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
kbaslar@yahoo.com

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some parts of this essay have become outdated and need updating.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 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 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
126

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.

Turkey and International Environmental Law

Turkey and International Environmental Law

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (10)

Ähnlich wie Turkey and International Environmental Law

Ähnlich wie Turkey and International Environmental Law (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Turkey and International Environmental Law