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@example.com It would be pertinent at the outset to portray briefly the unique environment of theAnatolian peninsula to better assess the importance of efforts made in Turkey for theprotection and preservation of the environment. Thereafter, the institutional structure ofpublic administration will be sketched out with a view to understanding the follow-up ofenvironmental treaties. Thereafter, it will be shed light on the factors that shape Turkishpractice in international environmental law. Finally, light will be cast upon what Turkeyhas 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 whichtreaties still wait for ratification and implementation. Within the ambit of this article, space does not allow us to elaborate too much on thehistory and nicety of environmental treaties. We are not going to delve into theprovisions of international treaties article by article. Accordingly, we shall only brieflylook at treaties that have been ratified by Turkey and legal instruments adopted toimplement them. We shall also endeavour to outline the general façade of Turkishenvironmental law and policy. 1. The State of the Environment Turkey is situated in the northern hemisphere near the junction of the continents ofEurope, 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 the34th 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made in 2003 and 2004 to harmonize Turkish legislation with the EU Acquis, some parts of this essay have become outdated and need updating.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 Başlarhectares, and the total area of artificial lakes is 380,000 ha. Apart form Asi and MeriçRivers, all rivers originating from Anatolia reach to four different regions (theMediterranean, the Aegean, the Caspian Seas and the Indian Ocean (through the Gulfof 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 noother country in the world is so close equally to Asia, Europe and Africa. TheAnatolian peninsula is where the Asian continent is too much adjacent to Europe andis situated 5° north of the African continent. In Western languages, Anatolia is calledas ‘Minor Asia’, as there are great diversities in the climate of regions. These widevariations in temperature and precipitation affect the country’s flora and fauna, both inquantity 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 crucialrole in the variance of wildlife around the country. The distribution of flora and faunaspecies along a north-south axis during the glacial periods shifted to an east-west axisduring temperate intervals. This further increased biological richness. The combination of all these factors has resulted in one of the highest diversities ofindigenous plant and animal and species in the world so much so that these speciesinclude 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 “microgene centers” in Turkey. Anatolia is one of the foremost world sources of plantscultivated for food for centuries. According to IUCN, the International Plant GeneticResource Institute (IPGRI) and the WWF, there are four gene centres in the world forcultivated plants used in agriculture. The region of Southwest Asia covering most ofTurkey and parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Azerbaijan is gene centres for wheat andbarley. 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 cerealcultivated 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, 19rice varieties, 16 sorghum varieties, 11 oat varieties, and 2 rye varieties.2 What thismeans is that e.g. the transmission of a disease-resistant gene from a wild wheat formin Turkey to the American farmers has saved 50 million dollars a year for the USeconomy.3 The diversity of fauna in Turkey is even greater than that of wild plants. Turkeyhosts 135 species of mammals, 450 birds, 106 reptiles and 22 amphibians, and 192 of1 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 Turkeyfreshwater fish.4 While the number of species throughout Europe as a whole is around60.000, in Turkey, they number over 80.000.5 If sub-species are also counted, thenthis number rises to over a hundred thousand. Just as in the case of plants, Anatoliawas 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 connectingEurope to Asia and Africa for thousands of years. Two of the four main migrationroutes come from Turkey. In springs, migratory birds fly northwards from Africa toAsia and Europe, and in autumns, they leave their breeding grounds to fly south toAfrica again. There are around 300,000 birds flying across Turkey, one of the largestmigratory group of birds of prey in the world. Over a quarter million storks and somespecies of birds of prey fly in clouds over Istanbul along the Bosphorous in the courseof a few weeks. Almost, 380.000 birds of prey have been witnessed at the eastern endof the Black Sea.7 Moreover, Turkey is thought to have 400-450 species of salt waterfish. Turkey’s’ Aegean and Mediterranean shores provide a shelter for monk seals andloggerhead turtles. Last but not least, Turkey’s wetlands, the richest in the MiddleEast and Europe, host colonies of numerous endangered species, such as theDalmatian pelican, pygmy cormorant and the slender billed curlew, as well asflamingos, wild ducks and geese. 2. Introduction: The Legal and Institutional Structure The legal and administrative efforts on environmental protection commenced in thelate 1970s. In 1978, an environmental organization was attached to the PrimeMinister’s office, and “the Prime Ministry Undersecretariat for the Environment” wasestablished as the first serious attempt for environmental problems. In 1982, the rightto environment was enshrined in the Constitution.8 The organisational structure of theMinistry of Environment was crystallised only after the 1980s.9 In 1983, theEnvironmental Act was promulgated.10 The Ministry of Environment was established4 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 Başlarin 1991 by a Statutory Decree no. 443.11 For more than a decade, the Ministry ofEnvironment displayed a praiseworthy activism. On 8 May 2003, the Ministry ofEnvironment was merged with the Ministry of Forestry with the Law no 4856.12 Thenew ministry was named as “The Ministry of Environment and Forestry”.13 According to Article 2 of the Law no 4856, the Ministry of Environment andForestry is commissioned with, inter alia, monitoring developments carried out atinternational level, coordinating and cooperating with other organisations andinstitutions. To do this, the Ministry has eight arms: (1) General Directorate forEnvironmental Management, (2) General Directorate for Environmental ImpactAssessment and Planning, (3) General Directorate for Afforestation and ErosionControl, (4) General Directorate for Forestry and Rural Affairs, (5) General Directoratefor Nature Preservation and National Parks, (6) Department of Research andDevelopment, (7) Department of External Affairs and EU and (8) Department ofTraining and Publications.14 The abovementioned General Directorates andDepartments are responsible for monitoring and coordinating environmental treatiessigned and ratified by Turkey. The Ministry has permanent organs to enable the participation of people inenvironmental protection and development activities: These are the Higher Council forthe Environment (HCE), Local Environmental Councils (LECs), Advisory Council forthe Environment and Forestry (ACEF) and Central Hunting Commission.15 At theprovincial level, “Provincial Directorates of Environment” have been planned for all 80provinces. Thirty-three provinces do now enjoy these subdivisions.16 The NationalAssembly is considering to restructure the Ministry to improve its efficiency; theblueprint lays down a Sustainable Development Council, increasing publicparticipation, allowing for more flexible hiring of experts, and improving salaries toattract 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 onNational Parks and the Act on Land Hunting. The General Directorate of Forest andVillage Affairs conducts various projects concerning forest villages. The GeneralDirectorate of National Parks and Nature Conservation is vested in the responsibility of11 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).
International Environmental Law and Turkeyidentifying the species to be conserved, managing wildlife, making the legalarrangements regarding the management of wildlife, issuing hunting licenses andregulating hunting. The General Directorate monitors hunting activities through theCentral Hunting Commission composed of central and local units of the Ministry, andassociations for hunting and marksmanship. The Authority for Specially ProtectedAreas (ASPA) are attached to the Ministry and responsible for the protection, planning,and management of 13 Specially Protected Areas (SPAs) which cover an area of1,069,000 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 formulatedby the ASPAs. At the local level, governor’s offices are in charge of regulating theSPAs.17 As for fishing activities, they are under the responsibility of the Ministry ofAgriculture and Rural Affairs which enjoys the powers and responsibilities for the useand coordination of all agriculture-related pastures and natural resources. The Ministryregulates the use of agricultural herbicides and pesticides and chemical fertilizers aswell.18 The Ministry of Culture and Tourism monitors the protection and management ofnatural preservation sites designated as such in accordance with the Act on GoverningPreservation of Cultural and Natural Resources. For example, 750 different NaturalPreservation Sites have been hitherto registered and protected by the Ministry ofCulture and Tourism. The Ministry designate and preserves the natural, historical,archaeological, and urban sites in order to hand down these natural and culturalendowments to future generations. The Ministry performs its duty of preserving theimmovable cultural and natural endowments through the High Committee ofPreservation of Cultural and Natural Heritage and the local Committees ofPreservation of Cultural and Natural Heritage, which are all coordinated by theGeneral Directorate of Cultural and Natural Heritage.19 The State Planning Organisation (SPO), working under the authority of the PrimeMinistry, is an institution which has significant influence on sustainable developmentand environmental decision-making. It develops five-year development plans. Startingfrom the Third Five-Year Development Plan, the SPO entertained environmentalissues to shape governmental policies. The SPO supervised the preparation of theNational Environmental Action Plan (NEAP/UCEP).20 Another institution being in charge of supporting the assessment of internationalenvironmental law is the Environment Commission of the Turkish Grand National17 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 BaşlarAssembly.21 According to Article 20 of its By-Law, the Commission is given the dutyto adopt bills and decrees on, inter alia, the implementation of international hard lawdocuments. It coordinates and cooperates with other permanent commissions and withrepresentatives of international organisations that have a group in the Parliament. Italso corresponds and collaborates with the environment commissions of other worldparliaments. Last but not least, there are several governmental agencies such as the Ministry ofAgriculture and Rural Affairs, the State Hydraulic Affairs (DSİ), the GeneralDirectorate for Rural Affairs and the Bank of Provinces that have formative roles, tovarying 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 majorfactors having galvanised the government in devising policies and enacting laws. Thefirst is the European Union. The second is the integration of environmental policieswith economic and political activities of major international organisations. And thethird factor is that some NGOs and individuals garnered bureaucratic support andshaped 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 EuropeanCouncil concluded that “Accession will take place as soon as an associated country isable to assume the obligations of membership by satisfying the economic and politicalconditions required”. In June 1995, the Madrid European Council highlighted theimportance of incorporating the Acquis into national legislation and of ensuring itseffective application through appropriate administrative structures. With formalcandidacy for membership in the European Union, Turkey’s environmental record hasbecome 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 onepart, Turkey is obliged to take into account the provisions of the Customs UnionAgreement. One the other part, Turkey should harmonise its legislation with theAcquis. This first aspect arises as a contractual obligation to comply with the provisionsof the Agreement. To this end, Turkey has undertaken to adopt legislations, to reachagreements, and to apply relevant provisions. Whereas the latter is a politicalcommitment to be made on the way to full membership. Let us now treat these twoissues 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.
International Environmental Law and Turkey The Decision 1/95 on the Customs Union is concerned entirely with the freemovement of goods and related issues. Even though the Customs Union guarantees freemovement of industrial goods and processed agricultural products, but most of theEC’s trade and competition rules are intermingled with environmental policies.Therefore, this results in harmonisation of Turkey’s, among others, environmental lawand policy with those of the EU. Articles 5 and 6 of the Decision 1/95 of the Association Council allow parties toimpose restriction and limitations on the free movement of goods on the basis of theprotection of the health of individuals, animals and plants. That is to say, lowenvironmental standards might be an excuse for the EU to block free movements ofgoods.23 With Article 8 of the Decision, Turkey pledged that within five years of theentry into force of the Decision, Turkey would incorporate all Community measures(namely, standards, measurement, calibrate, quality, accreditation etc). The year 2002was the deadline for this commitment. In the light of these remarks, Turkish–EU Legislation Harmonisation PermanentPrivate Specialised Commission, set up by the Resolution 5/1722 of the Council ofMinisters, established in 1994 its twelfth sub-committee for the environment whichconvened its first meeting on 6 January 1995. On 6 March 1995, the 36th PeriodTurkey–EU Associate Council was held. To achieve this, the Private SpecialisedCommission’s Environment Sub-Commission produced a report in 1997, prepared byseven committees, on all aspects of EU legislation that directly and indirectly relate toenvironmental rules and standards.24 Therefore, after the entry into force of the Decision on the Customs Union, it hasbecome compulsory for Turkey to initiate a program for the harmonisation of the ECenvironmental law. Otherwise, free movement provisions will work one-sided. Forexample, if genetically modified food is not clearly distinguished and marked, and ifcustom officers do not inspect whether they are exported in the light of CITESprovisions,25 then this will amount to breach of EC law. The EU Commission may banTurkish goods for their failure in EC norms. If Turkish goods are not allowed to carryISO 9000, ISO 14000 and CE signs, the provisions of the Custom Union will not infavour of Turkey. Apart from the provisions of the Custom Union Decision, there is another factor thatforces Turkey to take into account the prerequisites of EU environmental law. This isthe obligation to incorporate the Acquis, which has two types: A and B categories. The23 “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 Başlarfirst consists of 3277 primary legislation on the environment, whereas B categoryincludes 1041 Community legislation.26 From the genesis of the EC Law up until thepresent time, the Union’s environmental policy has been composed of two kinds ofmeasures 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) thetreaties 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 fullyimplementing Community’s environmental rules, a longer transitional period wouldbe 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 internationalenvironmental agreements. International treaties to which the Community is a party are26 “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.
International Environmental Law and Turkeyan integral part of the Community’s legal system and that such agreements include theso-called mixed agreements to which both the Community and the Member States areparties. With regard to the case when the EU is a party to an international treaty, theEU 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 adoptedthe measures necessary to ensure their fulfilment, or by taking a position betweenhalfway.30 Therefore, ratification of international treaties and approximation ofnational legislation in conformity with their provisions is an essential task for Turkishgovernments. In addition, Turkey should watch treaties that are likely to be part of theEU Acquis in the near future. Another problem is that low environmental standards in Turkey will lead todistorted competition in favour of Turkey, where national companies would not haveto pay for anti-pollution equipment and would be free to impose the costs of pollutionon the general public.31 The existence of different environmental legislation andstandards will affect the cost of products, because of setting up industrialinfrastructure in production and transfer of environmentally sound technology. Thiswill in consequence distort competition. Being in breach of competition rules willresult in Turkey’s infringement of EC legislation.32 To prevent this, ever since the beginning of the 1960s, Turkey attempted toharmonise its national legislation with that of the EU. So far as the Report on theDevelopment in the EU and Foreign Economic Relations Prior to the Eight Five-YearDevelopment Plan is concerned, 13.2% of Turkish legislation is concerned iscompletely in harmony with the Acquis, 35% is partly harmonised and about 46% ofwhich, there is no any regulation (e.g. on the disposal of batteries and car batteries). Asto the remaining 5.2%, efforts are being made for harmonisation (e.g. the classificationof dangerous goods and products, their packaging and labelling).33 This means that more than half of the EC legislation remain to be incorporated. Inspite of the fact that there are a number of attempts34 to remove all obstacles, it seemsthat the complete harmonisation should be finished before the accession talks start in2006 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-knownintergovernmental organisations, be it regional or cross-continental.36 In the‘greening’ process of the world, international organisations have addressedenvironmental issues and changed their policies. Although in most cases in the pastthey have had a low priority compared to its political and economic issues, with theadvent of the concept of sustainable development, policies of IGOs veer more andmore towards integrating environmental policies into their primary aims. Turkey, as amember of these organisations, is required to take part in this greening process. Forexample, the Council of Europe has convened several European MinisterialConferences on the environment and initiated conventions such as the 1979 BerneConvention on the Protection of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats. It also workson pollution problems and fisheries across Europe. The EU, itself adheres to some ofthe Council’s legislation and incorporates them in the Acquis.37 Turkey shouldcorollary 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 environmentalprogrammes. In the process of ‘greening international institutions’, the policies ofGATT (later WTO), OECD, the World Bank have been monitored and adopted, as faras possible, before they are shrouded in the EU’s policies.38 For example, OECDestablished an Environment Committee as early as in 1970.39 It has involved manyissues ranging from fisheries to climate change, from transboundary pollution toanalyses of the national environment policies of its members and their economicimplications suggesting guiding principles. In 1992, one such analysis was publishedon Turkish environmental policies and organisations.40 A national commission35 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.
International Environmental Law and Turkeycharged with studying dangerous chemicals and wastes – which OECD seriously dealswith – have been set up. NATO developed an environmental programme in 1969 under the umbrella of theCommittee of the Challenges on Modern Society (CCMS). The studies of the CCMSare followed by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry as a national coordinationcommittee. Due to financial inadequacies Turkey unable to take part in spring and fallmeetings of the Committee and to cooperate for pilot projects on the environment.41 As to CSCE, under UNECE auspices, it negotiated the 1979 Long-RangeTransboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) and its protocols. In 1991, a Convention onEnvironmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in a Transboundary Context was adopted.Although LRTAP was ratified by Turkey, the latter has not been done so far. It shouldbe done soon as EIA is of significant priority in the EU through regulations anddirectives.42 An important motivating factor to be in line with environmental policies ofinternational organisations is the chance of receiving financial assistance for theprojects to be carried out in Turkey. For example, Turkey, together with thecooperation of the World Bank, prepared its own National Conservation Strategy andthe 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, UNDPallocated 14 million dollars for resource mobilization target table between 2001-2005.43There are some bilateral agreements concluded between Turkey and UNDP in relationto projects on e.g. management of national parks, biodiversity and ruraldevelopment,44 environmental management and national programme on strengtheninginstitutional structure,45 and development and promotion of local Agenda 21s.4641 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 principlesof the Union such as sustainable development, environmental impact assessment andpolluter pays. For example, within the ambit of LIFE programme, EU Commissionchannelled ECU 2.800.000 for the establishment of a reference laboratory in Gölbaşı,Ankara, in order to provide for analytic reliability in the measurement ofenvironmental data.47 No fund will be allocated by the EU for projects that involve infringements ofmultilateral treaties to which both Turkey and the EU are parties, such as theConvention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats preparedunder the auspices of the Council of Europe.48 Another example is that unless Turkeyguarantees satisfactorily that reafforestation programme to be funded by the EU wouldnot be damaged by ‘acid rain’ due to air pollution from Turkish sources, the EU is lesslikely to provide funds for such sober projects. Therefore, carrot-and-stick mechanismprovides a holistic approach to environmental protection towards which Turkeyshould gear its policies. In parallel to this, the reason why Turkey acceded to the legal instruments on theprotection of the ozone layer was not that Turkey has been a major contributor to theongoing depletion problem.49 The main consideration in becoming party was toprotect 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 technicalsupport for environmental protection was another reason for Turkish accession.50 Another ‘carrot’ mechanism forcing Turkey to comply with internationally agreedstandards is the Global Environment Facility (GEF).51 Responsibility forimplementing the GEF is shared between UNDP, UNEP and World Bank. Establishedin 1991, the GEF is a means to assist developing countries in the protection of theglobal environment and promote thereby environmentally sound and sustainableeconomic development. Between 1994–1997, the GEF was replenished and twobillion dollars was committed by the States participating in the GEF. In the followingglobal environmental problems, developing countries are entitled to receive financial47 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.
International Environmental Law and Turkeyassistant not exceeding 50,000 dollars: global warming, destruction of biologicaldiversity, pollution of international waters, depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer,land degradation issues (including desertification and deforestation). The GEF/NGOSmall Grants Programme (SGP) became operational in Turkey in June 1993subsequent to a process of consultations and preparatory activities. In four areasNGOs received financial support: coastal areas management, preservation ofbiodiversity, environmental impact assessment education and management ofwetlands. For example, as far as UNDP is concerned, during 1993-1999, 30 projectswere 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 capacitybuilding. Additional projects in varying project areas are under formulation, whichstarted implementation at the beginning of 2001.52 By the end of 1999, a total of USD600.000 has been channelled for the 30 small-scale projects. The total value of theprojects, though, is more than USD 1.000.000, when the organisations’ owncontributions, 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 isforced to ratify the 1997 Convention on International Watercourses in order to receivefunds from international financial institutions. The World Bank, the IslamicDevelopment Bank and the IMF used to in the past provide funds for the Euphratesprojects, but they now refuse to finance the GAP unless all riparian states agree toparticular projects. US$5 million was approved in 1993 for in-situ conservation ofgenetic 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 ofconfined élite.55 Within this group, some individuals and NGOs have particularlyspearheaded, in a number of cases, policies for environmental protection. For example, it has been the privilege of Mr. Engin Ural, the Secretary General ofthe Environment Foundation of Turkey, to pave the way to national environmentallaw. His individual attempts and unyielding efforts led to the establishment of the52 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 BaşlarPrimeministry Undersecretariat for the Environment,56 the adoption of Article 56 ofthe 1982 Constitution on the right to the environment and the promulgation of theEnvironmental Act 1983.57 His Foundation has also been designated as the NationalCommittee of UNEP and as a partner of the Our Common Future Centre. TheEnvironment Foundation has served consultative functions in a number of cases in theprojects 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 toMr. Hayrettin Karaca, who founded TEMA (the Foundation for Combating Erosionand Afforestation of Turkey). He has been so successful in garnering public supportthat his recommendations were influential in the formation of many nationallegislation such as the Pasture Act and the Forest Act. As to public servants, Turkish accession to the 1959 Antarctic Treaty is rather apertinent example to illustrate how international environmental strategies in Turkeyare devised through individual efforts among governmental circles. Some bureaucratsin the Ministry of Environment of Forestry coaxed policy-makers that Turkey wouldbetter show its concern towards the global commons. To this end, they drafted areasoning of participation. According to the official reasoning submitted to theParliament 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 ofnational policies was at the beginning. First of all, the text, crammed with flaws, is anoutcome of efforts of a couple of bureaucrats who acted in good faith. Despite thattheir intention was sincere in that they wanted to show the international communitythat Turkey is concerned not only with her national environment but also with the56 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.
International Environmental Law and Turkeyglobal environment. However, as the future of Antarctica has never been an agendaitem 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 thoroughanalysis of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) and other countries’ interests atgovernmental level, Turkey rushed among Non-Consultative Parties to the AntarcticTreaty (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 realpolitical interest. For example, the Society for the Protection of NaturalEnvironment,60 TEMA and the Environment Foundation of Turkey are involved inactivities ranging from the monitoring of waterfowl and the preservation ofbiodiversity to the formation of public opinion. One wishes that their activeinvolvement as monitoring and enforcement agents improve Turkey’s environmentalprofile 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 thebeginning of an arduous journey to Europe. Turkey’s interest in participating ininternational conservation treaties goes back to the early 1960s.61 One such earlyexample is the 1950 International Convention for the Protection of Birds. Turkeyratified the Convention in 1966.62 One year after Turkey became a party to the 1949FAO Agreement for the Establishment of a General Fisheries Council for theMediterranean.63 Other examples are the Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in theAtmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water,64 the Treaty on the Prohibition of theEmplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on theSeabed and Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof,65 the Convention on the60 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 BaşlarProhibition 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 approachedenvironmental issues as a long-term state policy. Environmental problems were firstmentioned, in a separate heading, in the Third Five Year Development Plan.67Environmental issues were given considerable weight in the succeeding Five-YearDevelopment Plans. The final one covering between 2001-2005 is the 8th Five-YearDevelopment Plan, where special attention remains to be paid to the environment.68 In the context of heightened awareness about the environment and the country’ssensitivity to global and regional environmental conditions, Turkey has signed andratified a number of important international conventions, agreements and protocols.There are a number of other agreements being under scrutiny, being subject toaccession and ratification. Some important international agreements, to which Turkeyhas become a party, are discussed below, together with a brief description about thecountry’s position on issues concerned. 4.1. Fauna and flora Chronologically speaking, the first attempt for wildlife protection started in 1965with the accession to the International Convention for the Establishment of theEuropean and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation.69 In 1971, Turkeyacceded to the European Convention for the Protection of Animals DuringInternational Transport (Paris).70 In 1984, Turkey ratified the Berne Convention on theConservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats.71 Turkey made reservationsfor some species shown in Appendix II and for some methods and tools of huntingshown in Appendix III.72 In the early 1990s, some 100 plants were included inAppendix I. Unfortunately, nothing has been done so far to protect these Appendix I66 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.
International Environmental Law and Turkeyspecies.73 Under the framework of this Convention, an ecological network called the“Emerald Network” is underway. The annexes of the European Union Natural Habitatand 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 bereciprocally adjusted for a smoother harmonization process.74 Turkey has exceptionally rich wetlands compared to the Middle East and Europeancountries – except for the Commonwealth of Independent States. The wetlands, whichcover an area of 1,851,000 ha. in Turkey including the artificial lakes, provide crucialhabitats for water birds and aquatic species. Even though, in the last four decades, anarea of 1.300.000 hectares were dried out due to agricultural and industrial purposes,75the number of wetlands is still more than 250, an area covering nearly 1.35 millionhectares.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 internationallyimportant for migratory birds: 18 of which regularly accommodate 25.000 migratorybirds.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 theInternational Waterfowl Research Bureau,80 which fathered the Convention in the late1960s. Surprisingly enough, Turkey acceded the Ramsar Convention only after 1773 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 BaşlarMay 1994.81 Thereafter, several legislations were adopted to implement theConvention.82 At the time of publication, there were nine wetlands in the Ramsar Listcovering an area of 159.300 hectares: These are, namely, Akyatağan Lagoon, GedizDeltası, Göksu Deltası, Kızılırmak Deltası, Lake Burdur, Lake Seyfe Lake ManyasBird Sanctuary, Lake Ulubat (Apolyont), Sultan Sazlığı (Marsh).83 The Ministry ofEnvironment and Forestry has enacted the Regulation on Conservation of Wetlandsintended to do away with the threats to wetlands and to implement the RamsarConvention at the national stratum. The Management Plans for Lakes Manyas andUlubat have been prepared and are now being implemented. Turkey is also astonishingly rich in terms of biological diversity, despite theongoing ruthless environmental deterioration.84 Three quarters of the some 12.000European species are seen in Turkey. There are 9000 plants, of which some 3000 areendemic that cannot be run into anywhere on earth.85 About 33 % of plant species inTurkey are endemic species. It would be better appreciated if it was thought that thereare only 2000 plant species in the whole British islands. The closest European memberis Greece with 800 endemic plants.86 The richest region in Turkey with regard toendemic species unique to itself is the Mediterranean region with 631 species. Thesame is true concerning flora: while in the whole European Continent there are some500 birds species and 125 different reptile species, in Anatolia, these are 413 and 93respectively.87 Therefore, the preservation of this precious biodiversity is an essentialtask. To this end, Turkey ratified the Biodiversity Convention88. As there is no direct81 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.htm84 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)
International Environmental Law and Turkeynational act for the protection and preservation of biological richness of the Anatolianpeninsula,89 the importance of the Convention becomes self-evident. With regard to the implementation of the Biodiversity Convention the GeneralDirectorate of Agricultural Research of the Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Affairs isthe ICCP focal point. Director General Directorate of Environment Protection is theCBD focal point. The National Environment Strategy & Action Plan and the NationalStrategy and Plan of Action on Biological Diversity have been prepared as aprerequisite of the Convention.90 In 1998, the Directive Regarding Field Experiments onTransgenic Cultivated Plants was enacted. It was amended in 1999 in order to preventany risks that might potentially arise from the field experiments. In 2002, the Regulationon the Conservation of Animal Genetic Resources was enacted. Turkey ratified Biosecurity (Cartagena) Protocol of the Convention of BiologicalDiversity91 By the year 2005, Turkey plans to establish National Biosecurity Board.92Turkey received GEF aid for the project on “in situ Conservation of GeneticBiodiversity”.93 Thanks to this, an Action Plan has been prepared for in-situConservation of Plant Genetic Diversity in Turkey. Presently, a new biodiversity projectnamed “Protected Areas and Sustainable Resource Management in Turkey” is beingprepared, which is to be submitted to the GEF Council. As to financial contribution, for2001, Turkey promised to contribute 38.626.000 for the first time to the General TrustFund for the Convention on Biological Diversity (BY). Due to economic crisis whichheld sway in 2001-2002, this money was in arrears. However, in 2003, Turkey paidUSD 40.688.94 The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora andFauna (CITES) aims to protect endangered species from over exploitation by animaland plant trades, by a system of import-export permits.95 The Grand NationalAssembly approved the Convention on 1 October 1994; but Turkey became a party89 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 Başlaronly after June 1996.96 According to Article 9 of the Convention, two authorities weredesignated to implement the Treaty. The National Scientific Authority is TÜBİTAK(the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey) and the ManagementAuthority is the Ministry of Environment and Forestry. For bulbous species of flora,the Management Authority is Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs’s GeneralDirectorate of Agricultural Production and Development.97 A regulation has been issued, in accordance with Appendices I, II and III toclassify species that are threatened with extinction (Appendix I), species whosesurvival is not yet threatened but may become so (Appendix II), and all species whichTurkey identifies as being subject to regulation within national jurisdiction for thepurpose of preventing or restricting exploitation (Appendix III).98 The export andimport of Appendix I species are prohibited. Controlled commercial trade is allowedfor Appendix II species. Because of poor implementation, ruthless (medical) snailtrade to Europe exterminated some snail populations. Upon this, the CITESSecretariat banned the import of snails from Turkey.99 As Turkey has extremely rich diversity of species, illegal poaching in fauna andillicit trade in flora threaten the existence of endemic species. There is a regulation ongeophilous plants. It is estimated that the trade in geophilous plants is around 3-3,5million dollars. However, a special regulation should be made for otherpharmaceutical plants which is worth 85 million dollars.100 Therefore, within CITEScontext, classification of endangered species of wild fauna and flora is an urgent andessential task which should be undertaken without fail. Otherwise, properimplementation of the Convention will be at stake. In addition, Article 8 of CITES requires parties to take a number of differentmeasures to improve the level of enforcement through financial penalties, confiscationand designation special ports of exit and entry. To this end, Exportation Circular hasbeen issued by Undersecretary of Foreign Trade in accordance with the CITES96 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.
International Environmental Law and TurkeyRegulation. Importation Circular have also been presented to relevant organizations forinput. To effectively implement these measures, the staff of national Authorities shouldbe composed of trained personnel. Custom officers should be given competenttraining concerning the niceties of the Convention. And ports of exit and entry, whichare more than thirty , one of the highest figures in the world, should be reduced to 4–5for 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 forthe time being. As for deforestation, Turkey has 20.2 million hectares of forest, which covers 27per cent of the country and this figure is decreasing every year.101 Turkey has 26.3million ha of arable agricultural land, with 49 % of that area being exposed to erosion ofmedium-severity and 8% to erosion of high-severity. Despite 20.7 million ha offorestland, compared to its overall area, Turkey is not rich in forests. Over one half offorestlands (56%) consists of degraded forests.102 Deforestation is one of the chronicnational issues so much so that three articles of the Constitution (Arts. 44, 169, 170)deal with the protection, expansion and management of forests. Extensive destructionof forests and erosion require nation-wide action. To solve the problem throughinternational efforts and gather international boost for afforestation, Turkey accededthe Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing SeriousDrought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa in 1998.103 Turkey is listed inthe Appendix on Regional Implementation of the Northern Medditerrenean. To be inline with the Convention, the Pastures Law was enacted in 1998.104 The National Planof Action of Turkey to Combat Desertification and Drought is on the way tocompletion.105 In addition, Turkey participated in the Pan-European Process onProtection 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 thatit employs a ‘bottom up’ philosophy106 encouraging the participation of NGOs and101 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 Başlarlocal populations in the policy planning, decision-making, implementation and reviewof national programmes. Nevertheless, the problem of forest protection is far morepuzzling in Turkey than in many other countries. To be more precise, over ten millionpeople living nearby forests face with social, cultural and economic difficulties. Dueto depravation, they make living out of forests by illegal logging, clearing forfarmland 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 toprevent deforestation through ‘bottom-up’ approach in Turkey. Luckily, however,there are mushrooming grassroots movements and NGOs such as TEMA Foundationwhich 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, thethen Ministry of Environment established the Department on the Protection ofAnimals. It has drafted a new Act on the Protection of Animals.108 Finally, theEuropean Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals (1987, ETS no. 125) wasratified.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 uniqueposition, Turkey has been the destination for numerous immigrants, many of them leftthe indelible mark of their cultural heritage during their settlement in this area. As ithas been the cradle of numerous civilisations for thousands of years, it is thebirthplace of the three major religions: Christianity, Judaism and Islam. This factalone, lends Turkey its unique and invaluable cultural and archaeological heritage. Turkey has approximately 3,029 archaeological sites some dating back toprehistoric 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.), 35nature reserve areas (84.230 Ha.), 17 nature parks (69.370 Ha.), 35 naturalpreservation 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
International Environmental Law and Turkeyheritages have been stipulated by national laws.111 Many organisations have been setup in connection with this subject and preservation has now become a subject thatconcerns many organisations, institutions and people. To protect these heritages, Turkey has ratified a number of multilateral conventionssuch as the European Cultural Convention,112 the Convention for the Protection ofCultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict,113 Unesco Convention Concerningthe Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage,114 European Convention onthe Protection of Archaeological Heritage (London).115 Admittedly, among these, the most important of which is the 1972 Convention forthe Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (shortly, the World HeritageConvention).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 Listof 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 andrepresentative examples of the most important ecosystems.117 In the World CulturalHeritage List, the following have been included as being essential preservationprojects: 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 ‘Ramsars 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 Date of Type The Name of Heritage No Inclusion 356 Cultural Historic Areas of İstanbul, 6.12.1985 Natural /Göreme National Park and the Rock 357 6.12.1985 Cultural Sites of Cappadocia 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 Natural / 485 Hierapolis – Pamukkale 9.12.1988 Cultural 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 forthe restoration and preservation of sites and monuments listed in the World HeritageList. Here is the International Assistance provided by the World Heritage Fund through1997 (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 WHCList. Moreover, 19 additional sites that are likely to be in the WHC List have beenproposed by the Ministry of Culture to the General Directorate of the UNESCO. These include the following monuments: Süleymaniye Mosque, a masterpiece ofSinan, the Architect, Saint Sophia, Topkapı Palace, which are all in Istanbul, SelimiyeMosque (in Edirne), Cumalıkızık village, as a archetype of the Ottoman culturalheritage (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 détude. 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
International Environmental Law and Turkey(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’sgrave stones,, Konya Historic monuments, the caravan route between Denizli and DoğuBeyazıt, Sümela (Trabzon) and Alahan (Mut) monasteries, Kekova and Termessossavannas.119 4.3. Regional seas Turkey is a peninsula outflanked by three seas: the Mediterranean, the Black Seaand the Aegean Sea. Due to dangerous and noxious substances, land-based pollutionand international maritime trafficking, the pollution of the regional seas is a majorconcern. As of 1994, Turkish Marine Environment Protection Association(TURMEPA) has been working, among others, on the supervision of environmentaltreaties signed by Turkey.120 Despite the importance of adopting measures for environmental protection of theregional seas, Turkey did not sign the Law of the Sea Convention of 1982.121 As theConvention did not take into account of the peculiarities of special geographicalsituations – in this case, the delimitation of the Aegean Sea continental shelf betweenTurkey and Greece – and does not allow to make reservations, Turkey does notconsider to become a party in the foreseeable future. However, Part XII of theConvention, entitled ‘Protection and Preservation of the Marine Environment’(Arts.192–237) acknowledges internationally accepted norms concerningtransportation safety and safety of life and property. Nevertheless, the application andimplementation of universally accepted principles set out in the Convention must bematerialised in the Turkish territorial seas in order to eliminate further pollution.122 The main legislation dealing with the pollution of the Turkish seas are theEnvironmental Act 1983,123 the Ports Act 1941,124 the Sea Products Act 1971125 andthe Coastal Act 1990.126 The Coastal Security Headquarters is empowered to monitor119 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=48960120 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. 18132124 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 Başlarmarine pollution, to arrest criminals, to prosecute the arrested. Article 3(n) of theRegulation Concerning Legal and Administrative Duties of the Coastal SecurityHeadquarters has been assigned to monitor and prevent acts that are contrary to theprovisions of international treaties. Pecuniary penalties are reported by the Ministry ofEnvironment and Forestry in January of every year to the Headquarters. On 21 June1991, the Regulation Concerning International Maritime Forums CoordinationCommission was enacted.127 According to Article 7 of the Regulation, sevenspecialised committees were established. One of which is the Environment Committee(Art. 7(c)). With respect to marine pollution several other regulations have beendevised in order to implement the provisions of international treaties such as theRegulation for Controlling Sea Pollution (1988), the Regulation for theImplementation of the Coastal Act (1990), the Regulation for Controlling HarmfulSolid Waste (1991) and the Regulation for the Prevention of EnvironmentalPollution.128 The first international treaty ratified by Turkey dealing with marine pollutionthrough transportation is the OECD Convention on Third Party Liability in the Fieldof Nuclear Energy.129 Secondly, Turkey ratified, in 1989–90, the InternationalConvention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) and its 1978Protocol together with Annexes I, II and V and amendments dated 1984, 1985 and1987.130 Turkey also ratified the 1978 Convention on Standards of Training,Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers in 1989.131 In these conventions, thereare provisions on environmental protection. 4.4. The Mediterranean Sea The pollution problems and increasing population concerns led to the conclusion ofa number of legal and political instruments in the late 1960s and the early 1970s.132127 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.
International Environmental Law and TurkeyAmong these, UNEP’s the Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP) is the mostcomprehensive instrument devised to date and the first comprehensive action planformulated by UNEP in close cooperation with Mediterranean governments and otherspecialised UN agencies such as UN Economic Committee for Europe.133 Adopted inBarcelona in February 1976 at an intergovernmental meeting, it marks the first amongten UNEP Regional Seas Programmes.134 The Action Plan for the Protection of theMarine Environment and Sustainable Development of the Coastal Region of theMediterranean is currently implemented by 21 coastal countries and the EuropeanUnion. 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 theBarcelona Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea AgainstPollution.135 There are six protocols that have been signed hitherto: (1) Protocol forthe Prevention of Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Dumping from Ships andAircraft.136 (2) Protocol Concerning Cooperation in Combating Pollution of theMediterranean Sea by Oil and Other Harmful Substances in Cases of Emergency,137(3) Athens Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollutionfrom Land-Based Sources,138 (4) Geneva Protocol Concerning MediterraneanSpecially 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 BaşlarProtocol on the Prevention of Pollution Arising from Exploration and ProcessingActivities of the Sea Floor,140 (6) İzmir Protocol on the Prevention of PollutionArising out of Transfrontier Transportation of Hazardous Wastes.141 Othercomponents of the MAP include the 1985 Geneva Declaration, the 1990 NicosiaCharter on European-Mediterranean Cooperation in the Field of EnvironmentalProtection 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 DilekPeninsula, Olympos Mountains, Gallipoli Peninsula National Park. Furthermore, inaccordance with the same Protocol, 100 sites along the shores of the Mediterraneansea which need equal protection, and 17 other sites around the country have comeunder 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 endangeredspecies such as loggerhead turtles (Caretta Caretta), monk seals (MonachusMonachus), sea meadows (Posidonia Occenica) and cetaceans. Turkey has acceptedthe Action Plan (1989 and 1999) for the conservation of Mediterranean marine turtleswithin the framework of the Barcelona Convention. 17 important breeding groundshave been designated as Natural Preservation Sites since 1992, and some of thesebreeding beaches have been indicated on the Environmental Development Plans of theMinistry 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, 188.8.131.52.Conservation of Marine Turtles), 84.
International Environmental Law and Turkeyand Forestry has established the Marine Turtles National Commission and MarineTurtles Scientific Commission. The total number of monk seals in the world is some four hundred; less than onefourth of which breed in Turkish waters.145 The last surviving colonies of monk sealsalong Turkeys Mediterranean and Aegean coasts, is being protected within theframework of the Berne Convention and the fourth Protocol on SPAs. Apart from asmall colony of monk seals on the shores of the Western Sahara on the AtlanticOcean, the only remaining colonies of this species are the Eastern Mediterranean, thespecies 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 loggerheadturtles which lay their eggs in the long sandy beaches of the Mediterranean. Twospecies breed in Turkey, where efforts to protect them have been extremelysuccessful.147 A tourism development project at Köycegiz has been scrapped topreserve the breeding grounds of caretta carettas, and the lake and marshes ofKöycegiz was declared a SPA. These measures received help from the StandingCommittee of the Berne Convention in 1989. Studies of the turtles along all Turkeysshores have been launched, and seventeen sand beaches of foremost importance asbreeding grounds for turtles are kept under constant observation by the TurtlePreservation Committee. The Ministry of Environment and Forestry is in charge ofprotecting the Belek area; and the Ministry of Forestry is responsible for theYumurtalik and Akyatan wetlands. The scientific component of MAP is the Coordinated Mediterranean PollutionMonitoring and Research Programme (MED-POL). On 30 May 1996, the Council ofMinisters ratified the Long Term Pollution Monitoring and Research ProgrammeAgreement (MED-POL, Phase II)148 which was initially concluded between Turkeyand UNEP on 30 January 1995. In accordance with this Agreement, MED-POLNational Monitoring Programme was established in nine regions composed of 105stations. Among these, 11 of which are spring, 55 are coastal, 38 are beach water andone is atmospheric circulation station. MED-POL National Coordinator is burdenedwith a number of duties to implement the Programme.149145 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.