The region of Southwest Asia covering most of Turkey and parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Azerbaijan is gene centres for wheat and barley. The most important of these strategic agricultural plants is undoubtedly wheat, of which over thirty wild species still grow in Turkey. There are 256 varieties of cereal cultivated from both native and imported races and certified over the last 30 years. Some 95 of these cereals are wheat varieties, 91 corn varieties, 22 barley varieties, 19 rice varieties, 16 sorghum varieties, 11 oat varieties, and 2 rye varieties.2 What this means is that e.g. the transmission of a disease-resistant gene from a wild wheat form in Turkey to the American farmers has saved 50 million dollars a year for the US economy.3

The diversity of fauna in Turkey is even greater than that of wild plants. Turkey hosts 135 species of mammals, 450 birds, 106 reptiles and 22 amphibians, and 192 of

1 The following books may be useful references for further information: GÜNER, Adil, Flora

of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands, Columbia University Press, 2001.: DAVIS, Peter, Flora of Turkey And the East Aegean Islands, Edinburgh University Press, 1984.

2 Ulusal Biyolojik Çeşitlilik Stratejisi ve Eylem Planı [National Biological Diversity Strategy and Action Plan], MoE Publications, Ankara, 2001.

3 Anon., GATT ve Çevre [GATT and the Environment], Environment Foundation of Turkey, Ankara, 1995, p. 47 (it is originally cited from Al Gore’s book, Global Equilibrium and the Environment): KIŞLALIOĞLU, M. & BERKES, F., Biyolojik Çeşitlilik, [Biological Diversity], (Ankara: Environment Foundation of Turkey, 1992), p. 34.

International Environmental Law and Turkey

freshwater fish.4 While the number of species throughout Europe as a whole is around 60.000, in Turkey, they number over 80.000.5 If sub-species are also counted, then this number rises to over a hundred thousand. Just as in the case of plants, Anatolia was once the original homeland of several species, most of whom are now extinct.6

Birds have taken advantage of Turkey’s strategic position as a bridge connecting Europe to Asia and Africa for thousands of years. Two of the four main migration routes come from Turkey. In springs, migratory birds fly northwards from Africa to Asia and Europe, and in autumns, they leave their breeding grounds to fly south to Africa again. There are around 300,000 birds flying across Turkey, one of the largest migratory group of birds of prey in the world. Over a quarter million storks and some species of birds of prey fly in clouds over Istanbul along the Bosphorous in the course of a few weeks. Almost, 380.000 birds of prey have been witnessed at the eastern end of the Black Sea.7 Moreover, Turkey is thought to have 400-450 species of salt water fish. Turkey’s’ Aegean and Mediterranean shores provide a shelter for monk seals and loggerhead turtles. Last but not least, Turkey’s wetlands, the richest in the Middle East and Europe, host colonies of numerous endangered species, such as the Dalmatian pelican, pygmy cormorant and the slender billed curlew, as well as flamingos, wild ducks and geese.

2. Introduction: The Legal and Institutional Structure

The legal and administrative efforts on environmental protection commenced in the late 1970s. In 1978, an environmental organization was attached to the Prime Minister’s office, and “the Prime Ministry Undersecretariat for the Environment” was established as the first serious attempt for environmental problems. In 1982, the right to environment was enshrined in the Constitution.8 The organisational structure of the Ministry of Environment was crystallised only after the 1980s.9 In 1983, the Environmental Act was promulgated.10 The Ministry of Environment was established

4 GEF/SGP Country Strategy, Second Operational Phase 2000-2001, at http://www.un.org.tr/-

undp/docs/sgp_strategy.pdf, p.8 (7 August 2001). 5 Çevre ve Çevre Bakanlığı, Yeşil Seri: 1, [Environment and the Ministry of Environment],

The Ministry of Environment Publications, Ankara, 1993), p. 39 et seq. 6 E.g. fallow deer, pheasant, leopard, tiger and lion. 7 GEF/SGP Country Strategy, supra, note 4, p.8. 8 Article 56 reads: ‘Everybody is entitled to live in a healthy and balanced environment, to

preserve the healthiness of the environment and to prevent environmental pollution’. 9 In 1983, the Prime Ministry Undersecretariat for the Environment was transformed to the

Prime Ministry General Directorate for the Environment. In 1988, the Institution for Special Environmental Protection Areas was established. In 1989, the General Directorate for the Environment was reverted to undersecretariat status.

10 Act no. 2872, 11 August 1983, Official Gazette, no. 18132. (Amended in 1984, 1986, 1988, 1998).

Kemal Başlar

in 1991 by a Statutory Decree no. 443.11 For more than a decade, the Ministry of Environment displayed a praiseworthy activism. On 8 May 2003, the Ministry of Environment was merged with the Ministry of Forestry with the Law no 4856.12 The new ministry was named as “The Ministry of Environment and Forestry”.13

According to Article 2 of the Law no 4856, the Ministry of Environment and Forestry is commissioned with, inter alia, monitoring developments carried out at international level, coordinating and cooperating with other organisations and institutions. To do this, the Ministry has eight arms: (1) General Directorate for Environmental Management, (2) General Directorate for Environmental Impact Assessment and Planning, (3) General Directorate for Afforestation and Erosion Control, (4) General Directorate for Forestry and Rural Affairs, (5) General Directorate for Nature Preservation and National Parks, (6) Department of Research and Development, (7) Department of External Affairs and EU and (8) Department of Training and Publications.14 The abovementioned General Directorates and Departments are responsible for monitoring and coordinating environmental treaties signed and ratified by Turkey.

The Ministry has permanent organs to enable the participation of people in environmental protection and development activities: These are the Higher Council for the Environment (HCE), Local Environmental Councils (LECs), Advisory Council for the Environment and Forestry (ACEF) and Central Hunting Commission.15 At the provincial level, “Provincial Directorates of Environment” have been planned for all 80 provinces. Thirty-three provinces do now enjoy these subdivisions.16 The National Assembly is considering to restructure the Ministry to improve its efficiency; the blueprint lays down a Sustainable Development Council, increasing public participation, allowing for more flexible hiring of experts, and improving salaries to attract more qualified personnel.

The Ministry is also the main organization responsible for the identification, planning, conservation, and management of protected areas, protected by the Act on National Parks and the Act on Land Hunting. The General Directorate of Forest and Village Affairs conducts various projects concerning forest villages. The General Directorate of National Parks and Nature Conservation is vested in the responsibility of 11 21 August 1991, Official Gazette, no. 20967: The Special Directorate of Environmental

Protection Institution was connected to the Ministry of Environment. 12 8 May 2003, Official Gazette , no. 25102. 13 http://www.cevreorman.gov.tr (3 January 2004). 14 Article 8: Compare previous structure with the recent one, see Statutory Decree no. 383,

13 November 1989, Official Gazette, no. 20341.: A simplified organisational chart for the Ministry is depicted in figure A.5.1, See “Turkey: National Environmental Action Plan”, State Planning Organisation, Ankara, 1998, at [ftp://ftp.dpt.gov.tr/pub/ekutup98-/ucep/ucep*.zip], >> in (*.*/ucep5i.zip).

15 Article 29 et seq, Law no 4856. 16 For old structure, see “Turkey: National Environmental Action Plan”, State Planning

Organization, Ankara, 1998.: ftp://ftp.dpt.gov.tr/pub/ekutup98/ucep/ucep*.zip, (*.*/ucep6i.zip) and (*.*/ucep14i.zip) (8 August 2001).


identifying the species to be conserved, managing wildlife, making the legal arrangements regarding the management of wildlife, issuing hunting licenses and regulating hunting. The General Directorate monitors hunting activities through the Central Hunting Commission composed of central and local units of the Ministry, and associations for hunting and marksmanship. The Authority for Specially Protected Areas (ASPA) are attached to the Ministry and responsible for the protection, planning, and management of 13 Specially Protected Areas (SPAs) which cover an area of 1,069,000 ha, 1,3 % of the total land area of Turkey. The means for the protection, rehabilitation and physical development of the environment in the SPAs are formulated by the ASPAs. At the local level, governor’s offices are in charge of regulating the SPAs.17

As for fishing activities, they are under the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs which enjoys the powers and responsibilities for the use and coordination of all agriculture-related pastures and natural resources. The Ministry regulates the use of agricultural herbicides and pesticides and chemical fertilizers as well.18

The Ministry of Culture and Tourism monitors the protection and management of natural preservation sites designated as such in accordance with the Act on Governing Preservation of Cultural and Natural Resources. For example, 750 different Natural Preservation Sites have been hitherto registered and protected by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism. The Ministry designate and preserves the natural, historical, archaeological, and urban sites in order to hand down these natural and cultural endowments to future generations. The Ministry performs its duty of preserving the immovable cultural and natural endowments through the High Committee of Preservation of Cultural and Natural Heritage and the local Committees of Preservation of Cultural and Natural Heritage, which are all coordinated by the General Directorate of Cultural and Natural Heritage.19

The State Planning Organisation (SPO), working under the authority of the Prime Ministry, is an institution which has significant influence on sustainable development and environmental decision-making. It develops five-year development plans. Starting from the Third Five-Year Development Plan, the SPO entertained environmental issues to shape governmental policies. The SPO supervised the preparation of the National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP/UCEP).20

Another institution being in charge of supporting the assessment of international environmental law is the Environment Commission of the Turkish Grand National

17 For a general review of these areas, see, ALTAN, M., “Özel Çevre Koruma Bölgelerinin

Çevre Hukukundaki Yeri”, Prof. Şükrü Postacıoğlu’na Armağan, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi, 1997, 517-523.

18 Turkish National Report for the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Submitted at Johannesburg Summit, The Ministry of Environment, August 2002, 89. http://www.cevko.org.tr/surdur/rapor_ing/nrt*.pdf (*=1-7)

19 Ibid. 20 For more information on the role of the SPO, see, http:/www.dpt.gov.tr/.

Kemal Başlar

Assembly.21 According to Article 20 of its By-Law, the Commission is given the duty to adopt bills and decrees on, inter alia, the implementation of international hard law documents. It coordinates and cooperates with other permanent commissions and with representatives of international organisations that have a group in the Parliament. It also corresponds and collaborates with the environment commissions of other world parliaments.

Last but not least, there are several governmental agencies such as the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, the State Hydraulic Affairs (DSİ), the General Directorate for Rural Affairs and the Bank of Provinces that have formative roles, to varying extents, in the field of the environment.

3. Factors Affecting the Formation of Environmental Law in Turkey

In the formation and development of environmental policies, there are three major factors having galvanised the government in devising policies and enacting laws. The first is the European Union. The second is the integration of environmental policies with economic and political activities of major international organisations. And the third factor is that some NGOs and individuals garnered bureaucratic support and shaped various national environmental policies single-handedly.22

3.1. The European Union Factor

In relation to the criteria of membership, in June 1993, the Copenhagen European Council concluded that “Accession will take place as soon as an associated country is able to assume the obligations of membership by satisfying the economic and political conditions required”. In June 1995, the Madrid European Council highlighted the importance of incorporating the Acquis into national legislation and of ensuring its effective application through appropriate administrative structures. With formal candidacy for membership in the European Union, Turkey’s environmental record has become under heavy scrutiny in the last two years.

In the light of these facts, Turkey’s relations with the EU is two-fold. On the one part, Turkey is obliged to take into account the provisions of the Customs Union Agreement. One the other part, Turkey should harmonise its legislation with the Acquis. This first aspect arises as a contractual obligation to comply with the provisions of the Agreement. To this end, Turkey has undertaken to adopt legislations, to reach agreements, and to apply relevant provisions. Whereas the latter is a political commitment to be made on the way to full membership. Let us now treat these two issues separately. 21 Established on 20 February 1992. DURUTÜRK, E., “Çevre ve Siyaset” [The

Environment and Politics], (1995), Yeni Türkiye, 1/5, 123–126, 125. 22 See similar view in DİNÇER, M., Çevre Gönüllü Kuruluşları [Environmental NGOs], The

Environment Foundation of Turkey, Ankara, 1996, 96.


The Decision 1/95 on the Customs Union is concerned entirely with the free movement of goods and related issues. Even though the Customs Union guarantees free movement of industrial goods and processed agricultural products, but most of the EC’s trade and competition rules are intermingled with environmental policies. Therefore, this results in harmonisation of Turkey’s, among others, environmental law and policy with those of the EU.

Articles 5 and 6 of the Decision 1/95 of the Association Council allow parties to impose restriction and limitations on the free movement of goods on the basis of the protection of the health of individuals, animals and plants. That is to say, low environmental standards might be an excuse for the EU to block free movements of goods.23 With Article 8 of the Decision, Turkey pledged that within five years of the entry into force of the Decision, Turkey would incorporate all Community measures (namely, standards, measurement, calibrate, quality, accreditation etc). The year 2002 was the deadline for this commitment.

In the light of these remarks, Turkish–EU Legislation Harmonisation Permanent Private Specialised Commission, set up by the Resolution 5/1722 of the Council of Ministers, established in 1994 its twelfth sub-committee for the environment which convened its first meeting on 6 January 1995. On 6 March 1995, the 36th Period Turkey–EU Associate Council was held. To achieve this, the Private Specialised Commission’s Environment Sub-Commission produced a report in 1997, prepared by seven committees, on all aspects of EU legislation that directly and indirectly relate to environmental rules and standards.24

Therefore, after the entry into force of the Decision on the Customs Union, it has become compulsory for Turkey to initiate a program for the harmonisation of the EC environmental law. Otherwise, free movement provisions will work one-sided. For example, if genetically modified food is not clearly distinguished and marked, and if custom officers do not inspect whether they are exported in the light of CITES provisions,25 then this will amount to breach of EC law. The EU Commission may ban Turkish goods for their failure in EC norms. If Turkish goods are not allowed to carry ISO 9000, ISO 14000 and CE signs, the provisions of the Custom Union will not in favour of Turkey.

Apart from the provisions of the Custom Union Decision, there is another factor that forces Turkey to take into account the prerequisites of EU environmental law. This is the obligation to incorporate the Acquis, which has two types: A and B categories. The

23 “Dış Ticarette Çevre Koruma Kaynaklı Tarife Dışı Teknik Engeller ve Türk Sanayii için

Eylem Planı, 5. Bölüm”, [Non-Tariff Technical Barriers in Foreign Commerce Based on Environmental Protection and an Action Plan for Turkish Industry, 5th Section, A Report prepared by TÜSİAD], [http://www.tusiad.org.tr/turkish/rapor/cevre/html/sec5.html] (8 August 2001).

24 This Special Report was supervised and published by the State Planning Organisation in March 1997.

25 TALU, N., “Avrupa Birliği Çevre Politikası ve Türkiye” [The European Union’s Environmental Policy and Turkey], Yeni Türkiye, 36, (Kasım-Aralık 2000), 1057-1078, 1071.

Kemal Başlar

first consists of 3277 primary legislation on the environment, whereas B category includes 1041 Community legislation.26 From the genesis of the EC Law up until the present time, the Union’s environmental policy has been composed of two kinds of measures by which a state intending to join the Community should abide: first (A), Community’s own legislation (e.g. regulations and directives), and second (B) the treaties to which the Community is a party.27 As Lang says,

‘[t]his distinction is important because an intending new Member State can expect to negotiate, if it needs to do so, a transitional period after accession during which it will be able to adopt the measures needed to implement the Community’s own legislation. However, when the Community is a party to any international agreement, the agreement applies automatically (unless there is a clause to the contrary in the agreement) to all the territory of the Community from time to time, including the new Member State...’.28

So the issue is of two facets. If Turkey becomes a member before fully implementing Community’s environmental rules, a longer transitional period would be inevitable. One should take heed of what Lang comments;

‘[A]sking for a long transitional period after accession would seem to imply that Turkey would vote, during the period in question, against stricter environmental protection rules, and this would encourage environmentalists in the Community to think that Turkish accession should be postponed until Turkey was better prepared for it. . .

There is another, rather different, reason for expecting that the Turkish authorities may think that environmental legislation should be adopted and put into force before Turkish accession. Low environmental standards are noticed by all European visitors to Turkey, and are among the things which contribute to the opinion that Turkey is significantly different from the present Member States of the Community... This is important, because the imprecise but widely held opinion that Turkey is different from western Europe is one of the main obstacles to the accession of Turkey to the Community.’29

The EU is a prominent figure in international environmental relations. The EU, together with the Member States, has become a party to numerous international environmental agreements. International treaties to which the Community is a party are

26 “Sekizinci Beş Yıllık Kalkınma Programı, İklim Değişikliği Özel İhtisas Komisyonu

Raporu” [The Eight Five Year Development Plan, Special Expert Commission on Climate Change], DPT: 2532-ÖİK:548, Ankara, 2000, 27-29. http://ekutup.dpt.gov.tr/cevre/-oik548.pdf (8 August 2001)

27 Although there was no clear reference to the protection of the environment in the 1957 Rome Treaty, EC environmental law has developed from 1957 onwards by utilising two indirect provisions of the EEC Treaty: Article 100 and 235.: In 1986, the Single European Act introduced a new section on the environment. The 1992 Treaty of EU modified some articles. For more information see SANDS, P., Principles of International Environmental Law I, Manchester Univ. Press, Manchester, 1995, 544.

28 LANG, T. J., “Implications of the European Community’s Environmental Policy for Turkey”, European Law Review, 13(6), 1988, 403-410, 404.

29 Ibid., 406, 407.


an integral part of the Community’s legal system and that such agreements include the so-called mixed agreements to which both the Community and the Member States are parties. With regard to the case when the EU is a party to an international treaty, the EU can fulfil its obligation under the treaty either by Community measures (e.g. regulations and directives) or by satisfying itself that all Member States have adopted the measures necessary to ensure their fulfilment, or by taking a position between halfway.30 Therefore, ratification of international treaties and approximation of national legislation in conformity with their provisions is an essential task for Turkish governments. In addition, Turkey should watch treaties that are likely to be part of the EU Acquis in the near future.

Another problem is that low environmental standards in Turkey will lead to distorted competition in favour of Turkey, where national companies would not have to pay for anti-pollution equipment and would be free to impose the costs of pollution on the general public.31 The existence of different environmental legislation and standards will affect the cost of products, because of setting up industrial infrastructure in production and transfer of environmentally sound technology. This will in consequence distort competition. Being in breach of competition rules will result in Turkey’s infringement of EC legislation.32

To prevent this, ever since the beginning of the 1960s, Turkey attempted to harmonise its national legislation with that of the EU. So far as the Report on the Development in the EU and Foreign Economic Relations Prior to the Eight Five-Year Development Plan is concerned, 13.2% of Turkish legislation is concerned is completely in harmony with the Acquis, 35% is partly harmonised and about 46% of which, there is no any regulation (e.g. on the disposal of batteries and car batteries). As to the remaining 5.2%, efforts are being made for harmonisation (e.g. the classification of dangerous goods and products, their packaging and labelling).33

This means that more than half of the EC legislation remain to be incorporated. In spite of the fact that there are a number of attempts34 to remove all obstacles, it seems that the complete harmonisation should be finished before the accession talks start in 2006 and after.

30 Ibid., 404. 31 Ibid., 409. 32 EGELI, G., “Gümrük Birliği’ne Çevre Yönünden bir Bakış”, [A Glance at the Customs

Union from the Spectrum of the Environment Kaleidoscope], in Çevre Yönünden Gümrük Birliği ve Türkiye, [Customs Union and Turkey: From an Environmental Perspective], Environment Foundation of Turkey, Ankara, 1996, 18-19.

33 TALU, (dn. 25), 1072. 34 The harmonisation of environmental standards was also one of the main headings of the

Report titled “Main Administrative Structures Required for Implementing the Acquis: Overview” (last update: 13 February 2001) http://www.abgs.gov.tr, Section 22, 60-66. (1 August 2001).The latest example of the harmonisation attempt is the signing of “The Agreement between the Turkish Republic and the European Community on the Participation in the European Environment Agency and European Information and Observation Network (EIONET)” (Official Gazette, 28 January 2003, no. 25007).

Kemal Başlar

3.2. Turkey’s Relations with “Greening International Institutions”35

Turkey has involved actively in the activities of many well-known intergovernmental organisations, be it regional or cross-continental.36 In the ‘greening’ process of the world, international organisations have addressed environmental issues and changed their policies. Although in most cases in the past they have had a low priority compared to its political and economic issues, with the advent of the concept of sustainable development, policies of IGOs veer more and more towards integrating environmental policies into their primary aims. Turkey, as a member of these organisations, is required to take part in this greening process. For example, the Council of Europe has convened several European Ministerial Conferences on the environment and initiated conventions such as the 1979 Berne Convention on the Protection of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats. It also works on pollution problems and fisheries across Europe. The EU, itself adheres to some of the Council’s legislation and incorporates them in the Acquis.37 Turkey should corollary take part in CoE’s activities so that in the process of full EU membership, low environmental profile should not hamper Turkey’s membership process.

The policies developed by OECD have also crafted EU and UN’s environmental programmes. In the process of ‘greening international institutions’, the policies of GATT (later WTO), OECD, the World Bank have been monitored and adopted, as far as possible, before they are shrouded in the EU’s policies.38 For example, OECD established an Environment Committee as early as in 1970.39 It has involved many issues ranging from fisheries to climate change, from transboundary pollution to analyses of the national environment policies of its members and their economic implications suggesting guiding principles. In 1992, one such analysis was published on Turkish environmental policies and organisations.40 A national commission

35 For the term see, WERKSMAN, J. (ed.), Greening International Institutions, Earthscan,

London, 1995. 36 E.g. on November 1995, Turkey was elected to membership on the Governing Council of

UNEP for the period of 1996-2000.: It is apt to note that Turkey is a member of the Council of Europe, NATO, WTO, OSCE, the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC), the Economic Cooperation Organisation (ECO). As a founding member of the UN, Turkey participates in the activities of UN subsidiary bodies and specialised agencies such as UNCTAD, UNCHE, UNCED, UNEP, UNDP, UNECE, UNESCO, IMO, FAO, IAEA, WHO, ICAO, IBRD, IMF, ILO.

37 For the conventions CoE administers, see, http://www.coe.fr/eng/legaltxt/e-enviro.html#animals.

38 The three divisions of the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (namely, the Department of External Affairs, the General Directorate for Environmental Protection, the General Directorate for the Prevention and Control of Environmental Pollution) are commissioned with following the activities of OECD, UNECE, UNCED, FAO, CoE et al.

39 For more information, see, http://www.oecd.org/env/ 40 OECD, ‘Environmental Policies in Turkey: Selected Topics’, Paris, 1992.


charged with studying dangerous chemicals and wastes – which OECD seriously deals with – have been set up.

NATO developed an environmental programme in 1969 under the umbrella of the Committee of the Challenges on Modern Society (CCMS). The studies of the CCMS are followed by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry as a national coordination committee. Due to financial inadequacies Turkey unable to take part in spring and fall meetings of the Committee and to cooperate for pilot projects on the environment.41

As to CSCE, under UNECE auspices, it negotiated the 1979 Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) and its protocols. In 1991, a Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in a Transboundary Context was adopted. Although LRTAP was ratified by Turkey, the latter has not been done so far. It should be done soon as EIA is of significant priority in the EU through regulations and directives.42

An important motivating factor to be in line with environmental policies of international organisations is the chance of receiving financial assistance for the projects to be carried out in Turkey. For example, Turkey, together with the cooperation of the World Bank, prepared its own National Conservation Strategy and the National Environmental Action Plan, which cost five million dollars.

UNDP finances projects on biodiversity conservation and international waters. Special attention is given to resource mobilization nation-wide. For example, UNDP allocated 14 million dollars for resource mobilization target table between 2001-2005.43 There are some bilateral agreements concluded between Turkey and UNDP in relation to projects on e.g. management of national parks, biodiversity and rural development,44 environmental management and national programme on strengthening institutional structure,45 and development and promotion of local Agenda 21s.46

41 The Environment Foundation of Turkey, Environmental Profile of Turkey–1995,

Environment Foundation Publications, Ankara, 1995, 126. 42 All the same, Turkey has re-written its EIA Regulation from scratch. The new regulation

was published on 16 December 2003, Official Gazette, no. 25318. 43 Executive Board of the UNDP and UNPF, “Country Cooperation Frameworks and Related

Matters: Second Country Cooperation Framework for Turkey (2001-2005)”, DP/CCFTUR/1, 13 December 2001, 14, 18. This document is available in pdf format at http://www.un.org.tr/undp/undp.htm (6 August 2001).

44 Council of Ministers Resolution (hereinafter, the phrase will be abbreviated as CMR) no. 97/9739, 18 August 1997, Official Gazette, no. 23084.: Between 1993–1997, UNDP funded 20 projects, totalling $400,000 on biodiversity. Between 1992–1997, together with the Ministry of Environment, UNDP distributed $600,000 for projects undertaking Rio commitments. It also financed, with International Union for Local Authorities, local projects in nine pilot cities totalling $900,000 to accomplish Agenda 21 objectives. (interview with Ms. Esra Karadağ, UNDP-Ankara, on 4 March 1998).

45 96/8277, 15 June 1996, Official Gazette, 22667. 46 98/10168, 6 March 1998, Official Gazette, 23278.

Kemal Başlar

The EU funds are also given for projects that comply with fundamental principles of the Union such as sustainable development, environmental impact assessment and polluter pays. For example, within the ambit of LIFE programme, EU Commission channelled ECU 2.800.000 for the establishment of a reference laboratory in Gölbaşı, Ankara, in order to provide for analytic reliability in the measurement of environmental data.47

No fund will be allocated by the EU for projects that involve infringements of multilateral treaties to which both Turkey and the EU are parties, such as the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats prepared under the auspices of the Council of Europe.48 Another example is that unless Turkey guarantees satisfactorily that reafforestation programme to be funded by the EU would not be damaged by ‘acid rain’ due to air pollution from Turkish sources, the EU is less likely to provide funds for such sober projects. Therefore, carrot-and-stick mechanism provides a holistic approach to environmental protection towards which Turkey should gear its policies.

In parallel to this, the reason why Turkey acceded to the legal instruments on the protection of the ozone layer was not that Turkey has been a major contributor to the ongoing depletion problem.49 The main consideration in becoming party was to protect Turkish industry from trade sanctions and quotas to be put on export-imports. In addition to this, that the Montreal Protocol provides for financial and technical support for environmental protection was another reason for Turkish accession.50

Another ‘carrot’ mechanism forcing Turkey to comply with internationally agreed standards is the Global Environment Facility (GEF).51 Responsibility for implementing the GEF is shared between UNDP, UNEP and World Bank. Established in 1991, the GEF is a means to assist developing countries in the protection of the global environment and promote thereby environmentally sound and sustainable economic development. Between 1994–1997, the GEF was replenished and two billion dollars was committed by the States participating in the GEF. In the following global environmental problems, developing countries are entitled to receive financial

47 TALU, (dn. 25), 1075. 48 LANG, (dn. 28), 407. 49 In fact, the Protocol set the limit 0,3 kg/year for per person, which was pretty higher than

that of Turkey. In the late 1980s, per capita the CFC and Halon gases consumption was around 0,075 kg/year compared to 0,92 in the EU. That is, Turkey is among countries that have 300 g/p.a per person consumption rate of substances that deplete the ozone layer (Article 5(1) of the Montreal Protocol), See, “Dış Ticarette Çevre Koruma Kaynaklı Tarife Dışı Teknik Engeller ve Türk Sanayii için Eylem Planı”, (dn. 29).

50 Çevre Notları, [Notes on the Environment], The Ministry of Environment Publ., Ankara, 1995, 42-43.

51 The GEF was established in 1991 and restructured in 1994: GEF/SGP is administered by UNDP since 1992. It is currently operational in 54 countries. For more information about the GEF and Global Environment Facility/Small Grant Programme in Turkey, see http://www.undp.org.tr/Gef_sgp.htm: For GEF Small Grants Projects in Turkey. The Second Operational Phase Started in 2000, see, http://www.undp.org.tr/gef_prj2000.htm.


assistant not exceeding 50,000 dollars: global warming, destruction of biological diversity, pollution of international waters, depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer, land degradation issues (including desertification and deforestation). The GEF/NGO Small Grants Programme (SGP) became operational in Turkey in June 1993 subsequent to a process of consultations and preparatory activities. In four areas NGOs received financial support: coastal areas management, preservation of biodiversity, environmental impact assessment education and management of wetlands. For example, as far as UNDP is concerned, during 1993-1999, 30 projects were supported all around Turkey, focusing on areas such as eco-tourism development, coastal zone management, threatened species protection, protected area management, land degradation, raising public awareness, environmental education and capacity building. Additional projects in varying project areas are under formulation, which started implementation at the beginning of 2001.52 By the end of 1999, a total of USD 600.000 has been channelled for the 30 small-scale projects. The total value of the projects, though, is more than USD 1.000.000, when the organisations’ own contributions, as well as other donors contributions are taken into account.53 At present, Bidoversity and Natural Resource Management Project (200-2006) is underway.54

As to the last example, showing how funds are used as a carrot mechanism, Turkey is forced to ratify the 1997 Convention on International Watercourses in order to receive funds from international financial institutions. The World Bank, the Islamic Development Bank and the IMF used to in the past provide funds for the Euphrates projects, but they now refuse to finance the GAP unless all riparian states agree to particular projects. US$5 million was approved in 1993 for in-situ conservation of genetic biodiversity.

3.3. The Influence of Individuals in the Formation of National Policies

There have been no grassroots environmental movements– like the ones in Europe – so powerful as to force political parties to take environmental issues seriously. Rather, environmental movements have largely been domineered by a group of confined élite.55 Within this group, some individuals and NGOs have particularly spearheaded, in a number of cases, policies for environmental protection.

For example, it has been the privilege of Mr. Engin Ural, the Secretary General of the Environment Foundation of Turkey, to pave the way to national environmental law. His individual attempts and unyielding efforts led to the establishment of the

52 Ibid.: See GEF/SGP Country Strategy, Second Operational Phase 2000-2001, at

http://www.un.org.tr/undp/docs/sgp_strategy.pdf. 53 Ibid.: See 44 projects that have been financed by the SGP of the UN at the same

*.*/sgp_strategy.pdf file.: At the home page of the General Directorate of National Parks of the Ministry of Culture, it is written that a project was signed on 12 July 2000 whose budget is 11.5 million dollars. The World Bank will pay 8.2 million dollars for this project named as GEF II (The Management of Biodiversity and Natural Resources); see http://www.gef-2.org/

54 For four project areas, see http://www.gef-2.org/alanlar.htm. 55 DINÇER, (dn. 22), 97, 100.

Kemal Başlar

Primeministry Undersecretariat for the Environment,56 the adoption of Article 56 of the 1982 Constitution on the right to the environment and the promulgation of the Environmental Act 1983.57 His Foundation has also been designated as the National Committee of UNEP and as a partner of the Our Common Future Centre. The Environment Foundation has served consultative functions in a number of cases in the projects of the World Bank and UNDP. The Foundation also collaborates with Euro-Asian environmental NGOs as from 1994.58

Turkey’s efforts to combat with desertification and deforestation are a tribute to Mr. Hayrettin Karaca, who founded TEMA (the Foundation for Combating Erosion and Afforestation of Turkey). He has been so successful in garnering public support that his recommendations were influential in the formation of many national legislation such as the Pasture Act and the Forest Act.

As to public servants, Turkish accession to the 1959 Antarctic Treaty is rather a pertinent example to illustrate how international environmental strategies in Turkey are devised through individual efforts among governmental circles. Some bureaucrats in the Ministry of Environment of Forestry coaxed policy-makers that Turkey would better show its concern towards the global commons. To this end, they drafted a reasoning of participation. According to the official reasoning submitted to the Parliament before accession, these bureaucrats penned the following reasoning:

‘It is thought that it will be beneficial for our country to become, in the first category, a party to this Treaty signed by such countries as Greece, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Spain, the Republic of China, India, North and South Korea whose interest is not believed to be too much different.

In this way, our country, too, will contribute to secure sustainable use of living and non-living natural resources of the world, taking into account of the rights of the present and future generations and improve the process of biodiversity and world food security and will make use of the findings of scientific research conducted.’59

This reasoning is an example, par excellence, showing how trite the formation of national policies was at the beginning. First of all, the text, crammed with flaws, is an outcome of efforts of a couple of bureaucrats who acted in good faith. Despite that their intention was sincere in that they wanted to show the international community that Turkey is concerned not only with her national environment but also with the 56 DINÇER, (dn. 22), 118. 57 See, an account of his efforts in URAL, E., ‘Türkiye’de Çevre Hukuku Kavramının

Ortaya Çıkışı, Çevre Kanun’unun Hazırlanışı: 15 Yıllık bir Gelişmenin Hikayesi’, [The Emergence of the Concept of Environmental Law and the Preparation of Environmental Act], Unpublished paper delivered at the First National Congress on Environmental Law, Milli Kütüphane, Ankara, 23 November 1996.

58 DINÇER, (dn. 22), 118–19. 59 The letter of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs dated 31 July 1995, no. PUGY-3372, with

the contribution of the Department of External Affairs of the Ministry of Environment, it was ratified by a Council of Ministers Resolution, no. 95/7172, and published on 18 September 1995, Official Gazette, 22408.


global environment. However, as the future of Antarctica has never been an agenda item politically as well as scientifically in the annals of the Republic of Turkey, Turkey has had never a national policy on the Continent. Therefore, before a thorough analysis of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) and other countries’ interests at governmental level, Turkey rushed among Non-Consultative Parties to the Antarctic Treaty (non-ATCPs).

The rise of a new genre of activist NGOs with a range of interest areas, -one hopes- is to form a long-term national environmental policy based on scientific data and real political interest. For example, the Society for the Protection of Natural Environment,60 TEMA and the Environment Foundation of Turkey are involved in activities ranging from the monitoring of waterfowl and the preservation of biodiversity to the formation of public opinion. One wishes that their active involvement as monitoring and enforcement agents improve Turkey’s environmental profile in the years to come.

4. Contemporary Practice of Turkey Relating to International Environmental Law

Turkish authorities started signing and ratifying a number of treaties since the beginning of an arduous journey to Europe. Turkey’s interest in participating in international conservation treaties goes back to the early 1960s.61 One such early example is the 1950 International Convention for the Protection of Birds. Turkey ratified the Convention in 1966.62 One year after Turkey became a party to the 1949 FAO Agreement for the Establishment of a General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean.63 Other examples are the Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water,64 the Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof,65 the Convention on the

60 It is the national representative of IUCN, and the national depository of CoE’s

documentation centre for the environmental protection. 61 One exception is the Convention for the Regulation of Whaling which was opened for

signature on 24 September 1931; and was in force on 16 January 1935: Turkey ratified it on 8 November 1934, Official Gazette, 2399. But it did not ratify the two protocols of the Convention concluded later in the 1930s; neither did Turkey sign the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling which superseded the 1931 Convention. It is hard to understand, therefore, why Turkey, with no whaling fleet, ratified the 1931 Convention.

62 Paris, 18 October 1950: 17 January 1963: Turkish accession on 17 December 1966, Official Gazette, 12480.

63 Opened for signature in Rome on 24 September 1949, entered into force on 3 December 1963. For Turkey, in force on 7 July 1967, Official Gazette, no. 12641.

64 13 May 1965, Official Gazette, no. 1997. 65 19 October 1972, Official Gazette, no. 14322

Kemal Başlar

Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxic Weapons, and on their Destruction.66

But it was only after the early 1970s that Turkish authorities approached environmental issues as a long-term state policy. Environmental problems were first mentioned, in a separate heading, in the Third Five Year Development Plan.67 Environmental issues were given considerable weight in the succeeding Five-Year Development Plans. The final one covering between 2001-2005 is the 8th Five-Year Development Plan, where special attention remains to be paid to the environment.68

In the context of heightened awareness about the environment and the country’s sensitivity to global and regional environmental conditions, Turkey has signed and ratified a number of important international conventions, agreements and protocols. There are a number of other agreements being under scrutiny, being subject to accession and ratification. Some important international agreements, to which Turkey has become a party, are discussed below, together with a brief description about the country’s position on issues concerned.

4.1. Fauna and flora

Chronologically speaking, the first attempt for wildlife protection started in 1965 with the accession to the International Convention for the Establishment of the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation.69 In 1971, Turkey acceded to the European Convention for the Protection of Animals During International Transport (Paris).70 In 1984, Turkey ratified the Berne Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats.71 Turkey made reservations for some species shown in Appendix II and for some methods and tools of hunting shown in Appendix III.72 In the early 1990s, some 100 plants were included in Appendix I. Unfortunately, nothing has been done so far to protect these Appendix I

66 5 November 1975, Official Gazette, no. 15408. 67 According to the Turkish Constitution, Five Year Plans are binding on public sector and

provides guiding principles for private sector (Article 166). 68 The full text of the Development Plan can be downloaded from Eight Five Year

Development Plan, Section http://ekutup.dpt.gov.tr/plan/viii/plan8.doc (12 August 2001) 69 Paris, 18 April 1951, entered into force on 1 November 1953: Turkish ratification took

place on 10 August 1965. 70 European Treaty Series, ETS no. 65, 30 December 1986.: Amended on 7 November

1989, ETS no.103. 71 The Convention was opened for signature on 19 September 1979, entered into force on 1

June 1982: Turkey signed in 1979, and ratified with CMR no. 84/7601, on 20 February 1984, Official Gazette, no. 18318. Turkey deposited the ratification document on 1 September 1984.

72 The Convention has three Appendixes: (I) strictly protected plants, (II) strictly protected animals and (III) protected animals.


species.73 Under the framework of this Convention, an ecological network called the “Emerald Network” is underway. The annexes of the European Union Natural Habitat and Bird Directives fail to name a number of endemic species found in Turkey. Thus, these habitats need to be identified diligently so that national legislation can be reciprocally adjusted for a smoother harmonization process.74

Turkey has exceptionally rich wetlands compared to the Middle East and European countries – except for the Commonwealth of Independent States. The wetlands, which cover an area of 1,851,000 ha. in Turkey including the artificial lakes, provide crucial habitats for water birds and aquatic species. Even though, in the last four decades, an area of 1.300.000 hectares were dried out due to agricultural and industrial purposes,75 the number of wetlands is still more than 250, an area covering nearly 1.35 million hectares.76 Some 58 out of a total of 250 wetlands of Turkey are designated as being of “international importance”. 76 wetland sites could be categorised as internationally important for migratory birds: 18 of which regularly accommodate 25.000 migratory birds.77 There are 19 A-Grade wetlands (adopted by the Cagliari Criteria78) and 45 B-Grade wetlands (e.g. Büyük Çekmece Lake, Eupharates Valley, Yeşilırmak Delta).79

Although Turkey was one of the main participants in the activities of the International Waterfowl Research Bureau,80 which fathered the Convention in the late 1960s. Surprisingly enough, Turkey acceded the Ramsar Convention only after 17

73 Mr. Tuna Ekim, who was an active participant of the Meetings of Berne Convention,

confesses that Turkey signs treaties but never puts their its requirements into effect, in GATT ve Çevre, (dn. 9), 83.

74 Turkish National Report for the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, August 2002, 90.

75 YAZGAN, (dn. 77), 8. 76 For more information, see Environmental Profile of Turkey–1995, (dn. 49), 182–184.:

GEF/SGP Country Program Strategy, at [http:www.un.org.tr/undp/sgp_strategy.pdf], (dn. 12), 8.

77 See YAZGAN, N., “Ramsar”, Çevre ve İnsan Dergisi (1998) 42 : GEF/SGP Country Strategy, (dn. 12), 8.

78 See for the details of the Cagliari Conference criteria in, LYSTER, S., International Wildlife Law, Grotius, Cambridge, 1985, 188.: These are Lake Gala (the Meriç river delta), Lake Ulubat, Karine Lagoon (Menderes River Delta), Tuz Gölü, Lake Balik (Kızılırmak Delta), Lake Kulu, Lake Aksehir, Lake Eber, Lake Karamik, the Eregli Marshes, Lake Beysehir, Lake Egridir, Lake Akyatan (Seyhan Delta), the Yumurtalik Lagoon and Izmir Kus Cenneti.

79 (July 1997) 35 Çevre ve İnsan Dergisi, [The Environment and Man], 38: Turkey issued a Communiqué on Wetlands, dated 5 April 1995, Official Gazette, no. 22249.

80 In 1967, a technical meeting on the ecology of international wetlands was held in Ankara. Article 10 of its Final Declaration led to the Ramsar Convention. Nevertheless, in those years, Turkey systematically dried out swamps (e.g. Hatay İznikgölü) to fight against malaria and to gain arable lands. One legislation empowering Turkish governmental authorities to do so was the Act on Draining of Swamps and Acquisition of Lands Whereof (Act no. 5516, 23 January 1950, Official Gazette, no. 7413).

Kemal Başlar

May 1994.81 Thereafter, several legislations were adopted to implement the Convention.82 At the time of publication, there were nine wetlands in the Ramsar List covering an area of 159.300 hectares: These are, namely, Akyatağan Lagoon, Gediz Deltası, Göksu Deltası, Kızılırmak Deltası, Lake Burdur, Lake Seyfe Lake Manyas Bird Sanctuary, Lake Ulubat (Apolyont), Sultan Sazlığı (Marsh).83 The Ministry of Environment and Forestry has enacted the Regulation on Conservation of Wetlands intended to do away with the threats to wetlands and to implement the Ramsar Convention at the national stratum. The Management Plans for Lakes Manyas and Ulubat have been prepared and are now being implemented.

Turkey is also astonishingly rich in terms of biological diversity, despite the ongoing ruthless environmental deterioration.84 Three quarters of the some 12.000 European species are seen in Turkey. There are 9000 plants, of which some 3000 are endemic that cannot be run into anywhere on earth.85 About 33 % of plant species in Turkey are endemic species. It would be better appreciated if it was thought that there are only 2000 plant species in the whole British islands. The closest European member is Greece with 800 endemic plants.86 The richest region in Turkey with regard to endemic species unique to itself is the Mediterranean region with 631 species. The same is true concerning flora: while in the whole European Continent there are some 500 birds species and 125 different reptile species, in Anatolia, these are 413 and 93 respectively.87 Therefore, the preservation of this precious biodiversity is an essential task. To this end, Turkey ratified the Biodiversity Convention88. As there is no direct

81 There are presently 125 Contracting Parties to the Ramsar Convention, with 1078 wetland

sites, totalling 81.9 million hectares, designated for inclusion in the Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance. http://www.ramsar.org.

82 A communiqué (no. 3) was prepared in 1998 ( 15 April 1998, Official Gazette, no. 23314): The Council of Ministers issued a resolution for the protection of wetlands in 2000 (CMR, no. 2000/1082, 24 August 2000, Official Gazette, no. 24150). A Regulation was promulgated on 30 January 2002, Official Gazette, no. 24656.

Akyatan Lagoon (15/04/98, Adana, 14,700 Ha: Gediz Delta, (15/04/98, Izmir Gulf, 14,900 Ha: Göksu Deltasi, (13/07/94, Silifke, 15,000 Ha: Kizilirmak Delta (15/04/98, Samsun, 21,700 Ha., Lake Burdur (13/07/94, Burdur, 24,800 Ha.: Lake Manyas, (13/07/94, Balıkesir, 20,400 Ha., 40º10’N 028º00’E): Lake Ulubat (15/04/98, Bursa, 19,900 Ha., Seyfe Gölü (13/07/94, Kırşehir, 10,700 Ha., Sultan Sazligi (13/07/94, Kayseri, 17,200 Ha. (Source: Country Profiles, at http://www.ramsar.org/sitelist.doc. See also http://www.cevreorman.gov.tr/sulak/sulakalan/sulaka.htm

84 KIŞLALIOĞLU & BERKES, (dn. 3), 22. 85 Of the total of 2.748, may become extinct, on the (cited from Kaya, 1996) in at

[ftp://ftp.dpt.gov.tr/pub/ekutup98/ucep/ucep*.zip (*.*/ucep7i.zip), 46. 86 Enviromental Profile of Turkey-1995, (dn. 49), 185. 87 KIŞLALIOĞLU, & BERKES, (dn. 3), 22. 88 11 June 1992 (signed): 14 February 1997 (ratified)


national act for the protection and preservation of biological richness of the Anatolian peninsula,89 the importance of the Convention becomes self-evident.

With regard to the implementation of the Biodiversity Convention the General Directorate of Agricultural Research of the Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Affairs is the ICCP focal point. Director General Directorate of Environment Protection is the CBD focal point. The National Environment Strategy & Action Plan and the National Strategy and Plan of Action on Biological Diversity have been prepared as a prerequisite of the Convention.90 In 1998, the Directive Regarding Field Experiments on Transgenic Cultivated Plants was enacted. It was amended in 1999 in order to prevent any risks that might potentially arise from the field experiments. In 2002, the Regulation on the Conservation of Animal Genetic Resources was enacted.

Turkey ratified Biosecurity (Cartagena) Protocol of the Convention of Biological Diversity91 By the year 2005, Turkey plans to establish National Biosecurity Board.92 Turkey received GEF aid for the project on “in situ Conservation of Genetic Biodiversity”.93 Thanks to this, an Action Plan has been prepared for in-situ Conservation of Plant Genetic Diversity in Turkey. Presently, a new biodiversity project named “Protected Areas and Sustainable Resource Management in Turkey” is being prepared, which is to be submitted to the GEF Council. As to financial contribution, for 2001, Turkey promised to contribute 38.626.000 for the first time to the General Trust Fund for the Convention on Biological Diversity (BY). Due to economic crisis which held sway in 2001-2002, this money was in arrears. However, in 2003, Turkey paid USD 40.688.94

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) aims to protect endangered species from over exploitation by animal and plant trades, by a system of import-export permits.95 The Grand National Assembly approved the Convention on 1 October 1994; but Turkey became a party

89 There is only one regulation on the collection, preservation and use of floral genetic

resources passed on 15 August 1992, Official Gazette, no. 21316.: There is indirect reference to this issue at National Parks Act of 1983.

90 See “The Draft National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan” (1998), a 38-page report which contains useful information on strategy, partners and actions. http://www.biodiv.org/doc/world/tr/tr-nr-01-en.pdf (10 January 2004).

91 CMR no. 2003/5937, 11 August 2003, Official Gazette, no. 25196 . 92 Eight Five Year Development Plan, Section ‘Environment’, 243, para. 1825,

http://ekutup.dpt.gov.tr/plan/viii/plan8.doc, (4 January 2004): For more information on Turkey-related biosecurity, see Biodiversity National Web Site http://www.bcs.gov.tr/ (4 January 2004)

93 GEF/SGP Country Strategy, Second Operational Phase 2000-2001, at http://www.un.-org.tr/undp/docs/sgp_strategy.pdf, 8 (7 August 2001).

94 As of 31 December 2003: [http://www.biodiv.org/world/ parties.asp ?lg=0&tab=1&fin=by#tr] (4 February 2004)

95 For the details of the Convention see, http://www.cites.org.

Kemal Başlar

only after June 1996.96 According to Article 9 of the Convention, two authorities were designated to implement the Treaty. The National Scientific Authority is TÜBİTAK (the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey) and the Management Authority is the Ministry of Environment and Forestry. For bulbous species of flora, the Management Authority is Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs’s General Directorate of Agricultural Production and Development.97

A regulation has been issued, in accordance with Appendices I, II and III to classify species that are threatened with extinction (Appendix I), species whose survival is not yet threatened but may become so (Appendix II), and all species which Turkey identifies as being subject to regulation within national jurisdiction for the purpose of preventing or restricting exploitation (Appendix III).98 The export and import of Appendix I species are prohibited. Controlled commercial trade is allowed for Appendix II species. Because of poor implementation, ruthless (medical) snail trade to Europe exterminated some snail populations. Upon this, the CITES Secretariat banned the import of snails from Turkey.99

As Turkey has extremely rich diversity of species, illegal poaching in fauna and illicit trade in flora threaten the existence of endemic species. There is a regulation on geophilous plants. It is estimated that the trade in geophilous plants is around 3-3,5 million dollars. However, a special regulation should be made for other pharmaceutical plants which is worth 85 million dollars.100 Therefore, within CITES context, classification of endangered species of wild fauna and flora is an urgent and essential task which should be undertaken without fail. Otherwise, proper implementation of the Convention will be at stake.

In addition, Article 8 of CITES requires parties to take a number of different measures to improve the level of enforcement through financial penalties, confiscation and designation special ports of exit and entry. To this end, Exportation Circular has been issued by Undersecretary of Foreign Trade in accordance with the CITES

96 CMR, no. 96/8125, 20 June 1996, Official Gazette, no. 22672.: Accession date is 23

September 1996: Entry into force, 22 December 1996. 97 For more information and contact address of these authorities can be obtained from

“Country Selection: [Turkey/Turquía/Turquie] at [http://www.cites.org/-common/direct/index.html]

98 For the full text of the Regulation, dated 27.12.2001 (Official Gazette, no. 24623), see http://www.cevre.gov.tr/birimler/ck/citesyonetmelik.htm. For the list of fauna and flora (Ek-C) see http://www.cevre.gov.tr/birimler/ck/cites_cevre.htm; as for Ek-B list see http://www.cevre.gov.tr/birimler/ck/cites_orman.zip (accessed at: 4 January 2004). See the following communiqués issued by the General Directorate for Customs: (Export: 2002/3, dated 21.04.2002, (Official Gazette, no. 24733); (Export 2003/1) and (Import: 2003/19) dated 21.02.2003, Official Gazette, no. 25027).

99 B. Çivitoğlu’s comments, in GATT ve Çevre, (dn. 11), 85.: See recent developments in COŞKUN Aynur Aydın, “Efforts in Turkey for Compliance with CITES”, Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 2003, 12/3, 329-335.

100 T. Ekim’s comments, in ibid. 84.


Regulation. Importation Circular have also been presented to relevant organizations for input.

To effectively implement these measures, the staff of national Authorities should be composed of trained personnel. Custom officers should be given competent training concerning the niceties of the Convention. And ports of exit and entry, which are more than thirty , one of the highest figures in the world, should be reduced to 4–5 for effective control ports. These changes are above all to do with money. In sum, without financial boost, proper implementation CITES is rather hard to achieve for the time being.

As for deforestation, Turkey has 20.2 million hectares of forest, which covers 27 per cent of the country and this figure is decreasing every year.101 Turkey has 26.3 million ha of arable agricultural land, with 49 % of that area being exposed to erosion of medium-severity and 8% to erosion of high-severity. Despite 20.7 million ha of forestland, compared to its overall area, Turkey is not rich in forests. Over one half of forestlands (56%) consists of degraded forests.102 Deforestation is one of the chronic national issues so much so that three articles of the Constitution (Arts. 44, 169, 170) deal with the protection, expansion and management of forests. Extensive destruction of forests and erosion require nation-wide action. To solve the problem through international efforts and gather international boost for afforestation, Turkey acceded the Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa in 1998.103 Turkey is listed in the Appendix on Regional Implementation of the Northern Medditerrenean. To be in line with the Convention, the Pastures Law was enacted in 1998.104 The National Plan of Action of Turkey to Combat Desertification and Drought is on the way to completion.105 In addition, Turkey participated in the Pan-European Process on Protection of the Forests and ensured national coordination of the Strasbourg, Helsinki, and Lisbon decisions.

The Convention departs from earlier efforts in approaching to deforestation in that it employs a ‘bottom up’ philosophy106 encouraging the participation of NGOs and 101 Each year 450 million m3 of materials are being carried away. In Europe, 13 times larger

than Turkey, this figure is only 320 million m3. Between 1990-1995, 2.5 million hectares of forestry have been lost. TANRIVERMIŞ, H., “Türkiye’de Çevre Politikaları” [Environmental Policies in Turkey], Kooperatifçilik, 118, (1997), 41-77, 46.

102 Turkish National Report for the World Summit on Sustainable Development, August 2002, Ministry of Environment Publication,

103 The adoption of the Convention was a specific recommendation of Chapter 12 of Agenda 21: Opened for signature on 18 June 1994, entered into force on 26 December 1996. Turkey ratified it with a Council of Ministers Resolution, no. 98/4340, 14 February 1998, Official Gazette, no. 23258.

104 Act no. 4342. 25 February 1998, Official Gazette, no. 23272. 105 For more information, see National Coordination Board’s Website

http://www.ccdturkiye.gov.tr/ (4 January 2004). 106 For an excellent analysis of the Convention, see DANISH, K.W., “International

Environmental Law and the ‘Bottom-Up’ Approach: A Review of the Desertification Convention”, Journal of Global Legal Studies, 3/1, (1995) , (accessed at

Kemal Başlar

local populations in the policy planning, decision-making, implementation and review of national programmes. Nevertheless, the problem of forest protection is far more puzzling in Turkey than in many other countries. To be more precise, over ten million people living nearby forests face with social, cultural and economic difficulties. Due to depravation, they make living out of forests by illegal logging, clearing for farmland and for heating. Annually, 13–15,000 hectares of forests are set on fire. 4-5,000 hectares are cleared for cultivating.107 Therefore, it is profoundly difficult to prevent deforestation through ‘bottom-up’ approach in Turkey. Luckily, however, there are mushrooming grassroots movements and NGOs such as TEMA Foundation which garnered public attention.

With regard to the protection of animals, Turkey is yet to sign various treaties. However, one can cite a couple of positive sign in this regard: On 9 May 1997, the then Ministry of Environment established the Department on the Protection of Animals. It has drafted a new Act on the Protection of Animals.108 Finally, the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals (1987, ETS no. 125) was ratified.109

4.2. Cultural property

As Turkey is a cultural and natural bridge among Africa, Europe and Asia, Anatolia has given rise to many civilisations in the course of history. Due to its unique position, Turkey has been the destination for numerous immigrants, many of them left the indelible mark of their cultural heritage during their settlement in this area. As it has been the cradle of numerous civilisations for thousands of years, it is the birthplace of the three major religions: Christianity, Judaism and Islam. This fact alone, lends Turkey its unique and invaluable cultural and archaeological heritage.

Turkey has approximately 3,029 archaeological sites some dating back to prehistoric times, 1,003 natural assets, 396 natural sites, 101 historical sites (503 Ha.), 118 wildlife conservation areas (1.8 million Ha.), 58 natural monuments (344 Ha.), 35 nature reserve areas (84.230 Ha.), 17 nature parks (69.370 Ha.), 35 natural preservation areas (85.303 ha), 12 specially protected areas, 33 national parks (686.631 Ha).110 Turkey is fortunate in that the preservation and development of these

http://www.law.indiana.edu/gls/danish.htm). (21 January 1998). Note that this site is no longer accessible to public.

107 Environmental Profile of Turkey-1995, (dn. 41), 177. 108 BERKER, N., “Hayvanları Koruma Kanunu Hangi İhtiyaçtan Doğmuştur?” [From Which

Necessity has the Animal Protection Act Emerged?], Çevre ve İnsan, 37, (1997), 11-15.: For the draft see http://www.cevre.gov.tr/cevrehukuku/tebligler/hayvanlari_koruma_-kanunu_tasarisi.htm. The bill is on the agenda of the National Assembly.

109 22.07.2003, Official Gazette, no. 25176. Entered into force 1 June 2004. 110 BADEMLI, R.R., Ulusal Çevre Eylem Planı: Doğal, Tarihi ve Kültürel Değerlerin

Korunması, (National Action Plan: The Preservation of Natural, Historical and Cultural Heritages), The Ministry of Culture, June 1997.: See “Turkey’s National Parks and Their Specialities”, Turkish Review Quarterly Digest, (Spring-1990), 19, 59–87. (some of these figures have been updated at the time of publication, see the latest figures in the


heritages have been stipulated by national laws.111 Many organisations have been set up in connection with this subject and preservation has now become a subject that concerns many organisations, institutions and people.

To protect these heritages, Turkey has ratified a number of multilateral conventions such as the European Cultural Convention,112 the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict,113 Unesco Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage,114 European Convention on the Protection of Archaeological Heritage (London).115

Admittedly, among these, the most important of which is the 1972 Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (shortly, the World Heritage Convention).116 Its objective is the protection of natural and cultural areas of “outstanding universal value”. To this end, it establishes a World Heritage List, a List of World Heritage in Danger and a World Heritage Fund to help it achieve its goal.

The WHC offers a tremendous opportunity to protect unique wildlife habitats and representative examples of the most important ecosystems.117 In the World Cultural Heritage List, the following have been included as being essential preservation projects: Cultural Sites.

Ministry of Culture’s General Directorate of National Parks at http://www.milliparklar.gov.tr/indexmpd.htm) (1 February 2004).

111 Major acts are the Protection of Cultural and Natural Heritages Act (no. 2863), Environmental Act (no. 2872), Natural Parks Act (no. 2873), the Coastal Act (no. 3621) and the Regulation on the Designation and Registration of Heritages Protected by the Protection of Cultural and Natural Heritages Act.

112 19 December 1951, in force on 17 June 1957, Official Gazette, no. 9635.: Recently, a campaign has been organised by the Council of Europe on ‘A European Heritage’. For Turkish National Projects, see http://www.kultur.gov.tr/ortakmiras.html. (10 June 2001).

113 The Hague, 14 May 1954, in force on 7 August 1956: Entered into force on 8 November 1965, Official Gazette, 12145.

114 16 November 1972: in force 17 December 1975: 14 February 1983, Official Gazette, no. 19959.

115 6 May 1969: In force on 20 November 1970: 13 April 1989, Official Gazette, no. 3534.: Turkey also became a member of the 1985 Granada Convention on the same subject as of 22 July 1989.

116 11 ILM 1358 (1972), in force on 17 December 1975: 14 February 1983, Official Gazette, no. 17959.

117 Although both ‘Ramsar's List of Wetlands of International Importance’ and ‘the World Heritage List’ provide international prestige for listed sites, the WHC goes far beyond Ramsar in two respects in that it imposes far stricter obligations on the Parties to conserve listed sites than does Ramsar. See LYSTER, (dn. 78), 237.

Kemal Başlar

Record No Type The Name of Heritage Date of

Inclusion

356 Cultural Historic Areas of İstanbul, 6.12.1985

357 Natural / Cultural

Göreme National Park and the RockSites of Cappadocia 6.12.1985

358 Cultural Great Mosque and Hospital of Divrigi 6.12.1985

377 Cultural Hattuşa 28.11.1986

448 Cultural Nemrut Dağı 11.12.1987

484 Cultural Xanthos – Letoon 9.12.1988

485 Natural / Cultural Hierapolis – Pamukkale 9.12.1988

614 Cultural City of Safranbolu 17.12.1994

849 Cultural Archaeological Site of Troy 2.12.1998

Turkey received a number of small contributions from the World Heritage Fund for the restoration and preservation of sites and monuments listed in the World Heritage List. Here is the International Assistance provided by the World Heritage Fund through 1997 (in US$)118

In addition to these nine sites registered in the WHC List, there is another list, namely, UNESCO’s World Heritage Indicative List, wherein two sites are enlisted: These are Ephesus and Karain Ören. Both sites soon will be included in the WHC List. Moreover, 19 additional sites that are likely to be in the WHC List have been proposed by the Ministry of Culture to the General Directorate of the UNESCO.

These include the following monuments: Süleymaniye Mosque, a masterpiece of Sinan, the Architect, Saint Sophia, Topkapı Palace, which are all in Istanbul, Selimiye Mosque (in Edirne), Cumalıkızık village, as a archetype of the Ottoman cultural heritage (in Bursa), Alanya Castle (a heritage of the Seljukian era), İshak Pasha Palace,

118 The following list has been taken from http://www.unesco.org/whc/sp/tur.htm (1 February

2004): Preparatory Assistance: C, Liste. 1984, $3.970 ; C, Grande Mosquée/Hopital Divrigi. 1986, $2.937; C, Göreme, suivi. 1992, $2.200; N, Nominations sites naturels. 1984, 3.970: Training Assistance C, Voyage d'étude. 1984, $3.970; C, Istanbul, cours conservation pierre, 1987, $12.000; C, Une bourse principes conservation. 1987, $12.000; C, Un stage conservation bois, Trondheim. 1988, $2.857; C, Une bourse conservation peintures murales. 1989, $1.000; C, Une bourse conservation architecture. 1989, $5.000: Technical Cooperation; C, Istanbul-Ste Sophie- Mosaïques. 1983, $30.000; C, Equipement photogrammetrique, Istanbul. 1987, $31.247; C, Equipement Istanbul. 1988, $29.902; C, Istanbul-Ste Sophie, mosaïques. 1991, $20.000; C, Seminaire gestion Göreme. 1992, $20.000; N, Workshop plan gestion Hierapolis, Pamukalle, 1991, $20.000; C, Istanbul, Aghia Sophia. 1994, $20.000; C, Aghia Sophia, rest. mosaïques. 1994, $30.000


(famous for stone carving and embellishments)(in Ağrı), Historic Great Wall of 5,5 km (in Diyarbakır), Mardin City, Şanlı Urfa, City, Harran Islamic University, Ahlat Town’s grave stones,, Konya Historic monuments, the caravan route between Denizli and Doğu Beyazıt, Sümela (Trabzon) and Alahan (Mut) monasteries, Kekova and Termessos savannas.119

4.3. Regional seas

Turkey is a peninsula outflanked by three seas: the Mediterranean, the Black Sea and the Aegean Sea. Due to dangerous and noxious substances, land-based pollution and international maritime trafficking, the pollution of the regional seas is a major concern. As of 1994, Turkish Marine Environment Protection Association (TURMEPA) has been working, among others, on the supervision of environmental treaties signed by Turkey.120

Despite the importance of adopting measures for environmental protection of the regional seas, Turkey did not sign the Law of the Sea Convention of 1982.121 As the Convention did not take into account of the peculiarities of special geographical situations – in this case, the delimitation of the Aegean Sea continental shelf between Turkey and Greece – and does not allow to make reservations, Turkey does not consider to become a party in the foreseeable future. However, Part XII of the Convention, entitled ‘Protection and Preservation of the Marine Environment’ (Arts.192–237) acknowledges internationally accepted norms concerning transportation safety and safety of life and property. Nevertheless, the application and implementation of universally accepted principles set out in the Convention must be materialised in the Turkish territorial seas in order to eliminate further pollution.122

The main legislation dealing with the pollution of the Turkish seas are the Environmental Act 1983,123 the Ports Act 1941,124 the Sea Products Act 1971125 and the Coastal Act 1990.126 The Coastal Security Headquarters is empowered to monitor

119 The reasons of the inclusion of each monument or sites have been explained in the Ministry

of Culture and Tourism’s home page, see http://www.kulturturizm.gov.tr/portal/-default_tr.asp?BELGENO=48960

120 KUBILAY, H., “Akdeniz, Karadeniz ve Boğazlar’da Deniz Kirliliği ile İlgili Hukuki ve Politik Önlemlerin Değerlendirilmesi” [An Evaluation of Legal and Political Measures Concerning the Pollution of the Mediterranean, the Black Sea and the Turkish Straits], unpublished paper presented at the First National Conference on Environmental Law, Milli Kütüphane, Ankara, 23 November 1996.

121 In 1982, Turkey was one of four countries in the world that did not sign the Convention in 1982. The Convention entered into force, one year after the ratification of the 60th country, on 16 November 1994.

122 KUBILAY, (dn. 120). 123 Act no. 2872, 11 August 1983, Official Gazette, no. 18132 124 Act no. 618, 20 April 1941, Official Gazette, no. 95. 125 Act no. 1380, 4 April 1971, Official Gazette, no. 13799. 126 Act no. 3621, 17 April 1990, Official Gazette, no. 20495.

Kemal Başlar

marine pollution, to arrest criminals, to prosecute the arrested. Article 3(n) of the Regulation Concerning Legal and Administrative Duties of the Coastal Security Headquarters has been assigned to monitor and prevent acts that are contrary to the provisions of international treaties. Pecuniary penalties are reported by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry in January of every year to the Headquarters. On 21 June 1991, the Regulation Concerning International Maritime Forums Coordination Commission was enacted.127 According to Article 7 of the Regulation, seven specialised committees were established. One of which is the Environment Committee (Art. 7(c)). With respect to marine pollution several other regulations have been devised in order to implement the provisions of international treaties such as the Regulation for Controlling Sea Pollution (1988), the Regulation for the Implementation of the Coastal Act (1990), the Regulation for Controlling Harmful Solid Waste (1991) and the Regulation for the Prevention of Environmental Pollution.128

The first international treaty ratified by Turkey dealing with marine pollution through transportation is the OECD Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy.129 Secondly, Turkey ratified, in 1989–90, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) and its 1978 Protocol together with Annexes I, II and V and amendments dated 1984, 1985 and 1987.130 Turkey also ratified the 1978 Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers in 1989.131 In these conventions, there are provisions on environmental protection.

4.4. The Mediterranean Sea

The pollution problems and increasing population concerns led to the conclusion of a number of legal and political instruments in the late 1960s and the early 1970s.132

127 21 June 1996, Official Gazette, 22673. 128 KUBILAY, (dn. 120). 129 Opened for signature in Paris, 26 June 1960; entered into force on 17 June 1962. Turkey

ratified it with the Act no. 299, on 9 May 1961. Additional Protocol dated 28 January 1964 was ratified on 1 June 1967 with the Act no. 878.

130 London, 12 ILM 1319 (1973). The Protocol was prepared on 17 February 1978 – before the Convention was in force. It entered into force on 2 October 1983. 17 ILM 546 (1978). Entry into force for Turkey is on 13 September 1989, (CMR 89/44517), Official Gazette, 21935.: Annex I was in force on 2 October 1983, Annex II was in force on 6 April 1987, Annex V in force on 31 December 1988: Turkey ratified all of these instruments with CMR no. 90/442, dated 3 May 1990: 24 June 1990, Official Gazette, no. 20558.

131 Entered into force on 28 April 1984. Turkish accession took place on 28 April 1989, Official Gazette, no. 20152.

132 For more information see KÜTTING, G., “Mediterranean Pollution: International Cooperation and the Control of Pollution from Land-based Sources”, Marine Policy, 18, (1994), 233–247.: See for an overall view, Mediterrenean in the 1990s, Environmental Problems Foundation of Turkey, Ankara, 1990.


Among these, UNEP’s the Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP) is the most comprehensive instrument devised to date and the first comprehensive action plan formulated by UNEP in close cooperation with Mediterranean governments and other specialised UN agencies such as UN Economic Committee for Europe.133 Adopted in Barcelona in February 1976 at an intergovernmental meeting, it marks the first among ten UNEP Regional Seas Programmes.134 The Action Plan for the Protection of the Marine Environment and Sustainable Development of the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean is currently implemented by 21 coastal countries and the European Union. Turkey is an active participant of this Plan ever since its genesis.

The legal components of the MAP are as follows: The framework convention is the Barcelona Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution.135 There are six protocols that have been signed hitherto: (1) Protocol for the Prevention of Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft.136 (2) Protocol Concerning Cooperation in Combating Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Oil and Other Harmful Substances in Cases of Emergency,137 (3) Athens Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution from Land-Based Sources,138 (4) Geneva Protocol Concerning Mediterranean Specially Protected Areas (and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean),139 (5) 133 For more information, see http://www.unepmap.gr/ . 134 The Action Plan for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Sustainable

Development of the Coastal Areas of the Mediterranean (MAP Phase II) was adopted by the Contracting Parties at the Conference of Plenipotentiaries held in Barcelona, Spain from 9 to 10 June 1995. The Conference also adopted the Barcelona Resolution on the Environment and Sustainable Development and a Priority Fields of Activities for the period to the year 2005. The Action Plan (MAP Phase II) and the Priority Fields of Activities are appendices to the Barcelona Resolution. For more information about MAP see http://www.unepmap.org/ (8 November 2000).

135 15 ILM (1976), 290, Entered into force 12 February 1978. Amended in Barcelona, Spain, 9-10 June 1995: New title has been “Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean”: Turkey signed on 16 February 1976, ratified on 6 April 1981, entered into force on 12 June 1981, Official Gazette, no. 17368. For statutes and ratifications of the MAP treaties see http://www.unepmap.gr/pdf/statusofsignatures.pdf (31 January 2004).

136 15 ILM (1976), 290, 16 February 1976, entered into force on 12 February 1978: Amended in Barcelona, Spain, 9-10 June 1995.: New Title has been “Protocol for the Prevention and Elimination of Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft or Incineration at Sea”. Turkey ratified on 6 April 1981; entered into force on 12 June 1981, Official Gazette 17368.

137 15 ILM (1976), 290, 16 February 1976, entered into force on 12 February 1978: Turkey ratified on 6 April 1981; entered into force on 12 June 1981, Official Gazette, 17368. The emergency protocol was ratified 20.05.2003. However, Turkey made a notification saying that its ratification pending ratification from the depository country.

138 17 ILM (1980), 869. Entered into force on 17 June 1983. Turkey ratified on 10 February 1987, no. 19404, Official Gazette: Annex IV of the Protocol was ratified on 13 March 1995, Official Gazette, no. 22236. Turkey ratified the amendments on 18.05.2002.

139 Adopted in Geneva, Switzerland, 3 April 1982: Entered into force 23 March 1986: Amended in Barcelona, Spain, 9-10 June 1995. The new Protocol includes Annexes which

Kemal Başlar

Protocol on the Prevention of Pollution Arising from Exploration and Processing Activities of the Sea Floor,140 (6) İzmir Protocol on the Prevention of Pollution Arising out of Transfrontier Transportation of Hazardous Wastes.141 Other components of the MAP include the 1985 Geneva Declaration, the 1990 Nicosia Charter on European-Mediterranean Cooperation in the Field of Environmental Protection in the Mediterranean Basin and the 1990 Cairo Declaration.142

Within the framework of the fourth Protocol on Specially Protected Areas (SPAs), the following are a few examples that have been designated as SPAs:143 Dilek Peninsula, Olympos Mountains, Gallipoli Peninsula National Park. Furthermore, in accordance with the same Protocol, 100 sites along the shores of the Mediterranean sea which need equal protection, and 17 other sites around the country have come under protection: These are namely Antalya, Aspendos, Bursa, Didyma, Ephesus, Fethiye–Ölüdeniz, Halikarnassos, Istanbul, Kaunos, Kekova, Knidos, Miletos, Pergamon, Phaselis, Priene, Troy, Xanthos.

Within the radius of this Protocol, a programme is underway to protect endangered species such as loggerhead turtles (Caretta Caretta), monk seals (Monachus Monachus), sea meadows (Posidonia Occenica) and cetaceans. Turkey has accepted the Action Plan (1989 and 1999) for the conservation of Mediterranean marine turtles within the framework of the Barcelona Convention. 17 important breeding grounds have been designated as Natural Preservation Sites since 1992, and some of these breeding beaches have been indicated on the Environmental Development Plans of the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement.144 Moreover, the Ministry of Environment

were adopted in Monaco, on 24 November 1996. New title has been: “the Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean”: (Effective as of 1999). Turkey ratified the original Protocol on 23 October 1988, Official Gazette, no. 19968.: Turkey made a reservation to the Protocol which reads as ‘The present provisions and future amendments thereof to the Protocol shall not be accepted or interpreted so as to restrict the right of innocent passage of Turkey originating from customary international law and to impair her existing rights and interests in the semi-enclosed seas’. To preserve these sites, the Directorate of Private Environmental Protection Institution was established in 1989. Turkey ratified SPA & Biodiversity Protocol on 18.09.2002.

140 Opened for signature on 13–14 October 1994. 141 Adopted on 1 October 1996. Turkey signed on the very same day and ratified it with

CMR no. 2004/6713, 14 January 2004, Official Gazette, no. 25346. 142 Turkey did not participate in the Nicosa Meeting (26-28 April 1990), but adopted the

Charter with some reservations in 1991, ALGAN, N., “Bölgesel Çevre Yönetiminde Model Arayışları: Akdeniz”, [In Search of a Model in Regional Environmental Management: The Case of the Mediterrenean], the Ministry of Environment Publ. No. 8, Ankara, 1995, 47.

143 Ibid., 70–71: See also ‘Specially Protected Areas in Turkey’, Turkish Review Quarterly Digest, 18, (Autumn-1993), 13–31.

144 Turkish National Report for the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, August 2002, (Section 4.3.1. Species Conservation, 4.3.1.1.Conservation of Marine Turtles), 84.


and Forestry has established the Marine Turtles National Commission and Marine Turtles Scientific Commission.

The total number of monk seals in the world is some four hundred; less than one fourth of which breed in Turkish waters.145 The last surviving colonies of monk seals along Turkey's Mediterranean and Aegean coasts, is being protected within the framework of the Berne Convention and the fourth Protocol on SPAs. Apart from a small colony of monk seals on the shores of the Western Sahara on the Atlantic Ocean, the only remaining colonies of this species are the Eastern Mediterranean, the species having been wiped out in the western areas. The Council of Europe adopted, in 1987, an action plan in this regard.146 Another endangered species is loggerhead turtles which lay their eggs in the long sandy beaches of the Mediterranean. Two species breed in Turkey, where efforts to protect them have been extremely successful.147 A tourism development project at Köycegiz has been scrapped to preserve the breeding grounds of caretta carettas, and the lake and marshes of Köycegiz was declared a SPA. These measures received help from the Standing Committee of the Berne Convention in 1989. Studies of the turtles along all Turkey's shores have been launched, and seventeen sand beaches of foremost importance as breeding grounds for turtles are kept under constant observation by the Turtle Preservation Committee. The Ministry of Environment and Forestry is in charge of protecting the Belek area; and the Ministry of Forestry is responsible for the Yumurtalik and Akyatan wetlands.

The scientific component of MAP is the Coordinated Mediterranean Pollution Monitoring and Research Programme (MED-POL). On 30 May 1996, the Council of Ministers ratified the Long Term Pollution Monitoring and Research Programme Agreement (MED-POL, Phase II)148 which was initially concluded between Turkey and UNEP on 30 January 1995. In accordance with this Agreement, MED-POL National Monitoring Programme was established in nine regions composed of 105 stations. Among these, 11 of which are spring, 55 are coastal, 38 are beach water and one is atmospheric circulation station. MED-POL National Coordinator is burdened with a number of duties to implement the Programme.149

145 While in the 1970s the number of individuals was estimated to vary around 150 and 300,

this figure is now below 100: Çevre ve İnsan Dergisi, (March 1997), 41. 146 In compliance with the Action Plan, the Ministry of Environment coordinated a national

strategy in 1991 and set up a committee to follow its implementation. 147 It was decided that an action plan be set up in 1989 at an intergovernmental meeting of

the MAP for this species. At the same meeting, sea meadows were also listed for protection. (UNEP Doc. UNEP/MED IGI/5). Cateceans were included at the 1991 intergovernmental meeting held in Cairo (UNEP/MED IG 2/4), cited in ALGAN, (dn. 142), 71.

148 13 June 1996, Official Gazette, no. 22665. 149 KUBILAY, (dn. 120), 119.

Kemal Başlar

4.5. The Black Sea

The Black Sea is very important for Turkey in that it accounts for 80-85% of Turkey’s fish production.150 However, insufficiently treated sewage, industrial wastes, tea leaves, pesticides leaks from ships, highly contaminated barrels dumped by ships and all types of harmful substances carried along the Danube and the Dnieper rivers, the pouring in of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), and a lack of efficient management of the Black Sea over the past decades has threatened its ecosystem and this has given rise to a decrease in fish production and variety of fish species.151 For example, in the last 30 years, “20 of the 26 species of commercial fish have vanished, ... the anchovy harvest has fallen by more than 95 percent, and dolphin and porpoise populations have fallen by four-fifths. In their place are monstrous blooms of phytoplankton (which feed on human waste) and [the] North American jellyfish”.152 The depletion of fish schools made Turkey an active participant of the regional activities in this regard ever since 1988.

Measures for environmental protection in the Black Sea region is a result of Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC). Article 15 of the 1992 BSEC Summit Declaration urged parties to take necessary steps for the preservation of the Black Sea environment. BSEC Working Group on Environmental Protection, established after the Summit, takes measures as a coordinator to harmonize environmental protection policies and actions. The first attempt was made on 21 April 1992 with the adoption of the Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution,153 and its three Protocols: (1) Protocol for the Protection of the Black Sea Region Against Land-Based Pollution,154 (2) Protocol on the Prevention of the Pollution of the Black Sea Region Due to Discharges155 and (3) Protocol on the Cooperation for the Pollution of the Black Sea Environment from Oil and Other Noxious Substances in Cases of Emergency.

To implement the provisions of these instruments ‘the Black Sea Environment Programme’ (BSEP) was established by six littoral states of the Black Sea, namely by Turkey, Ukraine, Georgia, Romania, Bulgaria, and Russia. In connection with this 150 ftp://ftp.dpt.gov.tr/pub/ekutup95/plan7i/pln7i-*.zip/, Seventh Five Year Development Plan

(1996-2000), Ankara: State Planning Organization, 1995, pln7-6zip (doc file, cpt.3, IV-V, pp. 182-207).

151 See ADAMS, R. “The Ecological Decline of the Black Sea”, Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law Yearbook (1997) 209 et seq., 209.

152 Ibid. (Quoted from, WOODARD, C., “Black Sea on its Way to Becoming a Dead Sea”, Asia Times, March 14, 1997, at 5, 5).: The Black Sea presently hosts an estimated 247 fish species.

153 Bucharest, 21 April 1992, went into force on 15 January 1994: Turkey signed on 21 April 1992 and ratified 28 January 1994. Entered into force on 6 March 1994, Official Gazette, no.21869.

154 6 March 1994, Official Gazette, 21869. 155 CMR, no. 94/5302, 28 January 1994, (17 May 1994, Official Gazette, 21937).: See

GENÇKAYA, Ö.F. “Sources of Pollution of the Black Sea: Ships”, Dış Politika (Foreign Policy), 3-4, (1996) 57-68.


Programme, six activity centres and 36 gathering points are presently serving the Member States. And also a Black Sea Commission was set up according to Articles 17–18 of the Bucharest Convention. One year after, in 1993, the Odessa Declaration for the Protection of the Black Sea was announced in order to provide healthy statistics on the state of the Black Sea environment. The Declaration set up two activity centres to achieve this aim. The first group is the Activity Centre for Routine Pollution Monitoring, whose secretariat is in Istanbul. The second one, being in Odessa, is the Activity Centre for Special Pollution Monitoring. In 1994, Turkey launched a ‘pollution monitoring network’ involving universities and other public institutions to assist the Secretariat.

The Declaration provides for bilateral and multilateral cooperation to materialize principals enunciated in Odessa. To this end, UNEP, UNDP and World Bank have funded a programme among six littoral states through Global Environment Facility (GEF) since 1993.156 Hence, the Black Sea National Action Plan (GEF) has been prepared and the Black Sea Commission established. Ecological rehabilitation of the Black Sea has begun (GEF). There are some bilateral treaties that aim for the protection of the Black Sea environment. In this vein, Turkey and Hungary signed a resolution on the ratification of a cooperation agreement.157 Similar resolution was signed with Azerbaijan paying particular attention to the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea.158 Turkey signed a Headquarters Agreement with the Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Pollution in 2003.159 With this Agreement, Turkey showed its willingness to actively take part in efforts geared to the protection of the Black Sea.

4.6. The Turkish Straits

Turkey straddles Europe and Asia across the Marmara Sea, the Bosporus and Dardanelles Straits. The Turkish Straits, comprised of these seas together with the narrow sea of Marmara lying between them, are among the most heavily used and crowded sea lanes in the world.160 Traffic in the Straits has become dramatically 156 GENÇKAYA, Ö.F., “Bölgesel İşbirliği ve Çevre Sorunları: Karadeniz Ekonomik İşbirliği

Örnek Olayı” [Regional Cooperation and Environmental Problems: A Case Study of Black Sea Economic Cooperation], Yeni Türkiye Dergisi, 5, (1995), 227-232, 231.

157 CMR, no. 93/4508, 3 July 1993, Official Gazette, no. 21626. 158 CMR, no. 93/4869, 21 October 1993, Official Gazette, no. 21735. 159 The full title of the treaty is “Headquarters Agreement Between the Government of the

Republic of Turkey and the Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Pollution”, CMR, no. 2003/5925, 7 August 2003, Official Gazette, no. 25192.

160 The number of oil tankers and cargo ships that pass through the Straits without visiting the Turkish ports is around 50 thousand. In 1996, the number of tankers carrying 60 million tons crude oil which passed through was 4,248. There are ships as big as 300 thousand d.w. compared to 5 thousand d.w. in times of the 1936 Montreaux Treaty. A tanker carrying 30 thousand natural gas has an impact equivalent of an atom bomb within an area.000 Approximately, 135 vessels pass through each day. Authorities report than the Straits cannot burden the 136th vessel so to speak. Moreover, some 1500 intra-city ferries and other shuttle boats operate between the European and Asian sides of Istanbul carrying more then one and a half million residents.: As Güçlü says “Turkey has now reached

Kemal Başlar

congested after the discovery of vast oil reserves in the Caspian Sea.161 With the high volume of oil being shipped through the Bosporus, oil tanker accidents are likely to give rise to large quantities of oil spill. The transport of noxious, dangerous and hazardous cargoes (oil, LNG, LPG, chemicals, other explosive and environmentally hazardous substances) may also cause apocalyptic results for Istanbul. This danger became apparent when the Greek Cypriot tanker Nassia collided with the dry bulk carrier, Shipbroker, killing 30 seamen and spilling 20.000 tons of oil. Shipping through the Istanbul Strait was postponed for a week and over 500 vessels had to wait for safe passage. The resulting oil slick turned the waters of the Bosporus into a raging inferno for five days.162

Since there were no provisions in the 1936 Montreaux Convention and the 1923 Lausanne Treaty of Peace concerning additional traffic regulations either for safety of navigation or for environmental protection purposes, to patch up this lacuna, the Council of Ministers issued ‘the Maritime Traffic Regulations for the Turkish Straits and the Marmara Region’ in 1994.163 This Regulation was amended and updated in 1998 with a Council of Ministers Resolution no 98/11860.164

saturation point” in this “maritime super highway”, in GÜÇLÜ, (dn. 163): For an introductory information on the Straits see e.g. http://www.mfa.gov.tr/grupa/ad/adb/default.htm (6 August 2001).

161 MARTIN, K. “Conflicts in Marine Environmental Protection: The Turkish Straits as a Case Study”, Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems, 9, (1999) 681-702, 681.

162 “United States Energy Information Administration, Turkey: Environmental Issues”, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/turkenv.html, March 2000 of 500 km. See ‘Boğazlar Trafiği Darboğazda’ [Bottleneck in the Traffic of the Straits], Nokta Dergisi, (8-14 March 1998), 26-29.

163 11 January 1994, Official Gazette, no. 21285. Turkey’s unilateral adoption of the Regulation has been subject to academic scrutiny, especially in terms of the right of innocent and transit passage: For a Turkish perspective, see Prof. İnan and Güçlü’s successful explanations in, İNAN, Y., “The Current Regıme of the Turkish Straits”, Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs, vol. 6/1 (2001) [http://www.mfa.gov.tr/grupa/percept/VI-1/inan.06.htm]: GÜÇLÜ, Y., “Regulation of the Passage Through the Turkısh Straits” (2001) 6/1 Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs http://www.mfa.gov.tr/grupa/percept/VI-1/guclu.07.htm: For foreign approach, see for example PLANT, G., “Navigation Regime in the Turkish Straits for Merchant Ships in Peacetime: Safety, Environmental Protection and High Politics”, Marine Policy, 20/1, (1996), 15–28.: SCHARFENBERG, S. A., “Regulating Traffic Flow in the Turkish Straits: A Test for Modern International Law”, Emory International Law Review 10, (1996), 333-395: DUBNER, B. H., “On the Interplay of International Law of the Sea and the Prevention of Maritime Pollution -- How Far Can a State Proceed in Protecting Itself from Conflicting Norms in International Law”, Georgetown International Environmental Law Review,11, (1998), 137-161.

164 6 November 1998, Official Gazette, no. 23515.: Two incidents paved the way to new measures. In July 1998, after a tanker carrying 87,000 tons of crude oil ran aground in the Strait which blocked the free passage for some time. In August 1998, a tanker was split in two off the coast of the historic Topkapı Palace,


At multilateral level, in March of 1993, Turkey made an application to the IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee to propose a traffic separation scheme and traffic routing lanes for maritime traffic travelling through the Bosporus and Dardanelles.165 At the Maritime Safety Committee meeting of the IMO convened between on 16–25 May 1994, the Schemes and certain relevant rules and recommendations were adopted by the Organisation, which went into effect after 24 November 1994. Thereby, the 1994 Regulations established a mandatory new traffic separation scheme (TSS) in conformity with the IMO Rules and Recommendations.166 Afterwards, Turkey issued ‘the Strait of Istanbul, Sea of Marmara and the Strait of Dardanelles Routing Guide of 1994’.

The ratio legis behind such measures was that after the collapse of an agreement between Turkey and Azerbaijan to export oil via pipeline across Turkey to Ceyhan Region in the Mediterranean coast, it appeared that all the Caspian oil (Azeri, Kazakh Turkmen and Russian oil), which amounts to 4 billion dollars would have been transported through the Straits via Russian port of Novorossisk. This obviously is tantamount to a threat to the safety of navigation and the protection of its coastal population of 11 million inhabitants and the surrounding precarious environment from ship-source hazards, including pollution. Financially speaking the cost of cleanup efforts, which is as high as $15 billion is far beyond the reach of the six countries bordering the sea.167

The most important aspects of the 1994 and 1998 Regulations168 are as follows: (1) As far as some of the key points of the 1994 Regulation are concerned: Turkish vessels greater than l50 metres in length are required to take pilots during the transit. Given that failure to make use of pilotage services has been identified as a main cause of accidents, taking pilots is highly recommended also for foreign vessels. The following regulations apply to vessels greater than l50 metres in length: Advance notification on such vessels and their cargo is required before the vessels enter through the Straits169. This information will be reviewed to determine the most suitable timing and conditions for the transit of the vessel. During the transit of large

165 MARTIN, (dn. 161), 690. 166 SCOVAZZI, T., “Management Regimes and Responsibility for International Straits: With

Special Reference to the Mediterranean Straits”, Marine Policy, 19/2, (1995), 137–152, 148.: Various IMO documents (e.g. the IMO Rules and Recommendations adopted in 1994 (Res.A/857), IMO Res. A/857 and the IMO Doc. MSC 71/WP.14/Add.2, dated 27 May 1999) subscribed to Turkey’s measures, cited in İNAN, (dn. 163).

167 US/EIA, “Turkey: Environmental Issues”, (dn. 162). 168 The full text of the Maritime Traffic Regulations for the Turkish Straits and the Marmara

Region is available at [http://www.mfa.gov.tr/grupa/ad/adb/adba/default.htm]. For “Background Note on the Regulations for the Turkish Straits”, see [http://www.mfa.gov.tr/grupa/ad/adb/strait2.htm], For Safety of Navigation, Navigational and Environmental Safety in The Turkish Straits, see [http://www.mfa.gov.tr/grupa/ad/adb/navigate.htm]. (11 August 2001).

169 However, due to ongoing pressure from some Black Sea littoral states, Turkey has not been stringently enforcing the 1994 Regulation. Thus, only a small number of vessels passing through the Straits report their cargo: See, “Turkey: Environmental Issues”, (dn. 172).

Kemal Başlar

vessels carrying dangerous cargo including oil and its derivatives the Straits will be closed to all other maritime traffic. A similar vessel cannot enter the Straits until the previous one has cleared it. Vessel traffic through the Straits of Istanbul and Dardanelles will be conducted subject to conditions such as good visibility and calm currents.

(2) As far as the 1998 Resolution is concerned, the term ‘the Turkish Straits’ was used to entrench Turkey’s sovereignty over the Straits. In terms of environmental measures, the new Regulation reintroduced the criteria for classifying the size and cargo of ships. Certain additional requirements are now demanded from ships that carry noxious and hazardous substances. According to Article 26 of the new Regulation, these kind of ships are supposed to inform of their cargo to the Turkish authorities 72 hours before they start traversing the Straits and submit documents attesting that the ship in question is of standards prescribed by IMO and other international treaties and the cargo is safely transported. These ships, among others, are required to give their voyage-log (report) (i.e. the name, flag, call sign, tonnage, departure and destination ports, its cargo, the demand for pilot-captain) to the Traffic Control Centre. Suffice it to mention finally, in the new Regulation the following issues have been regulated for extra safety: the period of reporting, the visibility conditions and anchoring regions.

4.7. The Atmosphere

At the Rio Summit, rich countries promised that by the year 2000, their emissions of climate changing greenhouse gases, particularly CO2 would not exceed 1990 levels. However, Turkey’s emission increased from 138 million tonnes to 238 million tonnes between 1990–1998, which amounted to 72 per cent increase.170 This alone suffices Turkey to be regarded as the messiest of the all OECD countries.171 Comparatively speaking, Turkey was ranked 75th among the countries of the world in 1999 in terms of CO2 emission per capita. Although an increase in the energy demand is expected, the CO2 emission per capita by the year 2010 is predicted to reach a level that will be slightly over the world average and only 40 % of the OECD average.172

Many years Turkey refused to sign the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) and its Kyoto Protocol. During the negotiations at the meeting of the UNFCCC Intergovernmental Negotiation Committee in 1992, Turkey was included in the Annex I list, with OECD member countries and countries with economies in transition, and also in the Annex II list along with the OECD countries.173 Therefore, unlike most other International Energy Agency member-countries, Turkey had no legal commitment to cut down on carbon emissions by the 2008-2012 period.

170 “A Warming World”, The Economist, 28 June- 4 July 1997, p. 49. 171 Ibid. 172 Turkish National Report for the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg,

August 2002, 60. 173 TÜRKEŞ, M. “İklim Değişikliği Çerçeve Sözleşmesi ve Türkiye,” [Framework Convention

on Climate Change and Turkey], Çevre ve Mühendis, 9, (1995), 16-20.


With regard to carbon emissions, Turkey used to demand that some privileges should be granted if the IGPCC wants Turkey to accede the Kyoto Protocol.174 In Kyoto meetings Turkey forwarded a formal request on its classification as a developing country and demanded the deletion of her name from both of its annexes. The request was denied. Turkey argued that the Convention should have taken into account per capita emissions rather than the proportion of aggregate emissions.175

At The Hague Conference, the Turkish proposal was reconsidered by the Subsidiary Body for Implementation during the 7th Conference of the Parties in Marrakesh on 29 October- 6 November 2001 and accepted by consensus. The Conference demanded the Parties to recognize the unique status quo of Turkey, which, places Turkey in a situation different from the other Parties included in the Annex I of the Convention.

Being an OECD member is meant that Turkey must cut down on releasing carbon-dioxide emissions to 1990 levels. To this end, Turkey’s position paper (FCCC/CP/1997/MISC.3), namely, Turkey and Greenhouse Gas Emissions was submitted at the Third Conference of the Parties convened in Kyoto in December 1997. The National Report on Climate Change, prepared under the auspices of a number of institutions and organizations and the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, was submitted to the Fourth Conference of the Parties, convened in Buenos Aires in November 1998. A Specialized Commission on Climate Change was established in 1999 in the context of the preparations conducted by the State Planning Organization for the 8th Five-Year Development Plan (2001-2005).

Turkey’s production of greenhouse gases is 1/4 of the EU, 1/8 of the North America and 1/2 of the World Production level.176 As Turkey’s CO2 emission, comparatively speaking, is lesser than those of other developed OECD members such as Japan, UK, USA and Canada, the requirement to freeze emissions at 1990s levels would impose a heavy and troublesome burden on energy production and development. To present the dilemma before the international fora, a National Climate Programme Committee was set up in 1994.177 Following these developments, the Climate Change Convention was finally ratified in 2003.178

174 The Report of Special Expert Commission on Climate Change, (dn. 26), 16. 175 ZILELIOĞLU-ELVER (now ZILELIOĞLU-FALK), H., “Country-Region Reports:

Turkey” Yearbook of International Environmental Law, 8, (1997), 382. 176 http://www.tema.org.tr/eco_dunya/main/frame_makale_sozlesmeler.html: ibid., 382.:

Another statistic says that “In 1998, Turkey’s carbon emissions per capita were 0.7 metric tons (compared to the U.S. value of 5.5 metric tons). Turkey's per capita energy consumption was 45.6 million Btu in 1998, compared to 350.7 million Btu in the U.S., 177.3 million Btu in Russia, 168.6 million Btu in Germany, and 90.8 million Btu in Poland. However, since 1992 energy consumption per capita in Turkey has increased by 25.6%, while it has risen only 4.6% in the United States, declined by 24.6% in Russia, by 8.5% in Poland, and 2.8% in Germany.”, quoted from “United States Energy Information Administration’s report on Turkey: Environmental Issues,” http://www.eia.doe.gov/-emeu/cabs/turkenv.html (11 August 2001).

177 ZILELIOĞLU-ELVER, H., “Country-Region Reports: Turkey”, Yearbook of International Environmental Law, 5, (1994) 394.: This National Climate Coordination Committee carries out the national statistical studies in line with those conducted by all countries of the UNFCC. The Committee has published various influential data, including

Kemal Başlar

As the Convention and its Protocols are parts of the Acquis, Turkey should do its best to conform to the provisions of the UNFCC and Kyoto Protocol. In order to determine its greenhouse gas emissions, a transparent and verifiable reporting mechanism should be developed. Technological capabilities, infrastructure and administrative mechanisms should be in line with the provisions notwithstanding the fact that Turkey is outside the scope of the Convention. As EU does not want Turkey to be a free-rider, one way or another these changes should be taken on board as soon as possible.

Aside from the climate change problem, Turkey is a party to other conventions on the atmospheric pollution. First, though the 1979 Geneva Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) was ratified,179 its protocols except the 1984 Protocol on Long-Term Financing of the Co-operative Programme for Monitoring and Evaluation of the Long-Range Transmission of Air Pollutants in Europe were not ratified.180 To comply with its provisions, in November 1986, the Regulation for the Protection of Air Quality was promulgated.

4.8. The Ozone Layer

In the case of the Ozone Depletion, Turkey ratified the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer in 1990.181 The 1992 Copenhagen Amendments were ratified in February 1995.182 The London Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer entered into force in December 1995.183 To comply with their provisions, Turkey has undertaken to use alternative substances to CFCs and halon gases and to ban their usage. However, since Turkey is counted among developing countries in accordance with the Montreal Protocol, it is entitled to follow the schedule of cutting down on CFCs ten years behind in the transition period.

Turkey recently started reducing harmful substances that deplete the Ozone Layer. In this vein, it set up an Ozone Panel as a platform for coordination between private and public sector. Also, as of 19 December 1992, the import of CFCs and halon gases from states that are not parties to the Vienna Convention and its Protocols was banned. On 25 July 1999, a regulation was enacted with a view to implementing the

the “National Report on the Protection of the Atmosphere and Climate Change” and a “National Report on Energy and Technology.”

178 CMR no. 2003/6458, 18 December 2003, Official Gazette, no. 25320. 179 13 December 1979: in force on 16 March 1983: Turkey ratified with a CMR no 83/6007,

on 23 March 1983, Official Gazette, n. 17996. And became party on 18 April 1983. 180 85/9594 CMR, 23 July 1985, Official Gazette, 18820. 181 8 September 1990, Official Gazette, 20629: The provisions of the Convention and its

Protocol became binding for Turkey as from 19 December 1991.: US$11 million loan was given by the World Bank for ozone depletion projects (including 4 subprojects) between 1991-1996.

182 95/7184 CMR, 29 September 1995, Official Gazette, 22419. 183 28 December 1994, Official Gazette, no. 22155.


Convention.184 So far, a number of communiqués have been issued to comply with the Convention and its Protocols.185

4.9. Waste Management

Turkey acceded early treaties that refer, in varying degrees, to waste management, namely, the OECD Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy,186 ILO Convention Concerning the Protection of Workers Against Ionising Radiation,187 Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water,188 Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof,189 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxic Weapons, and on Their Destruction,190 and the Convention on Early Notification of Nuclear Accidents.191

Recent attempts to tackle with waste management are as follows: In response to increasing urbanisation, Turkey amended the Regulation on Controlling Solid Waste 1991,192 the Regulation Controlling Chemical and Hazardous Substances and Wastes and Their Disposal 1993 went into force on 11 July 1994. The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal became effective for Turkey on 20 September 1994.193 On 27 August 1995, the Regulation on the Control of Hazardous Wastes went into force. In June 1994, the Nuclear Safety Convention was adopted under the auspices of the IAEA. Turkey acceded it on 14 January 1995. On 21 July 1997, the education programme of the 1995 Regulation, which amounts to Euro 150.000, started. The last ring of these

184 This regulation is based on a Resolution having the force of law numbered KHK443/ 2872-

9.8.1983, 25 July 1999, Official Gazette, no. 23766. 185 See Communiqués: Export 96/31 (19 September 1996, 22762 Official Gazette) & Import:

2004/14 (31 December 2003, 25333 (1.Mükerrer) Official Gazette) (It repealed Communiqué, Import: 2002/14 and 2003/14). See also, the list of controlled-chemicals issued by the Undersecretariat for Foreign Trade, Communiqué on Standardisation in Foreign Trade no. 2003/6 (27 December 2002, Official Gazette, 24976).

186 29 January 1960, Protocol Amending the Treaty (28 January 1964): 13 June 1967, Official Gazette, no. 12620.

187 CMR, 6/10300, 25 July 1968, Official Gazette, no. 12953. 188 13 May 1965, Official Gazette, no. 11997. 189 19 October 1972, Official Gazette, no. 14322. 190 5 November 1975, Official Gazette, no. 15408. 191 3 September 1990, Official Gazette, no. 20624. 192 Entered into force on 2 November 1994. 193 Signed on 22 March 1989: Entered into force on 24 May 1992. Turkey acceded on 15

May 1994, Official Gazette, no. 21935. Turkey, ratified the amendments to the Convention (Articles 4A and 7) bis, in 2003 (2003/5909 CMR, 28 July 2003, Official Gazette, no. 25182).

Kemal Başlar

attempts is the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation.194

4.10. Bilateral Relations

Environmental cooperation with new the Central Asian and Turkic states is developed through the efforts of Turkey. To improve regional cooperation in this regard, Turkey convened a first conference of Central Asia and Balkan Republics Ministers of Environment in July 1994. As a result three non-binding documents were signed and a committee was set up to help prepare a regional action plan in accordance with Agenda 21.195

Recent years marked the success of bilateral negotiations on cooperation on environmental protection. There are some 20 countries with which Turkey concluded agreements on the environment. Some of these are Kyrgyzstan,196 Turkmenistan,197 Georgia,198 Uzbekistan,199 Iran,200 Afghanistan, Kazakhstan,201 Tajikistan,202 Azerbaijan,203 Tunisia,204 Romania,205 Slovakia.206 There are other agreements that date back to earlier years such as with Bulgaria,207 USA,208 Germany,209 Hungary,210 and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. 194 2003/6084 CMR, 18 September 2003, Official Gazette, no. 25233. 195 ZILELIOĞLU-ELVER [FALK], (dn. 177), 396. 196 CMR, no. 96/7833, 25 February 1996, Official Gazette, no. 22562: on forestry, see the

Protocol 98/10504, 1 February 1998, Official Gazette, no. 23245. 197 CMR, no. 97/9084, 29 March 1997, Official Gazette, no. 22948.: On 6 July 1994, a

Protocol was signed to implement pollution control and prevention strategies for the Caspian Sea and the Aras and Kura rivers: A new agreement was concluded on forestry and the environment (9 March 1998, Official Gazette, no. 23281).

198 CMR, no. 97/9776, 25 August 1997, Official Gazette, no. 23091. 199 CMR, no. 96/8415, 26 August 1996, Official Gazette, no. 22739. 200 CMR, no. 97/9492, 25 June 1997, Official Gazette, no. 23030 201 CMR, no. 97/9286, 5 May 1997, Official Gazette, no. 22980: on plant protection see,

CMR, no. 96/8314, 30 June 1996, Official Gazette, no. 22682 202 CMR, no. 96/7828, 14 February 1996, Official Gazette, no. 22554. 203 CMR, no. 97/10446, 13 January 1998, Official Gazette, no. 23229: This was seconded to

the agreement concluded in 21 October 1993, Official Gazette, no. 21735. 204 CMR, no. 98/10522, 3 February 1998, Official Gazette, no. 23247 205 CMR, no. 97/10061, 23 October 1997, Official Gazette, no. 23149 (on plant protection

and animal health) 206 CMR, no. 97/9634, 3 August 1997, Official Gazette, no. 23069 207 CMR, no. 6/788 (On plant protection): 19 October 1967, Official Gazette, 12729. 208 26 April 1992, Official Gazette, no. 21210 209 13 January 1993, Official Gazette, no. 21464. 210 3 July 1993, Official Gazette, no. 21626.


5. The Road Ahead: Treaties that Turkey Should Ratify

The last decade witnessed very remarkable achievements in the field of environmental protection in Turkey. A number of treaties became part of the Turkish positive law. Never the less, there are some international conventions and protocols that still wait for ratification. The most important of these have been alluded below:

5.1. Concerning Marine Pollution

(1) Part XI of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) on the Protection and Preservation of the Marine Environment (Arts. 192–237) has proved largely uncontroversial in its approach to protection and preservation of the marine environment. Since it has, in many respects, codified the universally recognised rules of customary and conventional law. It has also set up an acceptable balance of interests between maritime states and coastal states.211 However, Turkey does persistently refuse to sign the 1982 LOSC due to the Aegean Sea Dispute. Baykal suggests that the LOSC should be ratified, as it does not threaten Turkish interests.212 When Turkey becomes a member of the EU, there will be interesting issues emanating from common fisheries policy and common maritime policy. That is to say, according to the EC law, Turkey should adopt Community policies right away. As the EU is a party to the LOSC, one way or other Turkey will have to implement its provisions by virtue of supremacy of Community law, even if it rejects to sign and ratify the LOSC, unless there is a special derogation made for Turkey.

It is among the objectives of the Government, as reflected in the Seventh Five Year Development Programme to ratify (2) the 1969 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage;213 (3) the Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage and its 1984 and 1992 Protocols.214 Turkey should also ratify, albeit not in force yet, (4) the 1986 UN Convention on the Conditions of Registration of Ships which promotes cooperation between flag states and port states, takes measures for seaworthiness and marine pollution.

211 BIRNIE, P. & BOYLE, A. E., International Law and the Environment, Clarendon Press,

Oxford, 1992, 298. 212 See for the pros of this view, BAYKAL, F.H., “Türkiye’nin Deniz Politikası Askeri,

Ekonomik, Siyasi ve Hukuki Yönden Milli Çıkarlarımıza Hizmet Ediyor mu?” [Does the Marine Policy of Turkey Serve our National Interests in Military, Economic and Legal Terms], Gümrük Birliği Dergisi, (1996) 21–22, 18-23.: KUBİLAY, (dn. 120).

213 Brussels, 9 ILM 45 (1970): Entered into force 19 June 1975. 1984 Protocol, IMO Doc. Leg./Conf. 6/66, 1992 Protocol, 27 November 1992, not in force. The Parliament approved of the ratification with law 4508, but not yet ratified. On 9 May 2001 (24397 Official Gazette) Turkey removed its reservations on Article 1.

214 Brussels, 11 ILM 284 (1972),. Entered into force on 16 October 1978. Amended 1976, 16 ILM 621 (1977), not in force, 1984 Protocol not in force, 1992 Protocol (27 November 1992), not in force. The Parliament approved of the ratification of the Convention with law 4508, but not yet ratified by the Council of Ministers.

Kemal Başlar

With becoming a party to these treaties, Turkey will have the chance to adopt universally recognised standards for the protection of the sea environment, to harmonise its national legislation and to reclaim bulks of compensation from the Fund guaranteed by Protection and Indemnity Clubs.215 (5) The 1974 Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-Based Sources216 and its 1986 London Protocol (amending the Convention), (6) the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Dumping Convention),217 and (7) Annexes III, IV of MARPOL and (8) the 1997 MARPOL Protocol (Annex VI) await to be ratified.218

5.2. Concerning Air Pollution

Turkey is not also a party to the following protocols to the 1979 LRTAP Convention: (9a) the 1985 Helsinki Protocol on the Reduction of Sulphur Emissions, (9b) the 1988 Sofia Protocol Concerning the Control of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides or their Transboundary Fluxes and (9c) the 1991 Geneva Protocol on the Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds and Their Transboundary Fluxes and the (9d) the 1994 Protocol on Further Reduction of Sulphur Emissions.219 (10) The IAEA Vienna Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency is an important work which should also be adopted.220

5.3. Concerning Biodiversity

With regard to wildlife, (11) the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (the Bonn Convention) should be ratified.221 The fundamental objective of the Convention is to provide strict protection for species in danger of extinction throughout all or significant portion of their range (Appendix I species) and to persuade states to conclude agreements for the conservation of species having unfavourable conservation status.222 As stated in the introduction of this research, two of the four main migration routes come from Turkey, a significant breeding and nesting bridge. 426 species of native and migratory birds, classified in 18 orders and 65 families, have been identified in Turkey.223 Therefore, becoming a

215 KUBILAY, (dn. 120). 216 13 ILM 352, 1974 (Paris), 4 June 1974. Entered into force on 6 May 1978; amended by

Protocol of 1986 which went in force on 1 February 1990. 217 In force on 30 August 1975. 218 Annex VI was opened for signature on 26 September 1997. 219 Note that the final Protocol received so far only 3 signatures subject to ratification. For full

text and status of the 1979 Convention and its five Protocols see the following address: http://www.unece.org/env/conv/ .

220 25 ILM 1377 (1986): In force 26 February 1987. 221 19 ILM 15: (1979); entered into force on 1 November 1983. 222 See LYSTER, (dn. 71), 278-298. 223 For a general information see BLUNT, G., “The Bird Species and Their Localities in

Turkey”, Turkish Review Quarterly Digest, 18/3, (1989) 41-52.


party to the Bonn Convention is a prerequisite. As the EU is a party to the Convention, for the harmonization of Turkish law, this matter should be dealt with without fail. Especially, the protection of sea turtles, bald bills badly need this kind of international cooperation. However, the Bonn Convention does not have an financial assistance mechanism like the World Heritage Convention. That is why Turkey is reluctant to accede unless receiving some outside help. If help does not come, Turkey is not supposed to make significant contribution towards implementing the objectives of the Convention.224

5.4. Concerning Council of Europe treaties225

Turkey is not party to the following conventions on (12) the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes (1976, ETS no. 87) and its Protocol (ETS no. 145), (13) the Protection of Animals for Slaughter (1979, ETS no. 102), (14) the Protection of Vertebrate Animals Used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes (1986, ETS no. 123),226 (15) European Convention for the Protection of Animals during International Transport (2003, ETS no. 193) Among Council of Europe treaties, one should not fail to pronounce (16) the Convention on Civil Liability for Damage Resulting from Activities Dangerous to the Environment that awaiting for ratification.227

5.5. Concerning UNECE treaties

As far as we are concerned, the most significant United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention is (17) the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters which was adopted on 25th June 1998 in the Danish city of Aarhus at the Fourth Ministerial Conference in the 'Environment for Europe' process.228

Turkey is among a few countries that did not sign the Convention.229 However, Turkey is not entirely opposed to the basic tenets of the Convention.230 On the way to becoming 224 Cf. LYSTER, (dn. 78), 297-298. 225 For more information about these conventions, see http://conventions.coe.int/-

Treaty/EN/CadreListeTraites.htm 226 Signed on 5 September 1986. 227 ETS no. 150: Lugano, 21 June 1993. 228 The Convention entered into force on 30 October 2001. See [http://www.unece.org/env/-

pp/ctreaty.htm] for ratification process. 229 Apart from Israel and Yugoslavia: ERLAT, Ö.T., “Bilgiye Erişim, Halkın Karar Almaya

Katılımı ve Yargı Hakkı için Aarhus Sözleşmesi”, [Access to Information, Public Particiaption to Decision Making and Access to Justice], İzmir Barosu Dergisi, 1, 2002, http://www.izmirbarosu.org.tr/dergi/2002_sayi03_04.htm .

230 The Aarhus Convention is blocked by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the General Staff for the fear that according to Article 3/9 of the Convention, every one, notwithstanding of his/her nationality, citizenship or domicile and in the case of a legal person, without discrimination as to where it has its registered seat or an effective centre of its activities, is entitled to access to information and participate in decision-making. For this reason Turkey is afraid of acceding to the Convention, which is baseless so far as we are concerned.

Kemal Başlar

a member, a National Programme was supposed to be adopted in 2001 in order for the establishment of legal, technical and administrative structure. This had been scheduled in the National Programme for Undertaking EU Accession as a first step of acceding to the Aarhus Convention and accelerating the integration process to the EEA and EIONET.

There is no legal provision for the access to information in public administrations. Information requests from governmental agencies are met with personal initiatives of public agents. The right to petition as set out in Article 74 of the Constitution231 applies to the demands of access to information held by public administrations. But this provision is insufficient and too vague.

The right to access to environmental information is a guarantee of the right to environment which is recognized in Article 56 of the Constitution, Being aware of this, Article 30 of the new Environmental Act of 2872 have been amended in such a way as to fully recognize Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention.

There are other UNECE Treaties worth mentioning in this section: These are namely, (17) The 1991 Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo),232 (18) the 1992 Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (Helsinki),233 and (19) the 1992 Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents.234

6. Conclusion

When looked backed from the vantage points of a new century, one notices that Turkey used to accede to international treaties only years after their opening for signature, even in such cases where the subject matter was very important for Turkey. The birth of international environmental law could be said to have emerged as a result of ‘eurocentricism’ rather than ‘ecocentricism” or ‘antropocentricism’. In other words, the motivating factor was the approximation of Turkish environmental law to the EU Acquis rather than the improvement of the quality of the environment for the sole sake of citizens of Turkey.

It was only after the establishment of the Ministry of Environment in 1991 that Turkey started to become one of the original signatories of recently concluded treaties and to be actively involved in a number of multilateral, regional and bilateral treaties and other soft law instruments. In particular, in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea,

231 (As amended on October 17, 2001). “Citizens and foreigners resident considering the

principle of reciprocity have the right to apply in writing to the competent authorities and to the Turkish Grand National Assembly with regard to the requests and complaints concerning themselves or the public. The result of the application concerning himself shall be made known to the petitioner in writing without delay.”

232 30 ILM 802 (1991). Not in force: For full texts and status of the conventions see http://www.unece.org/env/conv/...

233 31 ILM 1312, (1992), 17 March 1992: Entered into force on 6 October 1996. First meeting was held between 2-4 July 1997.

234 31 ILM 1330, (1992), 17 March 1992: not in force.


Turkey is one of the active participants of the treaties that are in force.235 Through the Seventh and Eight Five Year Development Plans, Turkey has shown its commitment to the concept of sustainable development.

In recent years, the harmonization of Turkish legislation with the Acquis Communautaire gave rise to an immense opportunity to achieving sustainable development objectives. Turkey has been so keen on implementing the provisions of international agreements that at the end of the day the UNDP has selected the “Local Agenda 21 Program” of Turkey as a world-wide “best practice” in 2001, and presented this Program as “best practice” to the world leaders and governments in the UN “Rio+10” Summit in Johannesburg in September 2002.

In the past, the process of ratification of international treaties was very tortuous and cumbersome because of bureaucratic procedures and legal formalities that take place in the rooms of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Environment and the Grand National Assembly. Many international treaties entered into force years after. For example, the 1979 Berne Convention entered into force five years after signature; CITES was ratified by the National Assembly in 1994, but it was only in 1996 that it was sent to the Official Gazette for its publication to enter into force.236 The Biodiversity Convention was ratified five years after signature. However, recent ratification process is rather speedy. This is good omen for the future.

Turkey now is a party to many treaties that EU members are also party. All the same, the effective implementation and follow-up of the treaties alluded above hinges on funds, expertise and appropriate scientific information. To overcome implementation problems due to resource constraints, international financial aid should be made available to Turkey to be channelled from e.g. the GEF, World Heritage Fund and the Wetland Conservation Fund. Otherwise, international legal instruments might be “sleeping treaties” in the long run.

Finally, in the past the lack of cooperation between governmental agencies and misdistribution and diffusion of administrative powers caused confusion. For example, in the past the Ministry of Environment, --rather than the Ministry of Forestry-, signed an agreement on national parks. As the first Ministry regards itself as a coordinating organ in most cases, it usually abstained from implementation and enforcement.237 However, with the promulgation of the Law no 4856 in 2003, these two ministries were amalgamated within the one Ministry, namely the Ministry of Environment and Forestry. One hopes that in the future ‘olden’ mistakes are not repeated and the unified structure is maintained. 235 AKINCI, M., Oluşum ve Yapılaşma Sürecinde Türk Çevre Hukuku, [Turkish

Environmental Law in the Process of Emergence and Formation], Izmit, 1996, 268. 236 Comments of Nuran Talu, Former Head of the Environment Commission of the Grand

National Assembly, in Çevre Yönünden Gümrük Birliği ve Türkiye, [Customs Union and Turkey: From an Environmental Perspective], Environment Foundation of Turkey, Ankara, 1996, 66.

237 GÜRKAN, B. “Uluslararası Ticaret Anlaşmalarında Ekolojinin ve Biyolojik Kaynakların Önemi” [The Importance of Ecology and Biological Resources in International Trade Agreements] [The Importance of Ecological and Biological Resources in International Trade Agreements], in GATT ve Çevre, (dn. 3), 65.

Kemal Başlar

Appendix:

THE ENVIRONMENT-RELATED TREATIES TO WHICH TURKEY IS A PARTY238

Date & Place International Treaty Ratified

in Geneva, 1931 Convention on Whaling 1934

Strasbourg, 1951 European Cultural Convention 1965

Paris, 1951 Convention for the Establishment of the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (as amended)

1965

The Hague, 1956 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Even of Armed Conflict

1965

Moscow, 1963 Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water

1965

Paris, 1950 International Convention on the Protection of Birds 1966

Rome, 1949 FAO Agreement on the Establishment of a General Fisheries Council for Mediterranean (as amended)

1967

Paris, 1960 Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy (as amended)

1967

London, Moscow,

Washington, 1967

Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,

1968

Geneva, 1960 Convention Concerning the Protection of Workers Against Ionizing Radiation

1969

Paris, 1968 European Convention for the Protection of Animals During International Transport

1971

London, Moscow,

Washington, 1971

Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Sea Bed and the Ocean Floor in the Subsoil Thereof

1972

London, Moscow,

Washington, 1972

Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production of Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons, and on Their

1975

238 This table can be downloaded from Annex 2, in ftp://ftp.dpt.gov.tr/pub/ekutup98-/ucep/ucep*.zip (ucep11i.zip). Note however that there are some mistakes both in dates and names. Cf. with this table to evade any mistake.


Destruction

Paris, 1974 Agreement on an International Energy Program 1981

Barcelona, 1976 Convention for the Protection of Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution (Barcelona Convention)

1981

Barcelona, 1976 Protocol Concerning Cooperation in Combating Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Oil and Other Harmful Substances in case of Emergency

1981

Ceddah, 1982 Protocol Concerning Regional Co-operation in Combatting Pollution by Oil and Other Harmful Substances in Case of Emergency

1981

Paris, 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage

1983

Geneva, 1979 Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution

1983

Athens, 1980 Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution from Land-based Sources

1983

Berne, 1979 Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Their Natural Habitats (Bern Convention)

1984

Geneva, 1984 Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution on Long-term Financing of the Co-operative Program for Monitoring and Evaluation of the Long-range Transmission of Air Pollutants in Europe (EMEP)

1985

Geneva, 1982 Protocol Concerning Mediterranean Specially Protected Areas

1988

London, 1978 Convention on Prevention of Pollution from Ships MARPOL (Annex III and IV not signed By Turkey)

1989

Vienna, 1985 Vienna Convention on the protection of the Ozone Layer

1990

Montreal, 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Depleting the Ozone Layer

1990

Vienna, 1986 Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident

1990

Ramsar, 1971 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat

1994

Washington, 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna And Flora (CITES

1994

Basel, 1989 Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary 1994

Kemal Başlar

Movements Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal

Bucharest, 1992 Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution

1994

Bucharest,

1992

Protocol on the Protection of the Black Sea Marine Environment Against Pollution from Land Based Sources

1994

Bucharest, 1992 Protocol on Cooperation in Combating Pollution of the Black Sea Marine Environment by Oil and Other Harmful Substances in Emergency Situations

1994

Bucharest, 1992 Protocol on the Protection of the Black Sea Marine, Environment Against Pollution by Dumping

1994

Washington,1959 The Antarctic Treaty 1995

Rio de Janerio, 1992

Convention on Biological Diversity 1997

Paris, 1994 Convention on Desertification 1998

Florence, 2000 European Landscape Convention 2003

Basel, 1989 Amendment to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wates and their Disposal

2003

Rio de Janerio, 1966

International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas

2003

Montreal, 2000 Biosecurity Protocol of the Biological Diversity Convention (Cartegena Protocol)

2003

- Amendments to the Montreal Protocol 2003

London, 1980 The International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation

2003

Strasbourg, 1987 European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals (no: 125)

2003

İzmir, 1996 Protocol on the Prevention of Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal

2004

- Black Sea Biodiversity and Landscape Convention Protocol to the Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution

2004


Appendix 2:

International Declarations and Official Documents on the Environment Signed by Turkey

1- Stockholm 1972, United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and its Declaration.

2- Helsinki , 1975, The Final Act of the Conference on European Security and Cooperation (CESC).

3- Madrid, 1980, Vienna 1986, Sofia 1988 (CESC Closing Statements).

4- Geneva, 1985, Declaration on the Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Against Pollution.

5- Stockholm, 1987, The Bruntland Report or United Nations Commission on Environment and Development.

6- UNEP, 1987, Environmental Perspective for the year 2000 and Beyond.

7- UN/ECE, 1988, Regional Strategy for Environmental Protection and the Rational Use of Natural Resources.

8- UN/ECE, Declaration for the Protection of Flora, Fauna and the Living Environment.

9- Frankfurt 1989, European Charter for the Environment and Health.

10- Nordwijk ,1989, Declaration for Atmospheric Pollution and Climate Change.

11- Lefkoşa 1990, Charter on Environmental Cooperation between Europe-Mediterranean.

12- UN/ECE 1990, Bergen Declaration on Sustainable and Balanced Development.

13- London, 1990, London Meeting on the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

14- Paris, 1990, Paris Charter for a New Europe.

15- UN/ECE, IAEA Bonn Conference, Final Act, 1990.

16- UN/ECE, 1991, Espoo the Declaration of Ministers.

17-OECD, 1991, the Declaration of the Ministers of the Environment.

18- Rio de Janeiro, 1992, Agenda 21 & Forest Principles.

19- Luzern ,1993, the Declaration of Ministers on the .

20- İstanbul, 1994, Declaration of Ministers of the 1st Conference of the Ministers of the Environment of Central Asia and the Balkan Republics)

21- Sofia, 1995, Sofia Declaration of Ministers. 22- OECD 1996 & 1998 (OECD Statements of the Ministers of the Environment).

Travel

Turkey and International Environmental Law